张入匀等(2019)的文章勘误

张入匀等发表于《生物多样性》2019年第12期(1279–1290页)的文章《鼎湖山南亚热带常绿阔叶林叶功能性状沿群落垂直层次的种内变异》中作者提供的原稿有以下错误: (1)图6及其对应的结果有误; (2)图5和图7中有部分小图未标示对数转换, 现予以更正。     

How to allow SAR collapse across local and continental scales: a resolution of the controversy between Storch et al. (2012) and Lazarina et al. (2013)

Up‐scaling species richness from local to continental scales is an unsolved problem of macroecology. Macroecologists hope that proper up‐scaling can uncover the hidden rules that underlie spatial patterns in species richness, but a machinery to up‐scale species richness also has a purely practical side at the scales and for the habitats where direct observations cannot be performed. The species–area relationship (SAR) could provide a tool for up‐scaling, but no valid method has yet been put forward. Such a method would have resulted from Storch et al.'s (2012) suggestion that there is a universal curve to which each rescaled SAR collapses, if Lazarina et al. (2013) had not shown that it does not: both arguments were supported by data analyses. Here we present an analytical model for mainland SAR and argue in favour of the latter authors. We identify 1) the variation in mean species‐range size, 2) the variation in forces that drive SAR at various scales, and 3) the finite‐area effect, as the reasons for the absence of collapse. Finally, we suggest a rescaling that might fix the problem. We conclude, however, that ecologists are still far from finding a practical, robust and easy‐to‐use solution for up‐scaling species richness from SARs.     

Reply to response to Dyck et al. (2007) on polar bears and climate change in western Hudson Bay by Stirling et al. (2008)

We address the three main issues raised by Stirling et al. [Stirling, I., Derocher, A.E., Gough, W.A., Rode, K., in press. Response to Dyck et al. (2007) on polar bears and climate change in western Hudson Bay. Ecol. Complexity]: (1) evidence of the role of climate warming in affecting the western Hudson Bay polar bear population, (2) responses to suggested importance of human–polar bear interactions, and (3) limitations on polar bear adaptation to projected climate change. We assert that our original paper did not provide any “alternative explanations [that] are largely unsupported by the data” or misrepresent the original claims by Stirling et al. [Stirling, I., Lunn, N.J., Iacozza, I., 1999. Long-term trends in the population ecology of polar bears in western Hudson Bay in relation to climate change. Arctic 52, 294–306], Derocher et al. [Derocher, A.E., Lunn, N.J., Stirling, I., 2004. Polar bears in a warming climate. Integr. Comp. Biol. 44, 163–176], and other peer-approved papers authored by Stirling and colleagues. In sharp contrast, we show that the conclusion of Stirling et al. [Stirling, I., Derocher, A.E., Gough, W.A., Rode, K., in press. Response to Dyck et al. (2007) on polar bears and climate change in western Hudson Bay. Ecol. Complexity] – suggesting warming temperatures (and other related climatic changes) are the predominant determinant of polar bear population status, not only in western Hudson (WH) Bay but also for populations elsewhere in the Arctic – is unsupportable by the current scientific evidence.The commentary by Stirling et al. [Stirling, I., Derocher, A.E., Gough, W.A., Rode, K., in press. Response to Dyck et al. (2007) on polar bears and climate change in western Hudson Bay. Ecol. Complexity] is an example of uni-dimensional, or reductionist thinking, which is not useful when assessing effects of climate change on complex ecosystems. Polar bears of WH are exposed to a multitude of environmental perturbations including human interference and factors (e.g., unknown seal population size, possible competition with polar bears from other populations) such that isolation of any single variable as the certain root cause (i.e., climate change in the form of warming spring air temperatures), without recognizing confounding interactions, is imprudent, unjustified and of questionable scientific utility. Dyck et al. [Dyck, M.G., Soon, W., Baydack, R.K., Legates, D.R., Baliunas, S., Ball, T.F., Hancock, L.O., 2007. Polar bears of western Hudson Bay and climate change: Are warming spring air temperatures the “ultimate” survival control factor? Ecol. Complexity, 4, 73–84. doi:10.1016/j.ecocom.2007.03.002] agree that some polar bear populations may be negatively impacted by future environmental changes; but an oversimplification of the complex ecosystem interactions (of which humans are a part) may not be beneficial in studying external effects on polar bears. Science evolves through questioning and proposing hypotheses that can be critically tested, in the absence of which, as Krebs and Borteaux [Krebs, C.J., Berteaux, D., 2006. Problems and pitfalls in relating climate variability to population dynamics. Clim. Res. 32, 143–149] observe, “we will be little more than storytellers.”