Search

Local-regional (LR) species diversity plots were conceived to assess the contribution of regional and local processes in shaping the patterns of biological diversity, but have been used also to explore the scaling of diversity in terms of its alpha, beta, and gamma components. Here we explore the idea that patterns in the geographical ranges of species over a continent can determine the shape of small region to large region (SRLR) plots, which are equivalent to LR plots when comparing the diversity of sites at two regional scales. To test that idea, we analysed the diversity patterns at two regional scales for the mammals of North America, defined as the mainland from Alaska and Canada to Panama. We developed a theoretical model relating average range size of species over a large-scale region with its average regional point species diversity (RPD). Then, we generated a null model of expected SRLR plots based on theoretical predictions. Species diversities at two scales were modelled using linear and saturation functions for Type I and Type II SRLR relationships, respectively. We applied the models to the case of North American mammals by examining the regional diversity and the RPD for 21 large-scale quadrats (with area equal to 160,000 km2), arranged along a latitudinal gradient. Our model showed that continental and large-scale regional patterns of distribution of species can generate both types of SRLR relationship, and that these patterns can be reflected in LR plots without invoking any kind of local processes. We found that North American nonvolant mammals follow a Type I SRLR relationship, whereas bats follow a Type II pattern. This difference was linked to patterns in which species of the two mammalian groups distribute in geographical space. Traditional LR plots and the new SRLR plots are useful tools in exploring the scaling of species diversity and in showing the relationship between distribution and diversity. Their usefulness in comparing the relative role of local and regional processes is, however, very limited. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It has been suggested that alien species with close indigenous relatives in the introduced range may have reduced chances of successful establishment and invasion (Darwin's naturalization hypothesis). Studies trying to test this have in fact been addressing four different hypotheses, and the same data can support some while rejecting others. In this paper, we argue that the phylogenetic pattern will change depending on the spatial and phylogenetic scales considered. Expectations and observations from invasion biology and the study of natural communities are that at the spatial scale relevant to competitive interactions, closely related species will be spatially separated, whereas at the regional scale, species in the same genera or families will tend to co-occur more often than by chance. We also argue that patterns in the relatedness of indigenous and naturalized plants are dependent on the continental/island setting, spatial occupancy levels, and on the group of organisms under scrutiny. Understanding how these factors create a phylogenetic pattern in invasions will help us predict which groups are more likely to invade where, and should contribute to general ecological theory. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The constraint envelope describing the relationship between geographical range size and body size has usually been explained by a minimum viable population size model, furnishing a strong argument for species selection if geographical range size turns out to be ‘heritable’. Recent papers have questioned this assumption of nonzero geographical range heritability at a phylogenetic level, meaning that the logic that constraint envelopes provide support for higher-level selection fails. However, I believe that analysis of constraint envelopes can still furnish insights for the hierarchical expansion of evolutionary theory because the fitness furnished by variation in body size, which is frequently measured as a highly ‘heritable’ trait at the species level, can be partitioned into anagenetic and cladogenetic components. The constraint envelope furnishes an explicit mechanism for large-body biased extinction rates influencing the distribution of body size. More importantly, it is possible to envisage a scenario in which anagenetic trends driving an increase in body size in higher latitudes within species (Bergmann's rule) are counteracted by available habitat area or continental edges constraining overall species distribution in these higher latitudes, increasing the probability of extinction. Under this combined model, faunas at higher latitudes and under habitat constraints may reach equilibrium points between these opposing hierarchical adaptive forces at smaller body size than faunas with less intense higher-level constraints and will tend to be more right-skewed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]