Corey Bradshaw_Assessing bias in extinction predictions from species-area relationships using simulation experiments
•
1 like•635 views
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
Similar to Corey Bradshaw_Assessing bias in extinction predictions from species-area relationships using simulation experiments
Similar to Corey Bradshaw_Assessing bias in extinction predictions from species-area relationships using simulation experiments (20)
More from TERN Australia
More from TERN Australia (20)
Corey Bradshaw_Assessing bias in extinction predictions from species-area relationships using simulation experiments
- 1. Bias in extinction predictions from species-area relationships Corey J. A. Bradshaw The Environment Institute, The University of Adelaide
- 2. • > 4 million protists • 16600 protozoa • 75000-300000 helminth parasites • 1.5 million fungi • 320000 plants • 4-6 million arthropods • > 6500 amphibians • > 30000 fishes • 10000 birds • > 5000 mammals
- 3. Loarie et al. 2009 Geophys Res Lett 36:L14810 Bradshaw et al. 2009 Front Ecol Environ 7:79-87 Hansen et al. 2010 PNAS 107:8650-8655 Bradshaw et al. 2009 Trends Ecol Evol 24:541-548
- 4. Bradshaw 2012 J Plant Ecol 5:109-120
- 5. N Stork X Giam D Fordham B Brook C Sekerçioglu S Gregory LP Koh C Bradshaw FL He L Gibson C Bradshaw S Gregory N Stork D Fordham S Williams LP Koh X Giam B Brook
- 6. S = cAz Giam et al. 2011 J Biogeogr 38: 55–68
- 7. Koh & Ghazoul 2010 Conserv Biol 24: 994–1001 Koh et al. 2010 J Appl Ecol 47: 1063–1070
- 8. 500 300 500 0 100 300 500 0 100 300 He & Hubbell 2011 Nature 473 368–371 500 0 100 Black(most aggregated): zSAR=0.194 (0.00822) 300 Blue (2nd most aggregated): zSAR=1.791 (0.00657) Green (3rd most aggregated): zSAR=1.548 (0.00530) 0 100 Red (least aggregated): zSAR=1.398 (0.00531) 0 200 400 600 800 1000 Note: The values in parenthesis are std error
- 11. SIMULATED SPECIES DATA 1.0 1.0 random 1.0 aggregated 0.8 Proportion species extinct 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 5 9 1 5 9 1 5 9 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. Proportional harvest Proportional harvest Proportional harvest BARRO COLORADO ISLAND PLANTS 1.0 1.0 random 1.0 aggregated MVPp = 0 MVPp = 0.05 MVPp = 0.20 0.8 Proportion species extinct 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 5 9 1 5 9 1 5 9 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. Proportional harvest Proportional harvest Proportional harvest
- 15. log relative frequency log relative frequency -3.5 -3.0 -2.5 -2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -3.5 -3.0 -2.5 -2.0 -1.5 0 0 200 50 400 species species 100 600 0.0000 0.0500 0.1000 0.1500 0.2000 800 -10 150 log relative frequency log relative frequency -3.5 -3.0 -2.5 -2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 -8 0 0 10 -6 50 20 -4 species species 30 100 -2 40 150 0 log relative frequency log relative frequency -3.5 -3.0 -2.5 -2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 0 2 20 4 50 40 60 species species 6 100 80 100 8 150 120 log relative frequency log relative frequency 10 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 -3.5 -3.0 -2.5 -2.0 -1.5 0 0 12 50 100 100 200 species species 150 300 200 400
- 16. • habitat destruction pattern little influence on SAR predictions • species aggregation also small influence • species abundance distribution (SAD) large effect • degree of lag as indicated by MVPp most important modifier of SAR predictions • potential to predict z partially (and extinction risk) based on SAD • matrix sensitivity next step
- 17. • Barry W. Brook, The University of Adelaide • Damien A. Fordham, The University of Adelaide • Stephen D. Gregory, The University of Adelaide • Lian Pin Koh, ETH Switzerland • Xingli Giam, Princeton University • Nigel E. Stork, Griffith University Corey Bradshaw • Luke Gibson, National University of Singapore corey.bradshaw@adelaide.edu.au ConservationBytes.com • Cagan Sekerçioglu, University of Utah • Stephen E. Williams, James Cook University • Fangliang He, University of Alberta; Sun-yat Sen University