Biodiversity change is scale-dependent: An example from Dutch and UK hoverflies (Diptera, Syrphidae)

Ecography

Volumn 34, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 392-401

  Keil, Petr ^a   Biesmeijer, Jacobus C ^b   Barendregt, Aat ^c   Reemer, Menno ^d   Kunin, William E ^b  

^a CHARLES UNIVERSITY   (Czech Republic)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS   (United Kingdom)

^c UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^d NATURALIS BIODIVERSITY CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AGGLOMERATION; AUTOCORRELATION; BIODIVERSITY; DATA SET; ESTIMATION METHOD; FLY; LAND USE CHANGE; SPATIOTEMPORAL ANALYSIS; SPECIES DIVERSITY; SPECIES RICHNESS; SURVEY; THRESHOLD;

NETHERLANDS; UNITED KINGDOM;

DIPTERA; SYRPHIDAE;

EID: 79957861572     PISSN: 09067590     EISSN: 16000587     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0587.2010.06554.x     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Arrhenius, O. 1921. Species and area. J. Ecol. 9: 95-99.
2. Ball, S. G. and Morris, R. K. A. 2000. Provisional atlas of British hoverflies. Centre for Ecology and Hydrology.
3. Biesmeijer, J. C. et al. 2006. Parallel declines in pollinators and insect-pollinated plants in Britain and the Netherlands. Science 313: 351-354.
4. Chase, J. M. and Leibold, M. A. 2002. Spatial scale dictates the productivity-biodiversity relationship. Nature 416: 427-430.
5. Davies, K. F. et al. 2005. Spatial heterogeneity explains the scale dependence of the native-exotic diversity relationship. Ecology 86: 1602-1610.
6. Diniz-Filho, J. A. F. et al. 2003. Spatial autocorrelation and red herrings in geographical ecology. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 12: 53-64.
7. Englund, G. and Hamback, P. A. 2007. Scale dependence of immigration rates: models, metrics and data. J. Anim. Ecol. 76: 30-35.
8. Fortin, M. and Dale, M. 2005. Spatial analysis: a guide for ecologists. Cambridge Univ. Press.
9. Gotelli, N. J. and Colwell, R. K. 2001. Quantifying biodiversity: procedures and pitfalls in the measurement and comparison of species richness. Ecol. Lett. 4: 379-391.
10. Gryntes, J. A. and Romdal, T. S. 2008. Using museum collections to estimate diversity patterns along geographical gradients. Folia Geobot. 43: 357-359.
11. Gunton, R. M. and Kunin, W. E. 2007. Density effects at multiple scales in an experimental plant population. J. Ecol. 95: 435-445.
12. Gunton, R. M. and Kunin, W. E. 2009. Density-dependence at multiple scales in experimental and natural plant populations. J. Ecol. 97: 567-580.
13. Gurevitch, J. and Hedges, L. V. 1999. Statistical issues in ecological meta-analyses. Ecology 80: 1142-1149.
14. Haines-Young, R. et al. 2003. Changing landscapes, habitats and vegetation diversity across Great Britain. J. Environ. Manage. 67: 267-281.
15. Hanski, I. 1999. Metapopulation ecology. Oxford Univ. Press.
16. Hartley, S. and Kunin, W. E. 2003. Scale dependency of rarity, extinction risk, and conservation priority. Conserv. Biol. 17: 1559-1570.
17. Heck, K. L. et al. 1975. Explicit calculation of rarefaction diversity measurement and determination of sufficient sample size. Ecology 56: 1459-1461.
18. Hickling, R. et al. 2006. The distributions of a wide range of taxonomic groups are expanding polewards. Global Change Biol. 12: 450-455.
19. Jarosik, V. and Lapchin, L. 2001. An experimental investigation of patterns of parasitism at three spatial scales in an aphid-parasitoid system (Hymenoptera: Aphidiidae). Eur. J. Entomol. 98: 295-299.
20. Jetz, W. et al. 2007. Projected impacts of climate and land-use change on the global diversity of birds. PLoS Biol. 5: 1211-1219.
21. Konvicka, M. et al. 2006. Butterfly extinctions in European states: do socioeconomic conditions matter more than physical geography?. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 15: 82-92.
22. Kunin, W. E. 1997. Sample shape, spatial scale and species counts: implications for reserve design. Biol. Conserv. 82: 369-377.
23. Kunin, W. E. 1998. Extrapolating species abundance across spatial scales. Science 281: 1513-1515.
