Environmental heterogeneity is regarded as one of the most important factors governing species richness gradients. An increase in available niche space, provision of refuges and opportunities for isolation and divergent adaptation are thought to enhance species coexistence, persistence and diversification. However, the extent and generality of positive heterogeneity-richness relationships are still debated. Apart from widespread evidence supporting positive relationships, negative and hump-shaped relationships have also been reported. In a meta-analysis of 1148 data points from 192 studies worldwide, we examine the strength and direction of the relationship between spatial environmental heterogeneity and species richness of terrestrial plants and animals. We find that separate effects of heterogeneity in land cover, vegetation, climate, soil and topography are significantly positive, with vegetation and topographic heterogeneity showing particularly strong associations with species richness. The use of equal-area study units, spatial grain and spatial extent emerge as key factors influencing the strength of heterogeneity-richness relationships, highlighting the pervasive influence of spatial scale in heterogeneity-richness studies. We provide the first quantitative support for the generality of positive heterogeneity-richness relationships across heterogeneity components, habitat types, taxa and spatial scales from landscape to global extents, and identify specific needs for future comparative heterogeneity-richness research.

No abstract

In ecology, the true causal structure for a given problem is often not known, and several plausible models and thus model predictions exist. It has been claimed that using weighted averages of these models can reduce prediction error, as well as better reflect model selection uncertainty. These claims, however, are often demonstrated by isolated examples. Analysts must better understand under which conditions model averaging can improve predictions and their uncertainty estimates. Moreover, a large range of different model averaging methods exists, raising the question of how they differ in their behaviour and performance. Here, we review the mathematical foundations of model averaging along with the diversity of approaches available. We explain that the error in model‐averaged predictions depends on each model's predictive bias and variance, as well as the covariance in predictions between models, and uncertainty about model weights. We show that model averaging is particularly useful if the predictive error of contributing model predictions is dominated by variance, and if the covariance between models is low. For noisy data, which predominate in ecology, these conditions will often be met. Many different methods to derive averaging weights exist, from Bayesian over information‐theoretical to cross‐validation optimized and resampling approaches. A general recommendation is difficult, because the performance of methods is often context dependent. Importantly, estimating weights creates some additional uncertainty. As a result, estimated model weights may not always outperform arbitrary fixed weights, such as equal weights for all models. When averaging a set of models with many inadequate models, however, estimating model weights will typically be superior to equal weights. We also investigate the quality of the confidence intervals calculated for model‐averaged predictions, showing that they differ greatly in behaviour and seldom manage to achieve nominal coverage. Our overall recommendations stress the importance of non‐parametric methods such as cross‐validation for a reliable uncertainty quantification of model‐averaged predictions.

Most current research on land-use intensification addresses its potential to either threaten biodiversity or to boost agricultural production. However, little is known about the simultaneous effects of intensification on biodiversity and yield. To determine the responses of species richness and yield to conventional intensification, we conducted a global meta-analysis synthesizing 115 studies which collected data for both variables at the same locations. We extracted 449 cases that cover a variety of areas used for agricultural (crops, fodder) and silvicultural (wood) production. We found that, across all production systems and species groups, conventional intensification is successful in increasing yield (grand mean + 20.3%), but it also results in a loss of species richness (−8.9%). However, analysis of sub-groups revealed inconsistent results. For example, small intensification steps within low intensity systems did not affect yield or species richness. Within high-intensity systems species losses were non-significant but yield gains were substantial (+15.2%). Conventional intensification within medium intensity systems revealed the highest yield increase (+84.9%) and showed the largest loss in species richness (−22.9%). Production systems differed

Summary1. Ecological and evolutionary research increasingly uses quantitative synthesis of primary research studies (meta-analysis) for answering fundamental questions, informing environmental policy and summarizing results for decision makers. 2. Knowing how meta-analysis works is important for researchers so that their research can have broader impact. Meta-analytic thinking encourages scientists to see single primary research studies as substantial contributions to a larger picture. 3. To facilitate inclusion in a meta-analysis, relevant primary research studies must be found and basic information about the methods and results must be thoroughly, clearly and transparently reported. While many published papers provide this information, it is common for essential data to be omitted, leading to study exclusion from meta-analyses. 4. We provide guidelines for correctly reporting basic data needed from primary studies in ecology and evolutionary biology so that they can be included in meta-analyses, together with examples that show how data should be reported to enable calculation and analysis of effect sizes, and how data should be made accessible. 5. These guidelines are important for reporting research results in general, whether or not results are included in subsequent meta-analyses, because they are necessary for the interpretation and assessment of study outcomes. Increased implementation of these guidelines by authors, editors and publishers, and reinforcement by funders, will foster higher quality and more inclusive syntheses, further the goals of transparency and reproducibility in science, and improve the quality and value of primary research studies.

