6533b82dfe1ef96bd1290a7d

RESEARCH PRODUCT

Species–area relationships in continuous vegetation: Evidence from Palaearctic grasslands

Monika JanišováAnne MimetSteffen BochAnna KuzemkoJuan Antonio CamposThomas J. MatthewsSebastian WolfrumMassimo TerziPieter De FrenneRemigiusz PielechGiovanna PotenzaRobert K. PeetCorrado MarcenòCorrado MarcenòIwona DembiczIwona DembiczChristian DolnikMarta CarboniOrsolya ValkóDavid StorchŁUkasz KozubRiccardo GuarinoGiampiero CiaschettiChristian PedersenArkadiusz NowakArkadiusz NowakDenys VynokurovHannah J. WhiteJohn-arvid GrytnesFranz EsslJiri DolezalJiri DolezalManuel J. SteinbauerIdoia BiurrunMichael MantheyLaura CancellieriEwelina KlichowskaEwelina KlichowskaEdy FantinatoBehlül GülerAlireza NaqinezhadTimo ConradiWerner UlrichAlessandro ChiarucciVincent PellissierItziar Garcia-mijangosJürgen DenglerJürgen DenglerGoffredo FilibeckLeonardo RosatiManuela WinklerManuela Winkler

subject

curvesshapesspecies– area relationship (SAR)Michaelis–Menten functionBiomeGrasslandVegetation typelogarithmic functionTaxonomic rankLichenNested‐plot Samplinggeography.geographical_feature_categorypower lawEcologyVDP::Landbruks- og Fiskerifag: 900biologyEcologySettore BIO/02 - Botanica SistematicaPalaearctic grasslandspecies-area relationship (SAR)Grasslandddc:nonlinear regressionscale dependenceMichaelis–Menten Functionlogarithmic function; Michaelis–Menten function; minimal area; nested-plot sampling; nonlinear regression; Palaearctic grassland; plant biodiversity; power law; scaling law; species–area relationship (SAR)environmentnested‐plot sampling570Evolutionscaling lawSpecies-area relationshipminimal areadiversityspecies–area relationship (SAR)Behavior and Systematicsspecies- area relationship (SAR)ddc:570577: Ökologienested-plot samplingEcology Evolution Behavior and Systematics580geographymodelfungiBiology and Life Sciences500Species diversityPlant communitySpecies–area Relationship (SAR)Earth and Environmental SciencesMichaelis-Menten functionplant biodiversitySpecies richnessrichness

description

Aim 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 cm(2) to 1,024 m(2). 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. We thank all vegetation scientists who carefully collected multi‐ scale plant diversity data from Palaearctic Grasslands available in GrassPlot. The Eurasian Dry Grassland Group (EDGG) and the International Association for Vegetation Science (IAVS) sup‐ ported the EDGG Field Workshops, which generated a core part of the GrassPlot data. The Bavarian Research Alliance (grant BayIntAn_UBT_2017_58) and the Bayreuth Center of Ecology and Environmental Research (BayCEER) funded the initial GrassPlot workshop during which the database was established and the cur‐ rent paper was initiated. A.N. acknowledges support by the Center for International Scientific Studies and Collaboration (CISSC), Iran. C.M., I.B., I.G.‐M and J.A.C. were funded by the Basque Government (IT936‐16). D.V. carried out the research supported by a grant of the State Fund For Fundamental Research Ф83/53427. G.F. carried out the research in the frame of the MIUR initiative ‘Department of excellence' (Law 232/2016). I.D. was supported by the Polish National Science Centre (grant DEC‐2013/09/N/NZ8/03234). J.Do. was supported by the Czech Science Foundation (GA 17‐19376S). M.J. was supported by grant by Slovak Academy of Sciences (VEGA 02/0095/19). W.U. ac‐ knowledges support from the Polish National Science Centre (grant 2017/27/B/NZ8/00316).

10.1111/jbi.13697https://hdl.handle.net/11391/1539994