Power Through or Keep Looking? Comparing Species‐Area Relationships of Habitat Fragments and Their Drivers in Different Ecoregions

Our study aimed to (1) determine how the shape varies and mechanisms influence species-area relationships within the same taxon but between different ecoregions and (2) determine how slope (<i>z</i>) and intercept (<i>c</i>) values of the linearized power model were influenced by ecoregion. Location: Madagascar. Taxon: Arboreal mammals (lemurs). We surveyed arboreal mammals (lemurs) in 42 tropical dry deciduous forest fragments in Ambanjabe Field Site in Ankarafantsika National Park in Western Madagascar and 27 primary mid-elevation raiforest fragments in the Tsinjoarivo-Ambalaomby new protected area in Eastern Madagascar using line-transect methods. We determined which of 20 species-area models were the most likely using the '<i>sars</i>' R package and AICc in each ecoregion. We compared <i>z</i> and <i>c</i> values of the power model in each ecoregion using ANCOVA. We assessed what drove the shape of the SARs using the Measurement of Biodiversity framework. We found that SAR models differed between ecoregions, with the power model (AICc = 89.04) as the most likely in the west and the Monod model (AICc = 86.98) followed by three candidate models (Kobayashi, AICc = 87.02; logarithmic, AICc = 87.6; and negative exponential, AICc = 88.61) in the east. We found no significant difference in <i>z</i> values between ecoregions (<i>F</i> <sub>1,66</sub> = 2.991, <i>p</i> = 0.088) and a non-significant trend in <i>c</i> values between ecoregions (<i>F</i> <sub>1,65</sub> = 3.938, <i>p</i> = 0.051). Spatial aggregation of species drove species richness patterns in the west, and species diversity and evenness drove species richness patterns in the east. Our study demonstrates that while the power and negative exponential model are good starting points, other models are also likely models to describe SARs in arboreal mammals such as primates. These patterns can reflect different mechanisms driving SARs. Ecoregion was not strongly related to differences in either <i>z</i> or <i>c</i> values of the power model.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Ecology and Evolution
Published
2025-08-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.71928
Primary Topic
Primate Behavior and Ecology
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Power Through or Keep Looking? Comparing Species‐Area Relationships of Habitat Fragments and Their Drivers in Different Ecoregions

Shawn M. Lehman, Alexandria E. Cosby, Mamy Razafitsalama, Mitchell T. Irwin et al.
Ecology and Evolution
Primate Behavior and Ecology
article

Power Through or Keep Looking? Comparing Species‐Area Relationships of Habitat Fragments and Their Drivers in Different Ecoregions

Shawn M. Lehman, Alexandria E. Cosby, Mamy Razafitsalama, Mitchell T. Irwin, Travis S. Steffens, Jean‐Luc Raharison
article en

Abstract

Our study aimed to (1) determine how the shape varies and mechanisms influence species-area relationships within the same taxon but between different ecoregions and (2) determine how slope (<i>z</i>) and intercept (<i>c</i>) values of the linearized power model were influenced by ecoregion. Location: Madagascar. Taxon: Arboreal mammals (lemurs). We surveyed arboreal mammals (lemurs) in 42 tropical dry deciduous forest fragments in Ambanjabe Field Site in Ankarafantsika National Park in Western Madagascar and 27 primary mid-elevation raiforest fragments in the Tsinjoarivo-Ambalaomby new protected area in Eastern Madagascar using line-transect methods. We determined which of 20 species-area models were the most likely using the '<i>sars</i>' R package and AICc in each ecoregion. We compared <i>z</i> and <i>c</i> values of the power model in each ecoregion using ANCOVA. We assessed what drove the shape of the SARs using the Measurement of Biodiversity framework. We found that SAR models differed between ecoregions, with the power model (AICc = 89.04) as the most likely in the west and the Monod model (AICc = 86.98) followed by three candidate models (Kobayashi, AICc = 87.02; logarithmic, AICc = 87.6; and negative exponential, AICc = 88.61) in the east. We found no significant difference in <i>z</i> values between ecoregions (<i>F</i> <sub>1,66</sub> = 2.991, <i>p</i> = 0.088) and a non-significant trend in <i>c</i> values between ecoregions (<i>F</i> <sub>1,65</sub> = 3.938, <i>p</i> = 0.051). Spatial aggregation of species drove species richness patterns in the west, and species diversity and evenness drove species richness patterns in the east. Our study demonstrates that while the power and negative exponential model are good starting points, other models are also likely models to describe SARs in arboreal mammals such as primates. These patterns can reflect different mechanisms driving SARs. Ecoregion was not strongly related to differences in either <i>z</i> or <i>c</i> values of the power model.

Ecology and EvolutionVol. 15(8)
Northern Illinois University (US), University of Toronto (CA), Catholic University of Madagascar (MG), Madagascar Biodiversity Partnership (MG), Association Vahatra (MG), Institut Pasteur de Madagascar (MG), University of Guelph (CA)
Explorers Club, Primate Conservation, American Society of Primatologists, Margot Marsh Biodiversity Foundation, University of Guelph, University of Toronto, Stony Brook University, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
Life in Land
Openalex Percentile: Top 77%
Primate Behavior and Ecology
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.