The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Area–heterogeneity tradeoff and the diversity of ecological communities
Open accessAbstract
For more than 50 y ecologists have believed that spatial heterogeneity in habitat conditions promotes species richness by increasing opportunities for niche partitioning. However, a recent stochastic model combining the main elements of niche theory and island biogeography theory suggests that environmental heterogeneity has a general unimodal rather than a positive effect on species richness. This result was explained by an inherent tradeoff between environmental heterogeneity and the amount of suitable area available for individual species: for a given area, as heterogeneity increases, the amount of effective area available for individual species decreases, thereby reducing population sizes and increasing the likelihood of stochastic extinctions. Here we provide a comprehensive evaluation of this hypothesis. First we analyze an extensive database of breeding bird distribution in Catalonia and show that patterns of species richness, species abundance, and extinction rates are consistent with the predictions of the area–heterogeneity tradeoff and its proposed mechanisms. We then perform a metaanalysis of heterogeneity–diversity relationships in 54 published datasets and show that empirical data better fit the unimodal pattern predicted by the area–heterogeneity tradeoff than the positive pattern predicted by classic niche theory. Simulations in which species may have variable niche widths along a continuous environmental gradient are consistent with all empirical findings. The area–heterogeneity tradeoff brings a unique perspective to current theories of species diversity and has important implications for biodiversity conservation.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach.
Guthery, F. S., Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (2003) · The Journal of Wildlife Management · doi:10.2307/3802723 · Cited by 41,495
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2021) · doi:10.1002/9781119558378 · Cited by 9,799
Hutchinson, G. E. (1957) · Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology · doi:10.1101/sqb.1957.022.01.039 · Cited by 6,228
Species Diversity in Space and Time
Rosenzweig, M. L. (1995) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511623387 · Cited by 3,690
Farmland biodiversity: is habitat heterogeneity the key?
Benton, T. G., Vickery, J. A., & Wilson, J. D. (2003) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/s0169-5347(03)00011-9 · Cited by 3,205
Cited by
Advances in animal ecology from 3D-LiDAR ecosystem mapping
Davies, A. B., & Asner, G. P. (2014) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2014.10.005 · Cited by 379
Tuanmu, M., & Jetz, W. (2015) · Global Ecology and Biogeography · doi:10.1111/geb.12365 · Cited by 331
Metadata
- Authors
- Allouche, O., Kalyuzhny, M., Moreno-Rueda, G., Pizarro, M., & Kadmon, R.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Published
- 2012-10-08
- Volume
- 109
- Issue
- 43
- Pages
- 17495-17500
- ISSN
- 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
- 1091-6490
- OpenAlex
- W2089169423
- Cited by
- 352
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 18.37
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.