• Save
Corey Bradshaw_Assessing bias in extinction predictions from species-area relationships using simulation experiments
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Corey Bradshaw_Assessing bias in extinction predictions from species-area relationships using simulation experiments

on

  • 306 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
306
Views on SlideShare
306
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Corey Bradshaw_Assessing bias in extinction predictions from species-area relationships using simulation experiments Corey Bradshaw_Assessing bias in extinction predictions from species-area relationships using simulation experiments Presentation Transcript

  • Bias in extinction predictionsfrom species-area relationshipsCorey J. A. BradshawThe Environment Institute, The University of Adelaide
  • • > 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
  • Loarie et al. 2009 Geophys Res Lett 36:L14810 Bradshaw et al. 2009 Front Ecol Environ 7:79-87Hansen et al. 2010 PNAS 107:8650-8655 Bradshaw et al. 2009 Trends Ecol Evol 24:541-548
  • Bradshaw 2012 J Plant Ecol 5:109-120
  • N Stork X Giam D Fordham B Brook C Sekerçioglu S Gregory LP Koh C Bradshaw FL He L Gibson C BradshawS Gregory N Stork D Fordham S Williams LP Koh X Giam B Brook
  • S = cAzGiam et al. 2011 J Biogeogr 38: 55–68
  • Koh & Ghazoul 2010 Conserv Biol 24: 994–1001Koh et al. 2010 J Appl Ecol 47: 1063–1070
  • 500 300 500 0 100 300 500 0 100 300He & 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
  • 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 harvestBARRO 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
  • log seriesaggregated
  • log seriesaggregated
  • 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 1500 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 02 204 50 40 60 species species6 100 80 1008 150 120 log relative frequency log relative frequency10 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 -3.5 -3.0 -2.5 -2.0 -1.5 0 012 50 100 100 200 species species 150 300 200 400
  • • 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
  • • 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