Maintenance of biodiversity on islands

Chisholm, Ryan A.; Fung, Tak; Chimalakonda, Deepthi; O’Dwyer, James P.

doi:10.1098/rspb.2016.0102

Cited by 48 publications

(84 citation statements)

References 45 publications

(91 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Third, we included only islands < 100 km 2 , because species richness on larger islands is influenced by in situ speciation, affecting the shape of the SAR towards a third phase (Lomolino, ). This threshold is much larger than the SIE breakpoint area commonly reported for plants [mean .016 km 2 , 95% confidence interval (CI): .001, .3 km 2 ; Chisholm et al, ], but small enough to exclude islands with a high probability of in situ speciation (Kisel & Barraclough, ) and where in situ speciation is likely to influence the shape of the SAR (Lomolino, ; see the Supporting Information Supplementary Discussion on the selection of the island area threshold and Figures S1 and S21 for results obtained using a 1,000 km 2 threshold). Fourth, given that we analysed the shape of the SAR at the level of single archipelagos, we included only archipelagos containing ≥ 10 islands.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 87%

“…For example, the inclusion or exclusion of empty islands (Dengler, ; Wang, Millien, & Ding, ; Wang et al, ) or the choice of the mathematical model may affect the detection rate of SIEs considerably (Chisholm et al, ; Dengler, ; Gentile & Argano, ; Lomolino, ; Matthews, Steinbauer, Tzirkalli, Triantis, & Whittaker, ). Overall, the SIE appears to be a common feature of small‐island systems worldwide (Chisholm et al, ; Wang et al, ). However, the wealth of explanations and analytical considerations behind the SIE indicate that no consensus exists about its underlying processes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Species–area relationships on small islands differ among plant growth forms

Schrader

König

Triantis

et al. 2020

Global Ecol Biogeogr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim We tested whether species–area relationships of small islands differ among plant growth forms and whether this influences the prevalence of the small‐island effect (SIE). The SIE states that species richness on small islands is independent of island area or relates to area in a different way compared with larger islands. We investigated whether island isolation affects the limits of the SIE and which environmental factors drive species richness on small islands. Location Seven hundred islands (< 100 km2) worldwide belonging to 17 archipelagos. Major taxa studied Angiosperms. Methods We applied linear and breakpoint species–area models for angiosperm species richness and for herb, shrub and tree species richness per archipelago separately, to test for the existence of SIEs. For archipelagos featuring the SIE, we calculated the island area at which the breakpoints occurred (breakpoint area) and used linear models to test whether the breakpoint areas varied with isolation. We used linear mixed‐effect models to discern the effects of seven environmental variables related to island area, isolation and other environmental factors on the species richness of each growth form for islands smaller than the breakpoint area. Results For 71% of all archipelagos, we found an SIE for total and herb species richness, and for 59% for shrub species richness and 53% for tree species richness. Shrub and tree species richness showed larger breakpoint areas than total and herb species richness. The breakpoint area was significantly positively affected by the isolation of islands within an archipelago for total and shrub species richness. Species richness on islands within the range of the SIE was differentially affected by environmental factors across growth forms. Main conclusion The SIE is a widespread phenomenon that is more complex than generally described. Different functional groups have different environmental requirements that shape their biogeographical patterns and affect species–area and, more generally, richness–environment relationships. The complexity of these patterns cannot be revealed when measuring overall plant species richness.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 87%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Species–area relationships on small islands differ among plant growth forms

Schrader

König

Triantis

et al. 2020

Global Ecol Biogeogr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Lomolino (2000) suggested that sigmoidal models are better suited as they test for the presence of the SIE while allowing a smooth transition between the range of the SIE and the linear phase of the SAR. Smooth transitions often provide more realistic representations of natural phenomena than sharp transitions (Toms and Lesperance 2013), such as the SIE (see also Chisholm et al 2016, Schrader et al 2019. Most authors agree that multiple alternative SAR models should be fitted and compared (Lomolino andWeiser 2001, Dengler 2010).…”

Section: Statistical Analysesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Plants on small islands revisited: the effects of spatial scale and habitat quality on the species–area relationship

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding how species diversity is related to sampling area and spatial scale is central to ecology and biogeography. Small islands and small sampling units support fewer species than larger ones. However, the factors influencing species richness may not be consistent across scales. Richness at local scales is primarily affected by small‐scale environmental factors, stochasticity and the richness at the island scale. Richness at whole‐island scale, however, is usually strongly related to island area, isolation and habitat diversity. Despite these contrasting drivers at local and island scales, island species–area relationships (SARs) are often constructed based on richness sampled at the local scale. Whether local scale samples adequately predict richness at the island scale and how local scale samples influence the island SAR remains poorly understood. We investigated the effects of different sampling scales on the SAR of trees on 60 small islands in the Raja Ampat archipelago (Indonesia) using standardised transects and a hierarchically nested sampling design. We compared species richness at different grain sizes ranging from single (sub)transects to whole islands and tested whether the shape of the SAR changed with sampling scale. We then determined the importance of island area, isolation, shape and habitat quality at each scale on species richness. We found strong support for scale dependency of the SAR. The SAR changed from exponential shape at local sampling scales to sigmoidal shape at the island scale indicating variation of species richness independent of area for small islands and hence the presence of a small‐island effect. Island area was the most important variable explaining species richness at all scales, but habitat quality was also important at local scales. We conclude that the SAR and drivers of species richness are influenced by sampling scale, and that the sampling design for assessing the island SARs therefore requires careful consideration.

show abstract

“…If the rate is high, the typical state has more than one species, and thus the ratio between these two rates determines the threshold for clonal interference [23]. By the same token, a recently proposed explanation for what known in island biogeography as the small island effect suggests that the number of niches per island is fixed and for small islands the rate of absorption is smaller that the rate of immigration [24]. Under these assumption, an island is "small" as long as the immigration rate is smaller than the inverse of the persistence time calculated here.…”

Section: A Persistence Time: Definition and The Importance Of Initiamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The value ν c = 1/[N ln(N )] is thus the scale for clonal interference [23,30] and for the small island effect [24]. In fact, one can solve the difference equation (2) exactly by writing it as a first order difference equation for…”

Section: Neutral Dynamics With Pure Demographic Stochasticity (Dmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stability of two-species communities: Drift, environmental stochasticity, storage effect and selection

Danino

Kessler

Shnerb

2018

Theoretical Population Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The dynamics of two competing species in a finite size community is one of the most studied problems in population genetics and community ecology. Stochastic fluctuations lead, inevitably, to the extinction of one of the species, but the relevant timescale depends on the underlying dynamics. The persistence time of the community has been calculated for neutral models, where the only drive of the system is drift (demographic stochasticity) and for models with strong selection. Following recent analyses that stress the importance of environmental stochasticity in empirical systems, we present here a general theory of persistence time of two-species community where drift, environmental variations and time independent selective advantage are all taken into account.

show abstract

Maintenance of biodiversity on islands

Cited by 48 publications

References 45 publications

Species–area relationships on small islands differ among plant growth forms

Species–area relationships on small islands differ among plant growth forms

Plants on small islands revisited: the effects of spatial scale and habitat quality on the species–area relationship

Stability of two-species communities: Drift, environmental stochasticity, storage effect and selection

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About