@article {195,
	title = {Universal species-area and endemics-area relationships at continental scales},
	journal = {NatureNatureNature},
	volume = {488},
	number = {7409},
	year = {2012},
	note = {Storch, DavidKeil, PetrJetz, WalterengResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov{\textquoteright}tResearch Support, U.S. Gov{\textquoteright}t, Non-P.H.S.England2012/06/23 06:00Nature. 2012 Aug 2;488(7409):78-81. doi: 10.1038/nature11226.},
	month = {Aug 2},
	pages = {78-81},
	abstract = {Despite the broad conceptual and applied relevance of how the number of species or endemics changes with area (the species-area and endemics-area relationships (SAR and EAR)), our understanding of universality and pervasiveness of these patterns across taxa and regions has remained limited. The SAR has traditionally been approximated by a power law, but recent theories predict a triphasic SAR in logarithmic space, characterized by steeper increases in species richness at both small and large spatial scales. Here we uncover such universally upward accelerating SARs for amphibians, birds and mammals across the world{\textquoteright}s major landmasses. Although apparently taxon-specific and continent-specific, all curves collapse into one universal function after the area is rescaled by using the mean range sizes of taxa within continents. In addition, all EARs approximately follow a power law with a slope close to 1, indicating that for most spatial scales there is roughly proportional species extinction with area loss. These patterns can be predicted by a simulation model based on the random placement of contiguous ranges within a domain. The universality of SARs and EARs after rescaling implies that both total and endemic species richness within an area, and also their rate of change with area, can be estimated by using only the knowledge of mean geographic range size in the region and mean species richness at one spatial scale.},
	keywords = {*Biodiversity, *Ecosystem, *Geography, *Models, Biological, Africa, Algorithms, Americas, Amphibians/physiology, Animals, Asia, Australia, Birds/physiology, Conservation of Natural Resources, Europe, Extinction, Biological, Mammals/physiology, Species Specificity},
	isbn = {1476-4687 (Electronic)0028-0836 (Linking)},
	author = {Storch, D. and Keil, P. and Jetz, W.}
}
@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 {200,
	title = {Global tests of biodiversity concordance and the importance of endemism},
	journal = {NatureNatureNature},
	volume = {440},
	number = {7081},
	year = {2006},
	note = {Lamoreux, John FMorrison, John CRicketts, Taylor HOlson, David MDinerstein, EricMcKnight, Meghan WShugart, Herman HengResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov{\textquoteright}tEngland2005/12/31 09:00Nature. 2006 Mar 9;440(7081):212-4. Epub 2005 Dec 28.},
	month = {Mar 9},
	pages = {212-4},
	abstract = {Understanding patterns of biodiversity distribution is essential to conservation strategies, but severe data constraints make surrogate measures necessary. For this reason, many studies have tested the performance of terrestrial vertebrates as surrogates for overall species diversity, but these tests have typically been limited to a single taxon or region. Here we show that global patterns of richness are highly correlated among amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals, as are endemism patterns. Furthermore, we demonstrate that although the correlation between global richness and endemism is low, aggregate regions selected for high levels of endemism capture significantly more species than expected by chance. Although areas high in endemism have long been targeted for the protection of narrow-ranging species, our findings provide evidence that endemism is also a useful surrogate for the conservation of all terrestrial vertebrates.},
	keywords = {*Biodiversity, Animals, Conservation of Natural Resources, Models, Biological, Population Density, Vertebrates/*physiology},
	isbn = {1476-4687 (Electronic)0028-0836 (Linking)},
	author = {Lamoreux, J. F. and Morrison, J. C. and Ricketts, T. H. and Olson, D. M. and Dinerstein, E. and McKnight, M. W. and Shugart, H. H.}
}
@article {202,
	title = {Have we overstated the tropical biodiversity crisis?},
	journal = {Trends Ecol EvolTrends Ecol EvolTrends in Ecology \& Evolution},
	volume = {22},
	number = {2},
	year = {2007},
	note = {Laurance, William FengEngland2006/10/03 09:00Trends Ecol Evol. 2007 Feb;22(2):65-70. Epub 2006 Sep 29.},
	month = {Feb},
	pages = {65-70},
	abstract = {Tropical forests are the most biologically diverse and ecologically complex of terrestrial ecosystems, and are disappearing at alarming rates. It has long been suggested that rapid forest loss and degradation in the tropics, if unabated, could ultimately precipitate a wave of species extinctions, perhaps comparable to mass extinction events in the geological history of the Earth. However, a vigorous debate has erupted following a study by Wright and Muller-Landau that challenges the notion of large-scale tropical extinctions, at least over the next century. Here, I summarize this controversy and describe how the debate is stimulating a serious examination of the causes and biological consequences of future tropical deforestation.},
	keywords = {*Biodiversity, *Ecosystem, *Trees, *Tropical Climate, Animals, Conservation of Natural Resources, Environment, Extinction, Biological, Forestry, Human Activities, Humans, Population Density, Social Planning},
	isbn = {0169-5347 (Print)0169-5347 (Linking)},
	author = {Laurance, W. F.}
}
