DSpace Repository

Species-area relationships always overestimate extinction rates from habitat loss

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author He, Fangliang en
dc.contributor.author Hubbell, Stephen P. en
dc.date.accessioned 2012-07-03T13:37:21Z
dc.date.available 2012-07-03T13:37:21Z
dc.date.issued 2011
dc.identifier.citation He, Fangliang and Hubbell, Stephen P. 2011. "<a href="https%3A%2F%2Frepository.si.edu%2Fhandle%2F10088%2F18576">Species-area relationships always overestimate extinction rates from habitat loss</a>." <em>Nature</em>. 473 (7347):368&ndash;371. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09985">https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09985</a> en
dc.identifier.issn 0028-0836
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/10088/18576
dc.description.abstract Extinction from habitat loss is the signature conservation problem of the twenty-first century(1). Despite its importance, estimating extinction rates is still highly uncertain because no proven direct methods or reliable data exist for verifying extinctions. The most widely used indirect method is to estimate extinction rates by reversing the species-area accumulation curve, extrapolating backwards to smaller areas to calculate expected species loss. Estimates of extinction rates based on this method are almost always much higher than those actually observed(2-5). This discrepancy gave rise to the concept of an &#39;extinction debt&#39;, referring to species &#39;committed to extinction&#39; owing to habitat loss and reduced population size but not yet extinct during a non-equilibrium period(6,7). Here we show that the extinction debt as currently defined is largely a sampling artefact due to an unrecognized difference between the underlying sampling problems when constructing a species-area relationship (SAR) and when extrapolating species extinction from habitat loss. The key mathematical result is that the area required to remove the last individual of a species (extinction) is larger, almost always much larger, than the sample area needed to encounter the first individual of a species, irrespective of species distribution and spatial scale. We illustrate these results with data from a global network of large, mapped forest plots and ranges of passerine bird species in the continental USA; and we show that overestimation can be greater than 160%. Although we conclude that extinctions caused by habitat loss require greater loss of habitat than previously thought, our results must not lead to complacency about extinction due to habitat loss, which is a real and growing threat. en
dc.relation.ispartof Nature en
dc.title Species-area relationships always overestimate extinction rates from habitat loss en
dc.type Journal Article en
dc.identifier.srbnumber 101056
dc.identifier.doi 10.1038/nature09985
rft.jtitle Nature
rft.volume 473
rft.issue 7347
rft.spage 368
rft.epage 371
dc.description.SIUnit Peer-Reviewed en
dc.description.SIUnit STRI en
dc.citation.spage 368
dc.citation.epage 371


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search DSpace


Browse

My Account

Statistics