The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A comparison of the species–time relationship across ecosystems and taxonomic groups
Abstract
The species–time relationship (STR) describes how the species richness of a community increases with the time span over which the community is observed. This pattern has numerous implications for both theory and conservation in much the same way as the species–area relationship (SAR). However, the STR has received much less attention and to date only a handful of papers have been published on the pattern. Here we gather together 984 community time‐series, representing 15 study areas and nine taxonomic groups, and evaluate their STRs in order to assess the generality of the STR, its consistency across ecosystems and taxonomic groups, its functional form, and its relationship to local species richness. In general, STRs were surprisingly similar across major taxonomic groups and ecosystem types. STRs tended to be well fit by both power and logarithmic functions, and power function exponents typically ranged between 0.2 and 0.4. Communities with high richness tended to have lower STR exponents, suggesting that factors increasing richness may simultaneously decrease turnover in ecological systems. Our results suggest that the STR is as fundamental an ecological pattern as the SAR, and raise questions about the general processes underlying this pattern. They also highlight the dynamic nature of most species assemblages, and the need to incorporate time scale in both basic and applied research on species richness patterns.
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
Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities
Myers, N., Mittermeier, R. A., Mittermeier, C. G., da Fonseca, G. A. B., & Kent, J. (2000) · Nature · doi:10.1038/35002501 · Cited by 31,710
Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (1998) · doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-2917-7 · Cited by 3,387
The statistics and biology of the species-area relationship
Connor, E. F., & McCoy, E. D. (1979) · The American Naturalist · doi:10.1086/283438 · Cited by 2,313
Cited by
Stochastic Community Assembly: Does It Matter in Microbial Ecology?
Zhou, J., & Ning, D. (2017) · Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews · doi:10.1128/mmbr.00002-17 · Cited by 2,773
Magurran, A. E., Baillie, S. R., Buckland, S. T., Dick, J. M., Elston, D. A., Scott, E. M., Smith, R. I., Somerfield, P. J., & Watt, A. D. (2010) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2010.06.016 · Cited by 940
Temporal variability is a personalized feature of the human microbiome
Flores, G. E., Caporaso, J. G., Henley, J. B., Rideout, J. R., Domogala, D., Chase, J., Leff, J. W., Vázquez-Baeza, Y., Gonzalez, A., Knight, R., et al. (2014) · Genome Biology · doi:10.1186/s13059-014-0531-y · Cited by 446
Metadata
- Authors
- P. White, E., B. Adler, P., K. Lauenroth, W., A. Gill, R., Greenberg, D., M. Kaufman, D., Rassweiler, A., A. Rusak, J., D. Smith, M., R. Steinbeck, J., B. Waide, R., & Yao, J.
- Venue
- Oikos
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2006-01
- Volume
- 112
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 185-195
- ISSN
- 0030-1299 (ISSN-L)
- 1600-0706
- OpenAlex
- W2150637233
- Cited by
- 220
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 10.16
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A comparison of the species–time relationship across ecosystems and taxonomic groups. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.0030-1299.2006.14223.x
- The paper
- P. White, E., B. Adler, P., K. Lauenroth, W., A. Gill, R., Greenberg, D., M. Kaufman, D., Rassweiler, A., A. Rusak, J., D. Smith, M., R. Steinbeck, J., B. Waide, R., & Yao, J. (2006). A comparison of the species–time relationship across ecosystems and taxonomic groups. Oikos. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0030-1299.2006.14223.x
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.