Separating Macroecological Pattern and Process: Comparing Ecological, Economic, and Geological Systems
AffiliationSky School, University of Arizona
Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Arizona
MetadataShow full item record
PublisherPublic Library of Science
CitationSeparating Macroecological Pattern and Process: Comparing Ecological, Economic, and Geological Systems 2014, 9 (11):e112850 PLoS ONE
Rights© 2014 Blonder et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Collection InformationThis item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at firstname.lastname@example.org.
AbstractTheories of biodiversity rest on several macroecological patterns describing the relationship between species abundance and diversity. A central problem is that all theories make similar predictions for these patterns despite disparate assumptions. A troubling implication is that these patterns may not reflect anything unique about organizational principles of biology or the functioning of ecological systems. To test this, we analyze five datasets from ecological, economic, and geological systems that describe the distribution of objects across categories in the United States. At the level of functional form (‘first-order effects’), these patterns are not unique to ecological systems, indicating they may reveal little about biological process. However, we show that mechanism can be better revealed in the scale-dependency of first-order patterns (‘second-order effects’). These results provide a roadmap for biodiversity theory to move beyond traditional patterns, and also suggest ways in which macroecological theory can constrain the dynamics of economic systems.
DescriptionUA Open Access Publishing Fund
NoteOpen access journal
VersionFinal published version