24. Lemoine, N. and Bohning-Gaese, K. 2003. Potential impact of global climate change on species richness of long-distance migrants. Conserv. Biol. 17: 577-586.
25. Levin, S. A. 1992. The problem of pattern and scale in ecology. Ecology 73: 1943-1967.
26. McKinney, M. L. and Lockwood, J. L. 1999. Biotic homogenization: few winners replacing many losers in the next mass extinction. Trends Ecol. Evol. 14: 450-453.
27. McKinney, M. L. and La Sorte, F. A. 2007. Invasivenes and homogenization: synergism of wide dispersal and high local abundance. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 16: 394-400.
28. Menendez, R. and Thomas, C. D. 2000. Metapopulation structure depends on spatial scale in the host-specific moth Wheeleria spilodactylus (Lepidoptera: Pterophoridae). J. Anim. Ecol. 69: 935-951.
29. Menendez, R. et al. 2006. Species richness changes lag behind climate change. Proc. R. Soc. B 273: 1465-1470.
30. Pocock, M. J. O. et al. 2006. Ecological correlates of range structure in rare and scarce British plants. J. Ecol. 94: 581-596.
31. Preston, C. D. et al. 2002. New atlas of the British and Irish flora: an atlas of the vascular plants of Britain, Ireland, The Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. Oxford Univ. Press.
32. R Development Core Team. 2009. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
33. Rahbek, C. 2005. The role of spatial scale and the perception of large-scale species-richness patterns. Ecol. Lett. 8: 224-239.
34. Rahbek, C. and Graves, G. R. 2001. Multiscale assessment of patterns of avian species richness. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 98: 4534-4539.
35. Rangel, T. et al. 2006. Towards an integrated computational tool for spatial analysis in macroecology and biogeography. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 15: 321-327.
36. Reemer, M. et al. 2009. De Nederlandse zweefvliegen (Diptera: Syrphidae). Nederlandse Fauna 8: 1-442.
37. Rosenzweig, M. L. 2001. The four questions: what does the introduction of exotic species do to diversity?. Evol. Ecol. Res 3: 361-367.
38. Shmida, A. and Wilson, M. V. 1985. Biological determinants of species diversity. J. Biogeogr. 12: 1-20.
39. Speight, M. C. D. and Castella, E. 2006. StN Database: content and glossary of terms, Ferrara, 2006. - In: Speight, M. C. D. et al (eds), Syrph the Net, the database of European Syrphidae. Syrph the Net publications, Dublin, pp. 1-77.
40. Stohlgren, T. J. et al. 2003. The rich get richer: patterns of plant invasions in the United States. Front. Ecol. Environ. 1: 11-14.
41. Stohlgren, T. J. et al. 2006. Scale and plant invasions: a theory of biotic acceptance. Preslia 78: 405-426.
42. Storch, D. et al (eds), Scaling biodiversity. Cambridge Univ. Press 2007.
43. Storch, D. et al. 2008. The quest for a null model for macroecological patterns: geometry of species distributions at multiple spatial scales. Ecol. Lett. 11: 771-784.
44. Thomas, C. D. and Abery, J. C. G. 1995. Estimating rates of butterfly decline from distribution maps - the effect of scale. Biol. Conserv. 73: 59-65.
45. Thomas, J. A. et al. 2004. Comparative losses of British butterflies, birds, and plants and the global extinction crisis. Science 303: 1879-1881.
46. Thuiller, W. et al. 2005. Climate change threats to plant diversity in Europe. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 102: 8245-8250.
47. Warren, M. S. et al. 2001. Rapid responses of British butterflies to opposing forces of climate and habitat change. Nature 414: 65-69.
48. Wiens, J. A. 1989. Spatial scaling in ecology. Funct. Ecol. 3: 385-397.
49. White, E. P. 2007. Spatiotemporal scaling of species richness: patterns, processes, and implications. - In: Storch, D. et al (eds), Scaling biodiversity. Cambridge Univ. Press, pp. 325-346.
50. Whittaker, R. J. et al. 2001. Scale and species richness: towards a general, hierarchical theory of species diversity. J. Biogeogr. 28: 453-470.
51. Willis, K. J. and Whittaker, R. J. 2002. Species diversity - scale matters. Science 295: 1245-1248.
52. Wilson, R. J. et al. 2004. Spatial patterns in species distributions reveal biodiversity change. Nature 432: 393-396.