Journal of Biogeography
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
Thresholds and the species–area relationship: a synthetic analysis of habitat island datasets
Thomas J. Matthews, Manuel J. Steinbauer, Elli Tzirkalli, Kostas A. Triantis and Robert J. Whittaker
Appendix S1 Data source paper summaries and reference list.
Description of the source papers, including taxa, habitat island type, species richness, island area range, number of islands, and the
corresponding best island species–area models across each data transformation. The full references follow the table.
Study
Taxon
Habitat Richness
island
range
type
ArroyoRodríguez &
Mandujano
(2006)
Plants
Forest
Báldi &
Kisbenedek
(1999)
Invertebrates Nonforest
Area
range
(km2)
Number of
islands
Untransformed
Semi-log
transformation
Log–log
transformation
53-83
0.010.756
15
None
significant
None significant
None significant
1-15
0.000180.4
27
None
significant
Piecewise
continuous
(shallow–steep)
Piecewise noslope
Bauer (1989)
Invertebrates Nonforest
46-58
0.0020.14
8
None
significant
None significant
None significant
Baz et al.
(1995)
Invertebrates Forest
26-43
0.03621.15
13
None
significant
None significant
None significant
Bell & Donelly
(2006)
Reptiles
Forest
10-24
0.01430.0688
9
Linear
regression
(positive)
Piecewise noslope
Piecewise noslope
Bennet (1997)
Plants
Nonforest
1741353
0.03246568
18
Piecewise
continuous
(steep–shallow)
Piecewise
continuous
(shallow–steep)
Piecewise
discontinuous
Blake (1986)
Birds
Forest
39-84
0.018-6
14
None
significant
None significant
None significant
Blake & Karr
(1984)
Birds
Forest
4-24
0.018-6
12
Piecewise
continuous
(steep–shallow)
Linear
regression
(positive)
Piecewise
discontinuous
Bowers &
McLaughlin
(1982)
Plants
Nonforest
1951574
1.26-4930
20
None
significant
Linear
regression
(positive)
Linear
regression
(positive)
Brown &
Hutchings
(1997)
Invertebrates Forest
120-242
0.01-1
12
Piecewise
continuous
(steep–shallow)
Linear
regression
(positive)
Linear
regression
(positive)
Carter-Lovejoy
(1982)
Mammals
3-7
0.00160.036
14
Linear
regression
(Positive)
Piecewise noslope
Piecewise noslope
Nonforest
Carter-Lovejoy
(1982)
Plants
Nonforest
25-49
0.00160.036
14
None
significant
None significant
None significant
Castelletta et al.
(2005)
Birds
Nonforest
49-98
0.07-9.35
10
Piecewise
continuous
(steep–shallow)
Piecewise
continuous
(steep–shallow)
Piecewise
continuous
(steep–shallow)
Cayuela et al.
(2006)
Plants
Forest
12-79
0.7156.64
16
None
significant
None significant
None significant
Crooks (2002)
Mammals
Nonforest
2-7
0.02-1.02
29
None
significant
None significant
None significant
Crooks et al.
(2001)
Birds
Nonforest
0-7
0.02-1.02
30
Linear
regression
(positive)
Linear
regression
(positive)
Piecewise
continuous
(steep–shallow)
Crowe (1979)
Plants
Nonforest
9-69
0.0001110.007371
26
Piecewise
continuous
(steep–shallow)
Piecewise
discontinuous
Piecewise
discontinuous
Darlington et
al. (2001)
Invertebrates Forest
0-11
0.0000040.0042
25
Piecewise
discontinuous
Linear
regression
(positive)
Linear
regression
(positive)
Dickman
(1987)
Mammals
Nonforest
2-17
0.00160.2
50
None
significant
Piecewise
continuous
(steep–shallow)
Piecewise
continuous
(steep–shallow)
dos Anjos &
Boçon (1999)
Birds
Forest
45-139
0.005-8.4
12
None
significant
Linear
regression
(positive)
None significant
dos Santos et
al. (2007)
Plants
Forest
47-110
0.1240.634
10
None
significant
None significant
None significant
Dunn & Loehle
(1988)
Plants
Forest
20-61
0.04-0.3
15
None
significant
None significant
None significant
Ferraz et al.
(2003)
Birds
Forest
73-115
0.0111.012
11
Linear
regression
(positive)
Linear
regression
(positive)
Linear
regression
(positive)
Flaspohler et al.
(2010)
Birds
Forest
2-10
0.00070.557
18
Piecewise
continuous
(steep–shallow)
Piecewise
continuous
(shallow–steep)
Linear
regression
(positive)
Ford (1987)
Birds
Forest
13-35
0.00140.18
20
Piecewise noslope
Linear
regression
(positive)
Piecewise
discontinuous
Ford (1987)
Plants
Nonforest
7-17
0.00140.18
20
None
significant
Piecewise noslope
Linear
regression
(positive)
Forman et al.
