@article {196,
	title = {Species-area relationships always overestimate extinction rates from habitat loss},
	journal = {Nature},
	volume = {473},
	number = {7347},
	year = {2011},
	note = {He, FangliangHubbell, Stephen PengResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov{\textquoteright}tEngland2011/05/20 06:00Nature. 2011 May 19;473(7347):368-71. doi: 10.1038/nature09985.},
	month = {May 19},
	pages = {368-71},
	abstract = {<p>Extinction from habitat loss is the signature conservation problem of the twenty-first century. 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. 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. 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.</p>
},
	keywords = {*Ecosystem, *Extinction, Biological, *Models, Statistical, Animals, Biodiversity, Models, Biological, Passeriformes/classification, Population Density, Trees/growth \& development, United States},
	isbn = {1476-4687 (Electronic)0028-0836 (Linking)},
	author = {He, F. and Hubbell, S. P.}
}
@article {198,
	title = {The tempo and mode of evolution: body sizes of island mammals},
	journal = {EvolutionEvolution},
	volume = {65},
	number = {7},
	year = {2011},
	note = {Raia, PasqualeMeiri, Shaieng2011/07/07 06:00Evolution. 2011 Jul;65(7):1927-34. doi: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2011.01263.x. Epub 2011 Mar 19.},
	month = {Jul},
	pages = {1927-34},
	abstract = {The tempo and mode of body size evolution on islands are believed to be well known. It is thought that body size evolves relatively quickly on islands toward the mammalian modal value, thus generating extreme cases of size evolution and the island rule. Here, we tested both theories in a phylogenetically explicit context, by using two different species-level mammalian phylogenetic hypotheses limited to sister clades dichotomizing into an exclusively insular and an exclusively mainland daughter nodes. Taken as a whole, mammals were found to show a largely punctuational mode of size evolution. We found that, accounting for this, and regardless of the phylogeny used, size evolution on islands is no faster than on the continents. We compared different selection regimes using a set of Ornstein-Uhlenbeck models to examine the effects of insularity of the mode of evolution. The models strongly supported clade-specific selection regimes. Under this regime, however, an evolutionary model allowing insular species to evolve differently from their mainland relatives performs worse than a model that ignores insularity as a factor. Thus, insular taxa do not experience statistically different selection from their mainland relatives.},
	keywords = {*Biological Evolution, *Body Size, Animals, Environment, Geography, Mammals/genetics/growth \& development/*physiology, Models, Genetic, Phenotype, Phylogeny, Selection, Genetic},
	isbn = {1558-5646 (Electronic)0014-3820 (Linking)},
	author = {Raia, P. and Meiri, S.}
}
@article {126,
	title = {贵州剑河县珍稀及特有植物种类资源研究},
	journal = {种子种子},
	volume = {30},
	number = {12},
	year = {2011},
	pages = {58-61},
	author = {姜金华 and 张华海}
}
@article {119,
	title = {阳明山珍稀特有植物的多样性及其保护利用初探},
	journal = {湖北农业科学湖北农业科学},
	volume = {50},
	number = {22},
	year = {2011},
	pages = {4639-4643},
	author = {张卫阳 and 蒋建军}
}
@article {109,
	title = {中国植物区系特有现象研究进展},
	journal = {吉林农业吉林农业},
	volume = {11},
	year = {2011},
	pages = {154},
	author = {祝应华 and 严建斌 and 林昌勇}
}
@article {77,
	title = {The geography of speciation in narrow-range endemics of the {\textquoteleft}Haenydra{\textquoteright}lineage (Coleoptera, Hydraenidae, Hydraena)},
	journal = {Journal of biogeographyJournal of Biogeography},
	volume = {38},
	number = {3},
	year = {2011},
	pages = {502-516},
	isbn = {1365-2699},
	author = {Ribera, Ignacio and Castro, Agust{\'\i}n and D{\'\i}az, Juan A and Garrido, Josefina and Izquierdo, Ana and J{\"a}ch, Manfred A and Valladares, Luis F}
}
@article {82,
	title = {中国种子植物特有属的地理分布格局},
	journal = {生物多样性生物多样性},
	volume = {19},
	number = {04},
	year = {2011},
	pages = {414-423},
	isbn = {1005-0094},
	author = {陈圣宾 and 欧阳志云 and 方瑜 and 李振基}
}
@article {22,
	title = {Cross-scale variation in species richness{\textendash}environment associations},
	journal = {Global Ecology and BiogeographyGlobal Ecology and Biogeography},
	volume = {20},
	number = {3},
	year = {2011},
	pages = {464-474},
	isbn = {1466-8238},
	author = {Belmaker, Jonathan and Jetz, Walter}
}
