Species–area relationships in continuous vegetation: Evidence from Palaearctic grasslands

Riccardo Guarino, Massimo Terzi, Christian Dolnik, Michael Manthey, Laura Cancellieri, Franz Essl, Steffen Boch, Giampiero Ciaschetti, Alireza Naqinezhad, Werner Ulrich, Marta Carboni, Anne Mimet, Pieter De Frenne, Orsolya Valkó, Giovanna Potenza, Manuel J. Steinbauer, Goffredo Filibeck, Leonardo Rosati, Iwona Dembicz, Łukasz KozubCorrado Marcenò, Monika Janišová, Timo Conradi, Thomas J. Matthews, Ewelina Klichowska, Sebastian Wolfrum, Remigiusz Pielech, Jiri Dolezal, Alessandro Chiarucci, Anna Kuzemko, Hannah White, Behlül Güler, Denys Vynokurov, Edy Fantinato, Werner Ulrich, Denys Vynokurov, Sebastian Wolfrum, Vincent Pellissier, John-Arvid Grytnes, Itziar García-Mijangos, Idoia Biurrun, Jürgen Dengler, David Storch, Robert K. Peet, Juan Antonio Campos, Arkadiusz Nowak, Christian Pedersen, Manuela Winkler

Risultato della ricerca: Articlepeer review

11 Citazioni (Scopus)


Aim: Species–area relationships (SARs) are fundamental scaling laws in ecology al‐ though their shape is still disputed. At larger areas, power laws best represent SARs. Yet, it remains unclear whether SARs follow other shapes at finer spatial grains in continuous vegetation. We asked which function describes SARs best at small grains and explored how sampling methodology or the environment influence SAR shape. Location: Palaearctic grasslands and other non‐forested habitats. Taxa: Vascular plants, bryophytes and lichens. Methods: We used the GrassPlot database, containing standardized vegetation‐plot data from vascular plants, bryophytes and lichens spanning a wide range of grass‐ land types throughout the Palaearctic and including 2,057 nested‐plot series with at least seven grain sizes ranging from 1 cm2 to 1,024 m2. Using nonlinear regression, we assessed the appropriateness of different SAR functions (power, power quad‐ ratic, power breakpoint, logarithmic, Michaelis–Menten). Based on AICc, we tested whether the ranking of functions differed among taxonomic groups, methodological settings, biomes or vegetation types. Results: The power function was the most suitable function across the studied taxo‐ nomic groups. The superiority of this function increased from lichens to bryophytes to vascular plants to all three taxonomic groups together. The sampling method was highly influential as rooted presence sampling decreased the performance of the power function. By contrast, biome and vegetation type had practically no influence on the superiority of the power law. Main conclusions: We conclude that SARs of sessile organisms at smaller spatial grains are best approximated by a power function. This coincides with several other comprehensive studies of SARs at different grain sizes and for different taxa, thus supporting the general appropriateness of the power function for modelling species diversity over a wide range of grain sizes. The poor performance of the Michaelis– Menten function demonstrates that richness within plant communities generally does not approach any saturation, thus calling into question the concept of minimal area.
Lingua originaleEnglish
Numero di pagine15
RivistaJournal of Biogeography
Stato di pubblicazionePublished - 2019

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
  • Ecology

Fingerprint Entra nei temi di ricerca di 'Species–area relationships in continuous vegetation: Evidence from Palaearctic grasslands'. Insieme formano una fingerprint unica.

Cita questo