(1976)
Birds
Forest
0-18
0.00010.24
10
None
significant
Piecewise noslope: FS
Linear
regression
(positive)
Frank & Battisti Birds
(2005)
Forest
2-25
0.00125.2564
16
Linear
regression
(positive)
Linear
regression
(positive)
Piecewise
continuous
(steep–shallow)
21-56
0.0530.431
9
None
significant
None significant
None Significant
Gaublomme et
al. (2008)
Invertebrates Nonforest
Godefroid &
Koedam (2003)
Plants
Forest
25-56
0.02-1.23
11
Piecewise
continuous
(steep–shallow)
None significant
Piecewise
continuous
(steep–shallow)
Granados et al.
(2001)
Plants
Nonforest
160-592
0.20214.164
10
Linear
regression
(positive)
Linear
regression
(positive)
Linear
regression
(positive)
Hamel et al.
(1993)
Birds
Forest
11-23
0.17-3.04
32
None
significant
None significant
None significant
Hattori &
Ishida (2000)
Plants
Forest
19-110
0.000030.0784
38
Piecewise
discontinuous
Piecewise
discontinuous
Piecewise
continuous
(steep–shallow)
Ishida et al.
(1998)
Plants
Forest
18-84
0.000250.164
29
None
significant
Piecewise noslope
Linear
regression
(positive)
Kelt (2000)
Mammals
Forest
3-6
0.01891.249
14
None
significant
None significant
None significant
Kitchener et al.
(1980)
Mammals
Nonforest
2-13
0.3451.19
23
Linear
regression
(positive)
Linear
regression
(positive)
Piecewise
continuous
(steep–shallow)
Kitchener et al.
(1982)
Birds
Nonforest
29-107
0.3451.19
22
None
significant
Piecewise
continuous
(steep–shallow)
Piecewise
continuous
(steep–shallow)
Kitchener et al.
(1982)
Plants
Nonforest
37-288
0.3451.19
22
Linear
regression
Piecewise
continuous
Linear
regression
(positive)
(shallow–steep)
(positive)
Lawesson et al.
(1998)
Plants
Forest
28-102
0.0114.457
62
Linear
regression
(positive)
Linear
regression
(positive)
Linear
regression
(positive)
Lawesson et al.
(1998)
Plants
Forest
35-192
0.0114.457
62
Piecewise
continuous
(steep–shallow)
Linear
regression
(positive)
Linear
regression
(positive)
Lehvävirta et
al. (2006)
Invertebrates Nonforest
2-23
0.009-3.4
15
Linear
regression
(negative)
Piecewise noslope
None significant
Levenson
(1981)
Plants
Forest
2-18
0.00030.3996
43
Piecewise
discontinuous
Piecewise
discontinuous
None significant
Levenson
(1981)
Plants
Forest
17-42
0.00030.3996
43
Piecewise
discontinuous
Piecewise
discontinuous
Piecewise
discontinuous
Levenson
(1981)
Plants
Forest
8-35
0.00030.3996
43
None
significant
Piecewise
discontinuous
Piecewise
discontinuous
Lomolino &
Perault (2001)
Mammals
Forest
1-8
0.00930.5891
20
None
significant
None significant
None significant
Lövei et al.
(2006)
Invertebrates Forest
10-29
0.4139.95
15
None
significant
None significant
None significant
Lovenzetti &
Battisti (2007)
Plants
9-22
0.00263.0248
20
None
significant
Linear
regression
(positive)
Linear
regression
(positive)
Forest
Lovenzetti &
Battisti (2007)
Birds
Forest
4-11
0.00263.0248
20
Piecewise
continuous
(steep–shallow)
Linear
regression
(positive)
Piecewise
continuous
(steep–shallow)
Loyn (1997)
Birds
Forest
8-67
0.00197.33
56
None
significant
Piecewise
continuous
(steep–shallow)
Piecewise
continuous
(steep–shallow)
Lyman (1997)
Mammals
Forest
1-10
0.0071.094
12
None
significant
Piecewise noslope
Linear
regression
(positive)
Magura et al.
(2001)
Invertebrates Forest
10-29
0.411939.9546
15
None
significant
None significant
None significant
Matthiae &
Strearns (1981)
Mammals
4-13
0.004-0.4
22
Piecewise
continuous
(steep–shallow)
Piecewise noslope
Piecewise noslope
McFrederick &
LeBuhn (2006)
Invertebrates Forest
1-3
0.00321.5864
18
None
significant
None significant
None significant
Metzger et al.
(1997)
Plants
Forest
14-111
0.00630.7353
15
None
significant
Linear
regression
(positive)
Linear
regression
(positive)
Miller & Harris
(1977)
Mammals
Nonforest
29-55
11421358
13
None
significant
None significant
None significant
Miyashita et al.
(1998)
Invertebrates Forest
7-39
0.002-50
17
None
significant
Piecewise
continuous
(steep–shallow)
Piecewise
continuous
(steep–shallow)
Forest
Natuhara &
Imai (1999)
Birds
Forest
3-44
0.0006647
31
None
significant
Piecewise
continuous
(shallow–steep)
Piecewise
discontinuous
Newmark
(1991)
Birds
Forest
2-18
0.0010.3002
9
Piecewise
continuous
(steep–shallow)
Piecewise noslope
Linear
regression
(positive)
Onderdonk &
Chapman
(2000)
Mammals
Forest
1-4
0.008-1.3
20
None
significant
None significant
None significant
Pahl et al.
