Spatial patterns in species distributions reveal biodiversity change

Nature

Volumn 432, Issue 7015, 2004, Pages 393-396

  Wilson, Robert J ^a,d   Thomas, Chris D ^a,e   Fox, Richard ^b   Roy, David B ^c   Kunin, William E ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS   (United Kingdom)

^b BUTTERFLY CONSERVATION   (United Kingdom)

^c CENTRE FOR ECOLOGY AND HYDROLOGY   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSIDAD REY JUAN CARLOS   (Spain)

^e UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ECOLOGY;

COLONIZATION; SPECIES DISTRIBUTIONS; TAXA;

BIODIVERSITY;

BIODIVERSITY; EXTINCTION; POPULATION DECLINE; SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION;

ARTICLE; BIODIVERSITY; BUTTERFLY; ECOLOGY; HABITAT USE; NONHUMAN; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PHYLOGENY; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SPATIAL ORIENTATION; SPECIES DIFFERENTIATION; SPECIES EXTINCTION;

ANIMALS; BELGIUM; BIODIVERSITY; BUTTERFLIES; ECOSYSTEM; GREAT BRITAIN; PHYLOGENY; PLANT PHYSIOLOGY; POPULATION DYNAMICS; SPECIES SPECIFICITY;

BELGIUM; BENELUX; EASTERN HEMISPHERE; EURASIA; EUROPE; FLANDERS; WESTERN EUROPE; WORLD;

PAPILIONOIDEA;

EID: 9244240843     PISSN: 00280836     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/nature03031     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Akçakaya, H. R. et al. Making consistent IUCN classifications under uncertainty. Conserv. Biol. 14, 1001-1013 (2000).
2. Groombridge, B. & Jenkins, M. D. World Atlas of Biodiversity (Univ. California Press, Berkeley, CA, 2002).
3. Keith, D. A., Auld T. D., Ooi, M, K. J. & Mackenzie, D. E. Sensitivity analyses of decision rules in World Conservation Union (IUCN) Red List criteria using Australian plants. Biol. Conserv. 94, 311-319 (2000).
4. Mace, G. M. & Lande, R. Assessing extinction threats: towards a re-evaluation of IUCN threatened species categories. Conserv. Biol. 5, 148-L57 (1991).
5. World Conservation Monitoring Centre. Global Biodiversity: Status of the Bank's Living Resources (Chapman & Hall, London, 1992).
6. Hartley, S. & Kunin, W. E. Scale dependency of rarity, extinction risk, and conservation priority. Conserv. Biol. 17, 1559-1570 (2003).
7. Warren, M. S., Barnett, L. K., Gibbons, D. W. & Avery, M. I. Assessing national conservation priorities: an improved red list of British butterflies. Biol. Conserv. 82, 317-328 (1997).
8. World Conservation Union (IUCN). IUCN Red List Categories. Version 3.1. (World Conservation Union, Gland, Switzerland, 2001).
9. Cowley, M. I. R., Thomas, C. D., Thomas, J. A. & Warren, M. S. Flight areas of British butterflies: assessing species status and decline. Proc R. Soc. Lond. B 266, 1587-1592 (1999).
10. Johnson, C. N. Species extinction and the relationships between distribution and abundance. Nature 394, 272-274 (1998).
11. Brown, J. H., Mehlman, D. W. & Stevens, G. C. Spatial variation in abundance. Ecology 76, 2028-2043 (1995).
12. Rodriguez, A. & Delibes, M. Internal structure and patterns of contraction in the geographic range of the Iberian Lynx. Ecography 25, 314-328 (2002).
13. Channell, R, & Lomolino, M. V. Dynamic biogeography and conservation of endangered species. Nature 403, 84-86 (2000).
14. Shigesada, N. & Kawasaki, K. Biological Invasions: Theory and Practice (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, UK, 1997).
15. Heath, J., Pollard, E. & Thomas, J. A. Atlas of Butterflies in Britain and Ireland (Viking Books, Harmondsworth, UK, 1984).
16. Asher, J. et al. The Millennium Atlas of Butterflies in Britain and Ireland (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, UK, 2001).
17. Warren, M. S. et al. Rapid responses of British butterflies to opposing forces of climate and habitat change. Nature 414, 65-69 (2001).
18. Kunin, W. E. Extrapolating species abundance across spatial scales. Science 281, 1513-1513 (1998).
19. Ostling, A., Harte, J. & Green, J. L. Self-similarity and clustering in the spatial distribution of species. Science 290 (Suppl.), 671a (2000).
20. Condit, R. et al. Spatial patterns in the distribution of tropical tree species. Science 288, 1414-1418 (2000).
21. Ripley, B. D. Sparial Statistics (John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1981).
22. Brooks, T. M., Pimm, S. L. & Oyugi, J. O. Time lag between deforestation and bird extinction in tropical forest fragments. Conserv. Biol 13, 1140-1150 (1999).
23. Hill, J. K., Thomas, C. D. & Huntley, B. Climate and habitat availability determine 20th century changes in a butterfly's range margins. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 266, 1197-1206 (1999).
24. Hanski, I. Metapopulation Ecology (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 1999).
25. Macs, D. & Van Dyck, H. Butterfly diversity loss in Flanders (north Belgium); Europe's worst case scenario? Biol Conserv. 99, 263-276 (2001).
26. Thomas, C. D. & Abery, J. C. G. Estimating rates of butterfly decline from distribution maps: the effect of scale. Biol. Conserv. 73, 59-65 (1995).
27. Caughley, G. Directions in conservation biology. J. Anim. Ecol. 63, 215-244 (1994).
28. Linder, E. T., Villard, M.-A., Maurer, B. A. & Schmidt, E. V. Geographic range structure in North American landbirds: variation with migratory strategy, trophic level, and breeding habitat. Ecography 23, 678-686 (2000).
29. Martins, E. P. & Hansen, T. F. Phytogenies and the comparative method: a general approach to incorporating phylogenetic information into the analysis of interspecific data. Am. Nat. 149, 646-667 (1997).
30. Martins, E. P. COMPARE, version 4.6. Computer programs for the statistical analysis of comparative data http://compare.bio.indiana.eduy (Department of Biology, Indiana University, Bloomington IN, 2004).