To Fit or Not to Fit? A Poorly Fitting Procedure Produces Inconsistent Results When the Species–Area Relationship is used to Locate Hotspots
- 157 Downloads
Ulrich and Buszko (2005, Biodivers Conserv 14:1977–1988) have recently applied the species–area relationship (SAR) to find butterfly hotspots in Europe using the linearized power function. They found that, with this method, despite the fact that the larger southern European countries and the Asian part of Turkey belong to the group of ecological hotspots defined by Myers et al. (2000, Nature 403:853–858), the SAR was unable to separate these countries from others. However, this result was a consequence of a poor fit. When different fitting models are compared, there is no obvious reason to prefer the linearized power function model, while a curvilinear fit to the power function should be selected as a best fit for this data set. Using this fit, two large southern European countries (Italy and Greece) and the Asian part of Turkey are identified as hotspots by the SAR. This simple exercise illustrates how an inappropriate choice of the fitting equation for the SAR may lead to inconsistent results.
Key wordsHotspots Lepidoptera Species–area relationships Fitting equations
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
I am very grateful to W. Ulrich (Nicolaus Copernicus University, Gagarina, Torun) for stimulating discussions and two anonymous referees for their comments.
- Cobolli M, Ketmaier V, Lucarelli M (1997) Ricerche sulla Valle Peligna (Italia Centrale, Abruzzo). 14. Lepidoptera Papilionoidea e Hesperoidea (Insecta). In: Osella BG, Biondi M, Di Marco C, Riti M (eds) Ricerche sulla Valle Peligna. Quaderni di provinciaoggi, 23 (I). Amministrazione provinciale de Lȁ9Aquila. Graphicpress, Lȁ9Aquila, pp 255–282Google Scholar
- Fattorini S (2002b) Relict versus dynamic models for tenebrionid beetles of Aegean Islands (Greece) (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae). Belgian J Zool 132:55–64Google Scholar
- Fattorini S (2005) A simple method to fit geometric series and broken stick models in community ecology and island biogeography. Acta Oecol 28:199–205Google Scholar
- Harte J, Kinzig A, Green J (1999b) Response. Science 284:334–336Google Scholar
- He F, Legendre P (2002) Species diversity patterns derived from species–area models. Ecology 83:1185–1198Google Scholar
- May RM (1975) Patterns of species abundance and diversity. In: Cody ML, Diamond JM (eds) Ecology and evolution of communities. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, pp 81–120Google Scholar
- Quinn GP, Keough MJ (2002) Experimental design and data analysis for biologists. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Russell JC, Clout MN, McArdle BH (2004) Island biogeography and the species richness of introduced mammals on New Zealand offshore islands. J Biogeogr 31:653–664Google Scholar
- Ulrich W, Buszko J (2003a) Self-similarity and the species-area relation of Polish butterflies. Basic Appl Ecol 4:263–270Google Scholar
- Ulrich W, Buszko J (2003b) Species-area relationships of butterfiles in Europe and species richness forecasting. Ecography 26:365–373Google Scholar
- Ulrich W, Buszko J (2004) Habitat reduction and patterns of species loss. Basic Appl Ecol 5:231–240Google Scholar
- Viglioglia V (2004) Note preliminari sullȁ9entomofauna del Parco degli Acquedotti (Roma). Boll Ass Romana Entomol 59:1–18Google Scholar
- Zar JH (1999) Biostatistical Analysis, 4th edn. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, New JerseyGoogle Scholar