A sampling-theory framework for richness-uniqueness relationships
Wang, X.; Xing, D.
Show abstract
Ecological uniqueness, commonly quantified by local contribution to beta diversity (LCBD), is important for understanding and conserving biodiversity. Its widely documented negative relationship with species richness has led to the view that species-poor communities may be disproportionately important for regional diversity. Here, we derive neutral expectations for richness-uniqueness relationships and show that negative slopes can arise from neutral assembly rather than necessarily reflecting an ecological signal of uniqueness. Neutral simulations validate the analytical expectations across abundance- and incidence-based LCBD formulations. Applying the framework to the Barro Colorado Island tropical forest and North American Breeding Bird Survey, we show that accounting for neutral sampling expectations substantially changes the ranking and spatial distribution of ecologically unique sites. By separating neutral sampling expectations from excess uniqueness, our framework provides a principled basis for interpreting ecological uniqueness and informing biodiversity conservation.
Matching journals
The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- The variability spectrum of ecological communities: How common and rare species shape stability patterns 94%
- Indirect interactions driven by soil effects enable coexistence among competing plant species 93%
- Structural asymmetry in biotic interactions as a tool to understand and predict ecological persistence 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Janzen-Connell effects and habitat-induced aggregation synergistically promote species coexistence 95%
- The equilibrium theory of biodiversity dynamics: a general framework for scaling species richness and community abundance along environmental gradients 93%
- Nonlinear Effects of Intraspecific Competition Alter Landscape-Wide Upscaling of Ecosystem Function 92%
Similar papers in this journal
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.