Abstract
Reeve et al. (2016, Ecography, 39, 990-997) found that ecologically flexible endemics dominate Indo-Pacific bird communities. This negative relationship between local abundance and global range size contrasts strongly with the positive range size-abundance relationship “rule,” which would predict community dominance by globally widespread species. Theuerkauf et al. (2017, Journal of Biogeography, 44, 2161–2163) provide new data from New Caledonia which they claim invalidate our study. They find positive relationships between local abundance and local range size, which they attribute to endemic species having narrower habitat niches than globally widespread species. We reanalysed their data using global range sizes, corroborating the pattern we originally reported: negative relationships between local abundance and global range size, driven by a subset of adaptable endemic species. We stress the importance of being explicit about the scale of ecological mechanisms, and ensuring that the scale of analysis matches the scale of interpretation.
Highlights
Reeve et al (2016, Ecography, 39, 990-997) found that ecologically flexible endemics dominate Indo-Pacific bird communities
Theuerkauf et al (2017) claim that our study is flawed on four points: (a) that the negative range size abundance relationships we detected are not real; (b) that we misunderstood the dynamics between globally widespread and endemic species that drive the relationship; (c) that our sampling effort was “very small” and (d) that we overlook that abundance may be lower near range edges, constituting a “methodological error.”
The first and main criticism by Theuerkauf et al (2017) is based on the superficial disagreement between the negative range sizeabundance relationships we reported and the positive relationships they found
Summary
Reeve et al (2016, Ecography, 39, 990-997) found that ecologically flexible endemics dominate Indo-Pacific bird communities. Theuerkauf et al (2017) claim that our study is flawed on four points: (a) that the negative range size abundance relationships we detected are not real; (b) that we misunderstood the dynamics between globally widespread and endemic species that drive the relationship; (c) that our sampling effort was “very small” and (d) that we overlook that abundance may be lower near range edges, constituting a “methodological error.” None of these critiques stand up to further examination. We point out that there is broad consensus in the literature that comparing mean abundance as derived by the second method to site occupancy is not ecologically informative in the context of range size-abundance relationships.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