Global and regional economic and environmental changes are increasingly influencing local land-use, livelihoods, and ecosystems. At the same time, cumulative local land changes are driving global and regional changes in biodiversity and the environment. To understand the causes and consequences of these changes, land change science (LCS) draws on a wide array synthetic and meta-study techniques to generate global and regional knowledge from local case studies of land change. Here, we review the characteristics and applications of synthesis methods in LCS and assess the current state of synthetic research based on a meta-analysis of synthesis studies from 1995 to 2012. Publication of synthesis research is accelerating, with a clear trend toward increasingly sophisticated and quantitative methods, including meta-analysis. Detailed trends in synthesis objectives, methods, and land change phenomena and world regions most commonly studied are presented. Significant challenges to successful synthesis research in LCS are also identified, including issues of interpretability and comparability across case-studies and the limits of and biases in the geographic coverage of case studies. Nevertheless, synthesis methods based on local case studies will remain essential for generating systematic global and regional understanding of local land change for the foreseeable future, and multiple opportunities exist to accelerate and enhance the reliability of synthetic LCS research in the future. Demand for global and regional knowledge generation will continue to grow to support adaptation and mitigation policies consistent with both the local realities and regional and global environmental and economic contexts of land change.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s10113-014-0626-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Summary1. Plant diversity is globally threatened by anthropogenic land use including management and modification of the natural environment. At regional and local scales, numerous studies world-wide have examined land use and its effects on plant diversity, but evidence for declining species diversity is mixed. This is because, first, land use comes in many variations, hampering comparisons of studies. Second, land use directly affects the environment, but indirect effects extend beyond the boundaries of the land in use. Third, land-use effects greatly depend on the environmental, historical and socio-economic context. 2. To evaluate the generality and variation of studies' findings about land-use effects, we undertook a quantitative synthesis using meta-analytic techniques. 3. Using 572 effect sizes from 375 studies distributed globally relating to 11 classes of land use, we found that direct and indirect effects of land use on plant diversity (measured as species richness) are variable and can lead to both local decreases and increases. Further, we found evidence (best AIC model) that land-use-specific covariables mostly determine effectsize variation and that in general land-use effects differ between biomes. 4. Synthesis and applications. This extensive synthesis provides the most comprehensive and quantitative overview to date about the effects of the most widespread and relevant land-use options on plant diversity and their covariables. We found important covariables of specific land-use classes but little evidence that land-use effects can be generally explained by their environmental and socio-economic context. We also found a strong regional bias in the number of studies (i.e. more studies from Europe and North America) and highlight the need for an overarching and consistent land-use classification scheme. Thereby, our study provides a new vantage point for future research directions.

Aim The species-area relationship (SAR) is a prominent concept for predicting species richness and biodiversity loss. A key step in defining SARs is to accurately estimate the slope of the relationship, but researchers typically apply only one global (canonical) slope. We hypothesized that this approach is overly simplistic and investigated how geographically varying determinants of SARs affect species richness estimates of vascular plants at the global scale.Location Global. MethodsWe used global species richness data for vascular plants from 1032 geographical units varying in size and shape. As possible determinants of geographical variation in SARs we chose floristic kingdoms and biomes as biogeographical provinces, and land cover as a surrogate for habitat diversity. Using simultaneous autoregressive models we fitted SARs to each set of determinants, compared their ability to predict the observed data and large-scale species richness patterns, and determined the extent to which varying SARs differed from the global relationship.Results Incorporating variation into SARs improved predictions of global species richness patterns. The best model, which accounts for variation due to biomes, explained 46.1% of the species richness variation. Moreover, fitting SARs to biomes produced better results than fitting them to floristic kingdoms, supporting the hypothesis that energy availability complements evolutionary history in generating species richness patterns. Land cover proved to be less important than biomes, explaining only 36.4% of the variation, possibly owing to the high uncertainty in the data set. The incorporation of second-order interactions of area, land cover and biomes did not improve the predictive ability of the models. Main conclusionsOur study contributes to a deeper understanding of SARs and improves the applicability of SARs through regionalization. Future models should explicitly consider geographically varying determinants of SARs in order to improve our assessment of the impact of global change scenarios on species richness patterns.