Vis enkel innførsel

dc.contributor.authorDengler, Jürgen
dc.contributor.authorMatthews, Thomas J.
dc.contributor.authorSteinbauer, Manuel J.
dc.contributor.authorWolfrum, Sebastian
dc.contributor.authorBoch, Steffen
dc.contributor.authorChiarucci, Alessandro
dc.contributor.authorConradi, Timo
dc.contributor.authorDembicz, Iwona
dc.contributor.authorMarcenó, Corrado
dc.contributor.authorGarcía-Mijangos, Itziar
dc.contributor.authorNowak, Arkadiusz
dc.contributor.authorStorch, David
dc.contributor.authorUlrich, Werner
dc.contributor.authorCampos, Juan Antonio
dc.contributor.authorCancellieri, Laura
dc.contributor.authorCarboni, Marta
dc.contributor.authorCiaschetti, Giampiero
dc.contributor.authorDe Frenne, Pieter
dc.contributor.authorDoležal, Jiří
dc.contributor.authorDolnik, Christian
dc.contributor.authorEssl, Franz
dc.contributor.authorFantinato, Edy
dc.contributor.authorFilibeck, Goffredo
dc.contributor.authorGrytnes, John-Arvid
dc.contributor.authorGuarino, Riccardo
dc.contributor.authorGüler, Behlül
dc.contributor.authorJanišová, Monika
dc.contributor.authorKlichowska, Ewelina
dc.contributor.authorKozub, Łukasz
dc.contributor.authorKuzemko, Anna
dc.contributor.authorManthey, Michael
dc.contributor.authorMimet, Anne
dc.contributor.authorNaqinezhad, Alireza
dc.contributor.authorPedersen, Christian
dc.contributor.authorPeet, Robert K.
dc.contributor.authorPellissier, Vincent
dc.contributor.authorPielech, Remigiusz
dc.contributor.authorPotenza, Giovanna
dc.contributor.authorRosati, Leonardo
dc.contributor.authorTerzi, Massimo
dc.contributor.authorValkó, Orsolya
dc.contributor.authorVynokurov, Denys
dc.contributor.authorWhite, Hannah
dc.contributor.authorWinkler, Manuela
dc.contributor.authorBiurrun, Idoia
dc.date.accessioned2020-01-13T11:29:52Z
dc.date.available2020-01-13T11:29:52Z
dc.date.created2019-11-15T11:25:58Z
dc.date.issued2019-09-19
dc.identifier.citationJournal of Biogeography. 2019, 1-15.nb_NO
dc.identifier.issn0305-0270
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11250/2635944
dc.description.abstractAim Species–area relationships (SARs) are fundamental scaling laws in ecology although their shape is still disputed. At larger areas, power laws best represent SARs. Yet, it remains unclear whether SARs follow other shapes at finer spatial grains in continuous vegetation. We asked which function describes SARs best at small grains and explored how sampling methodology or the environment influence SAR shape. Location Palaearctic grasslands and other non‐forested habitats. Taxa Vascular plants, bryophytes and lichens. Methods We used the GrassPlot database, containing standardized vegetation‐plot data from vascular plants, bryophytes and lichens spanning a wide range of grassland types throughout the Palaearctic and including 2,057 nested‐plot series with at least seven grain sizes ranging from 1 cm2 to 1,024 m2. Using nonlinear regression, we assessed the appropriateness of different SAR functions (power, power quadratic, power breakpoint, logarithmic, Michaelis–Menten). Based on AICc, we tested whether the ranking of functions differed among taxonomic groups, methodological settings, biomes or vegetation types. Results The power function was the most suitable function across the studied taxonomic groups. The superiority of this function increased from lichens to bryophytes to vascular plants to all three taxonomic groups together. The sampling method was highly influential as rooted presence sampling decreased the performance of the power function. By contrast, biome and vegetation type had practically no influence on the superiority of the power law. Main conclusions We conclude that SARs of sessile organisms at smaller spatial grains are best approximated by a power function. This coincides with several other comprehensive studies of SARs at different grain sizes and for different taxa, thus supporting the general appropriateness of the power function for modelling species diversity over a wide range of grain sizes. The poor performance of the Michaelis–Menten function demonstrates that richness within plant communities generally does not approach any saturation, thus calling into question the concept of minimal area.nb_NO
dc.language.isoengnb_NO
dc.rightsNavngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.no*
dc.subjectlogarithmic functionnb_NO
dc.subjectMichaelis–Menten functionnb_NO
dc.subjectminimal areanb_NO
dc.subjectnested‐plot samplingnb_NO
dc.subjectnonlinear regressionnb_NO
dc.subjectPalaearctic grasslandnb_NO
dc.subjectplant biodiversitynb_NO
dc.subjectpower lawnb_NO
dc.subjectscaling lawnb_NO
dc.subjectspecies–area relationship (SAR)nb_NO
dc.titleSpecies–area relationships in continuous vegetation: Evidence from Palaearctic grasslandsnb_NO
dc.typeJournal articlenb_NO
dc.typePeer reviewednb_NO
dc.description.versionpublishedVersionnb_NO
dc.rights.holder©2019TheAuthors.nb_NO
dc.subject.nsiVDP::Landbruks- og Fiskerifag: 900nb_NO
dc.source.pagenumber1-15nb_NO
dc.source.journalJournal of Biogeographynb_NO
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/jbi.13697
dc.identifier.cristin1747978
cristin.unitcode7677,5,0,0
cristin.unitnameDivisjon for kart og statistikk
cristin.ispublishedtrue
cristin.fulltextoriginal
cristin.qualitycode2


Tilhørende fil(er)

Thumbnail

Denne innførselen finnes i følgende samling(er)

Vis enkel innførsel

Navngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal
Med mindre annet er angitt, så er denne innførselen lisensiert som Navngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal