|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| The '''body size-species richness''' distribution is a pattern observed in the way [[taxa]] are distributed over large spatial scales. The number of [[species]] that exhibit small body size generally far exceed the number of species that are large-bodied. [[Macroecology]] has long sought to understand the mechanisms that underlie the patterns of [[biodiversity]], such as the body size-species richness pattern.
| | It can be a trial to acquire the insurance plan that you require for an property that you actually have in your possession. This can be as a result of the fact that insurance agencies have the opinion that there is a greater danger when assuring an vacant property to be used and that these houses have a greater need from insurers compared to standard occupied property. <br><br> |
|
| |
|
| This pattern was first observed by MacArthur and Hutchinson (1959),<ref name="Hutch1959">Hutchinson GE & MacArthur RH (1959) A theoretical ecological model of size distributions among species of animals. American Naturalist 93(869):117-125.</ref> and it appears to apply equally well to a broad range of taxa: from birds and mammals to insects, bacteria (May, 1978;<ref name="May1978">May, R. Diversity of insect faunas. Blackwell scientific publications:London. 1978. 188-203.</ref> Brown and Nicoletto, 1991<ref name="BrownNicoletto1991">Brown JH & Nicoletto PF (1991) Spatial scaling of the species composition - body masses of North-American land mammals. American Naturalist 138(6):1478-1512.</ref>) and deep sea gastropods (McClain, 2004<ref name="McClain2004">McClain CR (2004) Connecting species richness, abundance and body size in deep-sea gastropods. Global Ecology and Biogeography 13(4):327-334.</ref>). Nonetheless, its ubiquity remains undecided. Most studies focus on the distribution of taxonomic fractions of largely non-interacting species such as birds or mammals; this article is primarily based on those data.
| | There"s of course the increased risk of vandalism and the similar when working with vacant homes. These houses are subject the vandalism as there is no existence on the house to curb the vandals. They do not have the fear connected with getting caught and therefore as not hindered in this action. There is also the situation of the throwing of bricks through windows along with a heightened possibility of fires and general property destruction. <br><br>Squatters are another problem on these properties as they can be unoccupied for long periods and the owners can often neglect to keep proper tabs on the property as well. This results in the squatters having free reign around the property and they could also cause untold damages as well. The injuries that occur on places are also not quickly detected and therefore can result in the develop-ment of-the problem in-to one that"s more severe. <br><br>Still another problem of concern is whether the property is carded to be let in the future. [http://jazztimes.com/community/profiles/390822-sandiegofuh Article] is a offensive resource for new information about the inner workings of it. If you think any thing, you will perhaps hate to read about [http://m.bizcommunity.com/View.aspx?ct=5&cst=0&i=191003&eh=4Rwlj&msg=y&us=1 san diego property management]. Many insurance providers also work from this case as it could lead to the neglect of the house from the tenants as well. Maybe not everyone is lucky enough to get good tenants that care for their place as though it was their particular. <br><br>There are many reasons where the property visits property and these include situations where there has been the death of the prior owner and that vacant property insurance might be required and is for sale. There may also be times where the property is in the process of the change of title, if you"re performing repairs and if the property is unsuitable for work. You have to ensure in these intervals that the property is covered specifically by empty property insurance. <br><br>Vacant property insurance agencies have to be sure that there is a decrease in the likelihood of losses occurring on the property that they"re considering addressing. If you are interested in families, you will maybe fancy to study about [http://www.streetfire.net/profile/webcommercialawm.htm close window]. These procedures range from regular assessment of the property, securing off letterboxes and windows and other styles of risk management procedures. In some cases, the coverage provided might be limited to only some areas. In instances similar to this it is essential that the address is enough and handles challenges that might be incurred on the property involved otherwise the insurance will not make any sense. <br><br>In order to source the proper protection it is possible that you may look online and review between providers. This may make sure that you attain the best deal possible where you have the best protection for the lowest premium..<br><br>If you have any issues about where by and how to use [http://www.blogigo.com/woebegonegather23 student health insurance], you can make contact with us at our webpage. |
| | |
| [[File:North american land mammals graph.png|right|thumb|400px|'''Figure 1'''. The Frequency distribution of North American land mammals (n=465). The figure shows a right skewed distribution, with a mode tending to smaller species (50–100 g). The x-axis encompasses mammals ranging in size from 3 grams to 393 kilograms. Redrawn from Brown and Nicoletto (1991)<ref name="BrownNicoletto1991">Brown JH & Nicoletto PF (1991) Spatial scaling of the species composition - body masses of North-American land mammals. American Naturalist 138(6):1478-1512.</ref>
| |
| .]]
| |
| | |
| ==Introduction==
| |
| The body size-[[species richness]] pattern (see fig. 1) has been documented for land mammals across numerous continents such as North America, South America, Eurasia and Africa (Brown and Maurer, 1989;<ref name="BrownMaurer1989">Brown JH & Maurer BA (1989) Macroecology – the division of food and space among species on the continents. Science 243(4895):1145-1150.</ref> Bakker and Kelt, 2000;<ref name="BakkerKelt2000">Bakker VJ & Kelt DA (2000) Scale-dependent patterns in body size distributions of neotropical mammals. Ecology 81(12):3530-3547.</ref> Maurer et al. 1992<ref name="Maurer+1992">Maurer BA, Brown JH, & Rusler RD (1992) The micro and macro in body size evolution. Evolution 46(4):939-953.</ref>). Traditionally the pattern has been explored by plotting the number of species on the y-axis and the [[logarithm]] to the base two of the species body mass (g) on the x-axis. This yields a highly right [[skewed]] body size distribution with a mode centered near species with a mass ranging from 50-100 grams. Although this relationship is very distinct at large spatial scales, the pattern breaks down when the sampling area is small (Hutchinson and MacArthur, 1959;<ref name="Hutch1959"/> Brown and Maurer 1989;<ref name="BrownMaurer1989"/> Brown and Nicoletto 1991;<ref name="BrownNicoletto1991"/> Bakker and Kelt 2000<ref name="BakkerKelt2000"/>).
| |
| | |
| ==Scale Dependence of the Pattern==
| |
| At small spatial scales (e.g. a dozen [[hectares]] or a local [[community]]) the body size-species richness pattern dissolves and the number of species per body size class is almost uniform (i.e. there is an equal number of small and large bodied species in the community (see fig. 2 b)). Researchers have documented this transition by sampling species at different spatial scales; at intermediate spatial scales (e.g. a thousand hectares or a [[biome]]) the body size-species richness distribution begins to shift from being right [[skewed]] (from fewer large-bodied species) towards a [[normal distribution]]. Finally, when macroecologists compare the body size-species richness distributions of continents to those of communities the distributions are significantly different (Hutchinson and MacArthur, 1959;<ref name="Hutch1959"/> Brown and Maurer, 1989;<ref name="BrownMaurer1989"/> Brown and Nicoletto, 1991;<ref name="BrownNicoletto1991"/> Bakker and Kelt, 2000<ref name="BakkerKelt2000"/>) (see fig. 1 vs. fig. 2 b)).
| |
| | |
| [[File:Chichuahuan biome land mammals.png|left|thumb|200px|'''Figure 2. a)''']]
| |
| [[File:Bernalillo community graph.png|none|thumb|200px|'''Figure 2. b)''']]
| |
| | |
| '''Figure 2.''' The Frequency distribution of land mammals at two different spatial scales. The figure shows a shift from a slightly right [[skewed]] distribution at the biome scale (a) to a [[normal distribution]] at the community level (b). The x-axis ranges from 0 to 20 on a log-scale in both graphs. Redrawn from Brown and Nicoletto (1991).<ref name="BrownNicoletto1991"/>
| |
| | |
| ==Counter Examples==
| |
| Not all geographic subsets of taxonomic groups follow this broad pattern, in contrast, Northwest European land snails exhibit a normal distribution (Hausdorf, 2006<ref name="Hausdorf2006">Hausdorf B (2006) Is the interspecific variation of body size of land snails correlated with rainfall in Israel and Palestine? Acta Oecologica-International Journal of Ecology 30(3):374-379.</ref>). Additionally, the terrestrial mammals of the islands of Madagascar, New Guinea and Australia do not show a right skewed body size-species richness distribution (Maurer et al. 1992<ref name="Maurer+1992"/>). Given the limited amount of non-conforming data it is not possible to determine if this phenomenon is universal or is simply novel in certain environments. Underreporting of taxonomic and geographic subsets that do not conform to this pattern may be partially responsible for this unresolve.
| |
| | |
| ==Possible Mechanisms==
| |
| If it were possible to randomly sample a subset of the known continental species pool for mammals, one would expect the body size-species richness distribution of this sample to roughly mirror that of the entire continent. Since it does not, and if it is assumed that the observed distribution of species among body sizes is not a [[sampling bias]], then some ecological interactions must underlie this pattern. Explanations in the literature suggest the rates of [[speciation]] and/or [[Biological dispersal|dispersal]] ability vary with size and could lead to more small bodied organisms (May, 1978<ref name="May1978">May, R. Diversity of insect faunas. Blackwell scientific publications:London. 1978.188-203.</ref>). Additionally, [[extinction]] risk, [[competition]] and energetic restraints have also been proposed as critical mechanisms that may drive this pattern (Brown and Maurer, 1989;<ref name="BrownMaurer1989"/> Brown and Nicoletto, 1991<ref name="BrownNicoletto1991"/>). Finally, the [[metabolic theory of ecology]] explains how there is a negative relationship between number of individuals (N) and size (M) (<math> N = M ^ {-3/4} </math>), but it is silent on species richness. Remember, while there are fewer individuals in the largest size classes, [[energy]] availability is equal across all classes of interacting organisms (i.e. they share the same energy pool and are thus part of the same ecosystem) (energetic equivalence) (May, 1988<ref name="May1988">May, R (1988) How many species are there on earth? Science 241(4872):1441-1449.</ref>). It is important to note that the 3 sub-mechanisms: dispersal, competition and energetic restraints must in some manner feed back into either speciation or extinction rates as these are the only ultimate processes (see [[Tinbergen's four questions]]) governing the number of species on earth and hence the body size-species richness pattern.
| |
| | |
| ===Speciation Rates=== | |
| Small organisms generally have shorter generation times and are quick to mature and reproduce (May, 1978;<ref name="May1978"/> Denney et al. 2002;<ref name="Denney+2002">Denney NH, Jennings S & Reynolds JD (2002) Life history correlates of maximum population growth rates in marine fishes. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 269(1506):2229-2237.</ref> Savage et al. 2004<ref name="Savage+2004">Savage VM, Gillooly JF, Brown JH, West GB & Charnov EL (2004) Effects of body size and temperature on population growth. American Naturalist. 163:429-441.</ref>). These traits may promote speciation through increased [[mutation]] and [[selection]] events as molecular evolution scales with [[metabolic rate]] (Gillooly et al. 2005<ref name="Gillooly+2005">Gillooly JF, Allen AP, West GB, & Brown JH (2005) The rate of DNA evolution: Effects of body size and temperature on the molecular clock. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 102(1):140-145.</ref>) and thus with body size. For example, bacteria can evolve a degree of [[antibiotic resistance]] in a very short time period. This [[evolution]] is facilitated by a short generation time and presumably would not be possible for species with slower life histories. Thus, one can think of it as if the “evolutionary clock ticks faster” (May, 1978<ref name="May1978"/>) for small organisms. If this were true then a simple explanation of why there are more small species on earth would be because they speciate faster. However, a recent analysis by Cardillo and colleagues (2003)<ref name="cardillo2003">Cardillo M, Huxtable JS, & Bromham L (2003) Geographic range size, life history and rates of diversification in Australian mammals. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 16(2):282-288.</ref> revealed that body size did not influence the speciation rates of Australia’s mammals. Similarly, a study using birds failed to demonstrate that body size and speciation rates were negatively correlated (Nee et al. 1992<ref name="Nee1992">Nee S, Mooers A & Harvey P (1992) Tempo and mode of evolution revealed from molecular phylogenies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 89(17):8322-8326.</ref>).
| |
| | |
| ===Differential Extinction Rates===
| |
| It is known that extinction risk is directly correlated to the size of a species population. Small populations tend to go extinct more frequently than large ones (MacArthur and Wilson, 1967<ref name="MacArthurWilson1967">MacArthur, RH & Wilson, EO (1967) The theory of island biogeography. Princeton, New Jersey. Princeton Universal Press.</ref>). As large species require more daily resources they are forced to have low [[population densities]], thereby lowering the size of the population in a given area and allowing each individual to have access to enough resources to survive. In order to increase the population size and avoid extinction, large organisms are constrained to have large ranges (see [[Range (biology)]]). Thus, the extinction of large species with small ranges becomes inevitable (MacArthur and Wilson, 1967;<ref name="MacArthurWilson1967"/> Brown and Maurer, 1989;<ref name="BrownMaurer1989"/> Brown and Nicoletto, 1991<ref name="BrownNicoletto1991">Brown JH & Nicoletto PF (1991) Spatial scaling of the species composition - body masses of North American land mammals. American Naturalist 138(6):1478-1512.</ref>). This results in the amount of space limiting the overall number of large animals that can be present on a continent, while range size (and risk of extinction) prevents large animals from inhabiting only a small area. These constraints undoubtedly have implications for the species richness patterns for both large and small-bodied organisms, however the specifics have yet to be elucidated.
