• Login
    About WHOAS
    View Item 
    •   WHOAS Home
    • Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
    • Marine Policy Center (MPC)
    • View Item
    •   WHOAS Home
    • Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
    • Marine Policy Center (MPC)
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Browse

    All of WHOASCommunities & CollectionsBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesKeywordsThis CollectionBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesKeywords

    My Account

    LoginRegister

    Statistics

    View Usage Statistics

    Species–area relationships always overestimate extinction rates from habitat loss : comment

    Thumbnail
    View/Open
    12-0047%2E1.pdf (72.81Kb)
    Date
    2013-03
    Author
    Axelsen, Jacob Bock  Concept link
    Roll, Uri  Concept link
    Stone, Lewi  Concept link
    Solow, Andrew R.  Concept link
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    Citable URI
    https://hdl.handle.net/1912/5899
    As published
    https://doi.org/10.1890/12-0047.1
    DOI
    10.1890/12-0047.1
    Abstract
    The species–area relationship summarizes the relationship between the average number of species in a region and its area. This relationship provides a basis for predicting the loss of species associated with loss of habitat (e.g., Pimm and Raven 2000). The approach involves two steps. First, as discussed in more detail below, the species–area relationship is used to predict the number of species that are endemic to the habitat at risk based on its area. Second, these endemic species are assumed to become extinct should this habitat be lost. In a controversial paper, He and Hubbell (2011) argued that the way in which the species–area relationship is used to predict the number of endemic species is incorrect when individual organisms are aggregated in space and argued that this explains a discrepancy between predicted and observed extinction rates associated with habitat loss. The controversy surrounding the paper focused primarily on the second part of their argument (Brooks 2011, Evans et al. 2011, He and Hubbell 2012, Pereira et al. 2012, Thomas and Williamson 2012). Here, we focus on the details underlying the first part.
    Description
    Author Posting. © Ecological Society of America, 2013. This article is posted here by permission of Ecological Society of America for personal use, not for redistribution. The definitive version was published in Ecology 94 (2013): 761–763, doi:10.1890/12-0047.1.
    Collections
    • Marine Policy Center (MPC)
    Suggested Citation
    Ecology 94 (2013): 761–763
     
    All Items in WHOAS are protected by original copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated. WHOAS also supports the use of the Creative Commons licenses for original content.
    A service of the MBLWHOI Library | About WHOAS
    Contact Us | Send Feedback | Privacy Policy
    Core Trust Logo