Summary 1.Little consensus has been reached as to general features of spatial variation in beta diversity, a fundamental component of species diversity. This could reflect a genuine lack of simple gradients in beta diversity, or a lack of agreement as to just what constitutes beta diversity. Unfortunately, a large number of approaches have been applied to the investigation of variation in beta diversity, which potentially makes comparisons of the findings difficult. 2. We review 24 measures of beta diversity for presence/absence data (the most frequent form of data to which such measures are applied) that have been employed in the literature, express many of them for the first time in common terms, and compare some of their basic properties. 3. Four groups of measures are distinguished, with a fundamental distinction arising between 'broad sense' measures incorporating differences in composition attributable to species richness gradients, and 'narrow sense' measures that focus on compositional differences independent of such gradients. On a number of occasions on which the former have been employed in the literature the latter may have been more appropriate, and there are many situations in which consideration of both kinds of measures would be valuable. 4. We particularly recommend (i) considering beta diversity measures in terms of matching/mismatching components (usually denoted a , b and c ) and thereby identifying the contribution of different sources of variation in species composition, and (ii) the use of ternary plots to express the relationship between the values of these measures and of the components, and as a way of understanding patterns in beta diversity.

Species-area relationships (SAR) are fundamental in the understanding of biodiversity patterns and of critical importance for predicting species extinction risk worldwide. Despite the enormous attention given to SAR in the form of many individual analyses, little attempt has been made to synthesize these studies. We conducted a quantitative meta-analysis of 794 SAR, comprising a wide span of organisms, habitats and locations. We identified factors reflecting both pattern-based and dynamic approaches to SAR and tested whether these factors leave significant imprints on the slope and strength of SAR. Our analysis revealed that SAR are significantly affected by variables characterizing the sampling scheme, the spatial scale, and the types of organisms or habitats involved. We found that steeper SAR are generated at lower latitudes and by larger organisms. SAR varied significantly between nested and independent sampling schemes and between major ecosystem types, but not generally between the terrestrial and the aquatic realm. Both the fit and the slope of the SAR were scale-dependent. We conclude that factors dynamically regulating species richness at different spatial scales strongly affect the shape of SAR. We highlight important consequences of this systematic variation in SAR for ecological theory, conservation management and extinction risk predictions.

Summary1. Using data on the spatial distribution of the British avifauna, we address three basic questions about the spatial structure of assemblages: (i) Is there a relationship between species richness (alpha diversity) and spatial turnover of species (beta diversity)? (ii) Do high richness locations have fewer species in common with neighbouring areas than low richness locations?, and (iii) Are any such relationships contingent on spatial scale (resolution or quadrat area), and do they reflect the operation of a particular kind of species-area relationship (SAR)? 2. For all measures of spatial turnover, we found a negative relationship with species richness. This held across all scales, with the exception of turnover measured as β sim . 3. Higher richness areas were found to have more species in common with neighbouring areas. 4. The logarithmic SAR fitted better than the power SAR overall, and fitted significantly better in areas with low richness and high turnover. 5. Spatial patterns of both turnover and richness vary with scale. The finest scale richness pattern (10 km) and the coarse scale richness pattern (90 km) are statistically unrelated. The same is true of the turnover patterns. 6. With coarsening scale, locations of the most species-rich quadrats move north. This observed sensitivity of richness 'hotspot' location to spatial scale has implications for conservation biology, e.g. the location of a reserve selected on the basis of maximum richness may change considerably with reserve size or scale of analysis. 7. Average turnover measured using indices declined with coarsening scale, but the average number of species gained or lost between neighbouring quadrats was essentially scale invariant at 10-13 species, despite mean richness rising from 80 to 146 species (across an 81-fold area increase). We show that this kind of scale invariance is consistent with the logarithmic SAR.

No abstract

Microbial ecology is currently undergoing a revolution, with repercussions spreading throughout microbiology, ecology and ecosystem science. The rapid accumulation of molecular data is uncovering vast diversity, abundant uncultivated microbial groups and novel microbial functions. This accumulation of data requires the application of theory to provide organization, structure, mechanistic insight and, ultimately, predictive power that is of practical value, but the application of theory in microbial ecology is currently very limited. Here we argue that the full potential of the ongoing revolution will not be realized if research is not directed and driven by theory, and that the generality of established ecological theory must be tested using microbial systems.

Many of the most interesting questions ecologists ask lead to analyses of spatial data. Yet, perhaps confused by the large number of statistical models and fitting methods available, many ecologists seem to believe this is best left to specialists. Here, we describe the issues that need consideration when analysing spatial data and illustrate these using simulation studies. Our comparative analysis involves using methods including generalized least squares, spatial filters, wavelet revised models, conditional autoregressive models and generalized additive mixed models to estimate regression coefficients from synthetic but realistic data sets, including some which violate standard regression assumptions. We assess the performance of each method using two measures and using statistical error rates for model selection. Methods that performed well included generalized least squares family of models and a Bayesian implementation of the conditional auto-regressive model. Ordinary least squares also performed adequately in the absence of model selection, but had poorly controlled Type I error rates and so did not show the improvements in performance under model selection when using the above methods. Removing large-scale spatial trends in the response led to poor performance. These are empirical results; hence extrapolation of these findings to other situations should be performed cautiously. Nevertheless, our simulation-based approach provides much stronger evidence for comparative analysis than assessments based on single or small numbers of data sets, and should be considered a necessary foundation for statements of this type in future.

I draw attention to the need for ecologists to take spatial structure into account more seriously in hypothesis testing. If spatial autocorrelation is ignored, as it usually is, then analyses of ecological patterns in terms of environmental factors can produce very misleading results. This is demonstrated using synthetic but realistic spatial patterns with known spatial properties which are subjected to classical correlation and multiple regression analyses. Correlation between an autocorrelated response variable and each of a set of explanatory variables is strongly biased in favour of those explanatory variables that are highly autocorrelated ‐ the expected magnitude of the correlation coefficient increases with autocorrelation even if the spatial patterns are completely independent. Similarly, multiple regression analysis finds highly autocorrelated explanatory variables “significant” much more frequently than it should. The chances of mistakenly identifying a “significant” slope across an autocorrelated pattern is very high if classical regression is used. Consequently, under these circumstances strongly autocorrelated environmental factors reported in the literature as associated with ecological patterns may not actually be significant. It is likely that these factors wrongly described as important constitute a red‐shifted subset of the set of potential explanations, and that more spatially discontinuous factors (those with bluer spectra) are actually relatively more important than their present status suggests. There is much that ecologists can do to improve on this situation. I discuss various approaches to the problem of spatial autocorrelation from the literature and present a randomisation test for the association of two spatial patterns which has advantages over currently available methods.

Fractals have found widespread application in a range of scientific fields, including ecology. This rapid growth has produced substantial new insights, but has also spawned confusion and a host of methodological problems. In this paper, we review the value of fractal methods, in particular for applications to spatial ecology, and outline potential pitfalls. Methods for measuring fractals in nature and generating fractal patterns for use in modelling are surveyed. We stress the limitations and the strengths of fractal models. Strictly speaking, no ecological pattern can be truly fractal, but fractal methods may nonetheless provide the most efficient tool available for describing and predicting ecological patterns at multiple scales.