| |
| | |
| ===Dispersal Ability===
| |
| Understanding dispersal is an important mechanism that may underlie the body size-species richness pattern. Mainly, dispersal ability can affect speciation rates in various ways: if an organism is capable of dispersing across great distances which span variable habitat, it will be more likely that individuals that settle in these new areas will be subject to different selection regimes, leading to new species through [[natural selection]]. Alternatively, great dispersal ability can act against the efforts of natural selection by facilitating [[geneflow]]. Thus, species with greater dispersal ability may in fact have lower speciation rates. Then again, if a species disperses long distances and has a large range, it may also be more likely to have its range bisected by natural barriers which could promote [[allopatric speciation]] over evolutionary time.
| |
| | |
| Researchers have shown that body size and dispersal ability do not correlate (Jenkins et al. 2007<ref name="jenkins2007">Jenkins DG, Brescacin CR, Duxbury CV, Elliott JA, Evans JA, Grablow KR, Hillegass M, Lyon BN, Metzger GA, Olandese ML, Pepe D, Silvers GA, Suresch HN, Thompson TN, Trexler CM, Williams GE, Williams NC & Williams SE (2007) Does size matter for dispersal distance? Global Ecology and Biogeography 16(4):415-425.</ref>). However, this finding rests heavily on the fact that active and passive dispersers have been grouped together in the analyses. When the same data are separated into two categories (active and passive dispersers) a pattern emerges. Jenkins and others (2007<ref name="jenkins2007"/>) have found that for active dispersers larger organisms will disperse greater distances. Regardless of this correlation its effects on speciation rates remain unclear.
| |
| | |
| ===Interspecific Competition===
| |
| Could similar sized species be mitigating the effects of competition by avoiding each other? [[Interspecific competition]] is in fact strong among species that are the same size (Bowers and Brown, 1982<ref name="Bowers1982">Bowers MA & Brown JH (1982) Body size and coexistence in desert rodents – chance or community structure. Ecology 63(2):391-400.</ref>). Researchers have proposed that in order to lessen the burden of competition among animals within the same guild (see [[Guild (ecology)]]), they must vary in size (Brown and Maurer, 1989;<ref name="BrownMaurer1989"/> Brown and Nicoletto, 1991<ref name="BrownNicoletto1991"/>). For example, Bowers and Brown (1982)<ref name="Bowers1982"/> found that the number of similar sized species in a community of [[granivorous]] rodents was fewer than expected. They believe that these results suggest that competition between same-sized species is prohibiting co-existence in this community.
| |
| | |
| ===Energetic Constraints===
| |
| A small bodied animal has a greater capacity to be more abundant than a large bodied one. Purely as a function of [[geometry]] many more small things can be packed into a given space than can large things into the same area. However, these limits are generally never reached in ecological systems as other resources become limiting long before the packing limits are reached. Additionally, smaller species may have many more [[ecological niches]] available to them and thus facilitating the diversification of life (Hutchinson and MacArthur, 1959<ref name="Hutch1959"/>).
| |
| | |
| Larger organisms require more food overall (Blackburn and Gaston, 1997<ref name="Gas+1997">Gaston, KJ, TM Blackburn, & JH Lawton (1997) Interspecific abundance-range size relationships: an appraisal of mechanisms. Journal of Animal Ecology 66:579–601.</ref>), however they require less energy per unit of body mass. As a result, larger species are able to survive on a lower quality diet than smaller species. For example, grazing animals make up for their poor quality diet by digesting food longer and are able to extract more energy from it (Maurer et al. 1992<ref name="Maurer+1992"/>). Smaller species tend to [[Specialization (biology)|specialize]] in a habitat that can provide them with a high quality diet.
| |
| | |
| Habitat quality is highly variable and as a result smaller species tend to be present in less of their range. Instead, they are only found in patches of their range where there is good habitat. A correlate to this argument is that the opposite is true for larger species. Larger species have lower [[beta diversity]] and are replaced less frequently across landscapes and as a result tend to occupy more of their range (see [[Occupancy-abundance relationship]] relationships) (Brown and Maurer, 1989;<ref name="BrownMaurer1989"/> Brown and Nicoletto, 1991<ref name="BrownNicoletto1991"/>). This mechanism likely contributes to the shift in body size-species richness distribution observed between continental and local scales.
| |
| | |
| Recently, the [[metabolic theory of ecology]] has been used to explain macroecological patterns. According to May (1978<ref name="May1988"/>) there is equal energy flow through all size classes of interacting organisms. This has implications for the number of individuals in each size class and potentially the number of species as well. May (1978<ref name="May1978"/>) was the first to describe a mathematical equation that could be used to explain the right hand side of the body size-species richness pattern <!-- (see fig. 3) [currently removed; see comment below] -->. His equation states that the number of species (S) is proportional to the length (L) of the species raised to the exponent of negative two (<math> S = L ^ {-2}</math>). This theory is based on data from many different terrestrial animals (mammals, birds, beetles, and butterflies) and has garnered further support from a more recent study by Rice and Gislason (1996).<ref name="Rice+1996">Rice J & Gislason H (1996) Patterns of change in the size spectra of numbers and diversity of the North Sea fish assemblage, as reflected in surveys and models. 53:1214-1225.</ref> These new results also demonstrate a slope of negative two with respect to the right side of the body size-species richness pattern in the fish assemblage of the North Sea. Whether a slope of -2 is universal and what the mechanisms are that underlie this theory remain unclear.
| |
| | |
| <!-- [[File:May slope -2 line.png|none|thumb|400px|'''Figure 3.''' The Frequency distribution of terrestrial animals. Notice the dashed line with slope of -2 corresponds well with the right side of this body size-species richness graph. Redrawn from May (1978<ref name="May1978"/>)]]
| |
| | |
| The above graph is wrong: to demonstrate an exponent of negative two, species richness would also need to be plotted logarithmically. Please do not reinsert the graph until this has been corrected. -->
| |
| | |
| [[File:Intercontinental land mammals.png|thumb|right|'''Figure 3.''' <!-- Was originally Figure 4. See above. --> The Frequency distribution of North American land mammals (n=465). The figure shows a right skewed distribution, with a mode tending to smaller species (50–100 g). Redrawn from Brown and Maurer (1989).<ref name="BrownMaurer1989"/>]]
| |
| | |
| ==See also==
| |
| *[[Macroecology]]
| |
| *[[Metabolic theory of ecology]]
| |
| *[[Niche apportionment models]]
| |
| *[[Occupancy-abundance relationship]]
| |
| *[[Range (biology)]]
| |
| *[[Relative species abundance]]
| |
| *[[Species Richness]]
| |
| | |
| ==References==
| |
| <references/>
| |
| | |
| {{DEFAULTSORT:Body Size And Species Richness}}
| |
| [[Category:Biodiversity]]
| |
It can be a trial to acquire the insurance plan that you require for an property that you actually have in your possession. This can be as a result of the fact that insurance agencies have the opinion that there is a greater danger when assuring an vacant property to be used and that these houses have a greater need from insurers compared to standard occupied property.
There"s of course the increased risk of vandalism and the similar when working with vacant homes. These houses are subject the vandalism as there is no existence on the house to curb the vandals. They do not have the fear connected with getting caught and therefore as not hindered in this action. There is also the situation of the throwing of bricks through windows along with a heightened possibility of fires and general property destruction.
Squatters are another problem on these properties as they can be unoccupied for long periods and the owners can often neglect to keep proper tabs on the property as well. This results in the squatters having free reign around the property and they could also cause untold damages as well. The injuries that occur on places are also not quickly detected and therefore can result in the develop-ment of-the problem in-to one that"s more severe.
Still another problem of concern is whether the property is carded to be let in the future. Article is a offensive resource for new information about the inner workings of it. If you think any thing, you will perhaps hate to read about san diego property management. Many insurance providers also work from this case as it could lead to the neglect of the house from the tenants as well. Maybe not everyone is lucky enough to get good tenants that care for their place as though it was their particular.
There are many reasons where the property visits property and these include situations where there has been the death of the prior owner and that vacant property insurance might be required and is for sale. There may also be times where the property is in the process of the change of title, if you"re performing repairs and if the property is unsuitable for work. You have to ensure in these intervals that the property is covered specifically by empty property insurance.
Vacant property insurance agencies have to be sure that there is a decrease in the likelihood of losses occurring on the property that they"re considering addressing. If you are interested in families, you will maybe fancy to study about close window. These procedures range from regular assessment of the property, securing off letterboxes and windows and other styles of risk management procedures. In some cases, the coverage provided might be limited to only some areas. In instances similar to this it is essential that the address is enough and handles challenges that might be incurred on the property involved otherwise the insurance will not make any sense.
In order to source the proper protection it is possible that you may look online and review between providers. This may make sure that you attain the best deal possible where you have the best protection for the lowest premium..
If you have any issues about where by and how to use student health insurance, you can make contact with us at our webpage.