Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Biodiversity in DrylandsToward a Unified Framework$
Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content.

Moshe Shachak, Stewart T. A. Pickett, James R. Gosz, and Avi Perevolotski

Print publication date: 2005

Print ISBN-13: 9780195139853

Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: November 2020

DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780195139853.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2021. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use. date: 20 January 2022

(p.89) 6 Spatial Scale and Species Diversity: Building Species-Area Curves from Species Incidence

(p.89) 6 Spatial Scale and Species Diversity: Building Species-Area Curves from Species Incidence

(p.89) 6 Spatial Scale and Species Diversity: Building Species-Area Curves from Species Incidence
Biodiversity in Drylands

Jack J. Lennon

William Edward Kunin

Oxford University Press

This chapter is largely focused on the species–area relationship (SAR), although it may not seem so for much of the time. Bear with us; we will get there in the end. Our aim is to provide insights into how the relationship works, and how it is built. This leads us to take a rather reductionist approach, and to break down the SAR into its component parts. We will spend a substantial section of this chapter examining these pieces and their properties. We will then explore the logic by which the parts are reassembled, and will explore how biological and biogeographical properties of a system may affect the SAR. Before attempting this feat, however, we should begin with a brief discussion of the SAR itself, to explain why it is worth making such a fuss over. The SAR is, after all, only a simple graph: a plot of the number of species found in a sample as a function of the area sampled. Ecologists being an argumentative lot, we cannot even all agree on what this plot should look like; Gleason (1922, see also Williams 1964) argued that the absolute number of species should be plotted as a function of the logarithm of area, whereas Arrhenius (1921, see also Preston 1960) suggested that both species and area should be plotted logarithmically. Connor and McCoy (1979) found cases that fit both models, and two others besides (log species by untransformed area, and neither variable transformed). However it’s plotted, the SAR is not even a particularly attractive or elegant graph—at its best (!) it is simply a straight diagonal line within a tight scatter of datapoints on a rectangular plot. Hardly something to set the pulse racing. Yet the SAR is exciting stuff; that simple line encapsulates a great deal of information about the diversity of biological systems across a wide range of scales.

Keywords:   Cantor set transect, Environmental gradient, Fractals, Human activities, Incidence curves, Landscape cell, Map saturation, Rainfall variability, Scale-area curves

Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.

Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.

If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs , and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us .