(1988)
Mammals
Forest
1-5
0.02360.7449
11
Piecewise
continuous
(steep–shallow)
Linear
regression
(positive)
Linear
regression
(positive)
Pearce et al.
(2005)
Invertebrates Forest
10-31
0.0050.112
10
Piecewise
continuous
(steep–shallow)
None significant
None significant
Ramanamanjato Reptiles
(2000)
Forest
6-51
0.1-4.57
11
Linear
regression
(positive)
Linear
regression
(positive)
None significant
Recher et al.
(1987)
Plants
Forest
2-7
0.01680.1273
22
Linear
regression
(positive)
Linear
regression
(positive)
Linear
regression
(positive)
Rosenblatt et
al. (1999)
Mammals
Forest
8-14
0.018-6
10
None
significant
Linear
regression
(positive)
Linear
regression
(positive)
Shreeve &
Mason (1980)
Invertebrates Forest
1-22
0.02-1.75
22
Piecewise
continuous
(steep–shallow)
Linear
regression
(positive)
Linear
regression
(positive)
Soulé et al.
(1979)
Mammals
Nonforest
11-70
0.2-20808
19
None
significant
Linear
regression
(positive)
Piecewise
continuous
(steep–shallow)
Soulé et al.
(1988)
Birds
Nonforest
0-7
0.0041.0277
37
Piecewise
continuous
(steep–shallow)
Linear
regression
(positive)
Linear
regression
(positive)
Summerville et
al. (2002)
Invertebrates Nonforest
1-18
0.0000450.000225
25
Linear
regression
(positive)
Linear
regression
(positive)
Linear
regression
(positive)
Tellería &
Santos (1995)
Birds
Forest
1-9
0.001-3.5
27
Piecewise
continuous
(steep–shallow)
Linear
regression
(positive)
Linear
regression
(positive)
Viveiros de
Castro (2004)
Mammals
Forest
4-11
0.0120.133
8
None
significant
None significant
None significant
Watson (2003)
Birds
Forest
0-78
0.021592.46
17
Piecewise
continuous
(steep–shallow)
Piecewise noslope
None significant
Watson et al.
(2000)
Birds
Forest
8-23
0.0254.57
27
None
significant
None significant
None significant
Weaver &
Kellman (1981)
Plants
Forest
8-16
0.00820.0811
10
None
significant
None significant
None significant
Western &
Ssemakula
(1981)
Mammals
Nonforest
15-31
54-20808
19
None
significant
None significant
None significant
Whitcomb et al.
(1981)
Birds
Forest
17-28
0.0112.83
25
Linear
regression
(positive)
Linear
regression
(positive)
Linear
regression
(positive)
Woolhouse
(1983)
Birds
Forest
14-37
0.0360.401
30
Linear
regression
(positive)
Piecewise noslope
Piecewise noslope
Source papers
Arroyo-Rodríguez, V. & Mandujano, S. (2006) The importance of tropical rain forest
fragments to the conservation of plant species diversity in Los Tuxtlas, Mexico.
Biodiversity & Conservation, 15, 4159-4179.
Báldi, A. & Kisbenedek, T. (1999) Orthopterans in small steppe patches: an
investigation for the best-fit model of the species–area curve and evidences for
their non-random distribution in the patches. Acta Oecologica–International
Journal of Ecology, 20, 125-132.
Bauer, L.J. (1989) Moorland beetle communities on limestone ‘habitat islands’. I.
Isolation, invasion and local species diversity in carabids and staphylinids.
Journal of Animal Ecology, 58, 1077-1098.
Baz, A. & Garcia-Boyero, A. (1995) The effects of forest fragmentation on butterfly
communities in central Spain. Journal of Biogeography, 22, 129-140.
Bell, K.E. & Donnelly, M.A. (2006) Influence of forest fragmentation on community
structure of frogs and lizards in northeastern Costa Rica. Conservation Biology,
20, 1750-1760.
Bennett, J.P. (1997) Nested taxa-area curves for eastern United States floras. Rhodora,
99, 241-251.
Blake, J.G. (1986) Species–area relationship of migrants in isolated woodlots in eastCentral Illinois. The Wilson Bulletin, 98, 291-296.
Blake, J.G. & Karr, J.R. (1984) Species composition of bird communities and the
conservation benefit of large versus small forests. Biological Conservation, 30,
173-187.
Bowers, J.E. & McLaughlin, S.P. (1982) Plant species diversity in Arizona. Madroño,
29, 227-233.
Brown, K.S. & Hutchings, R.W. (1997) Disturbance, fragmentation, and the dynamics
of diversity in amazonian forest butterflies. Tropical forest remnants: ecology,
management and conservation of fragmented communities (ed. by W.F.
Laurance and R.O. Bierregaard), pp. 91-110. Chicago University Press, Chicago,
IL.
Carter-Lovejoy, S.H. (1982) The relation between species numbers and island
characteristics for habitat islands in a volcanic landscape. Great Basin
Naturalist, 42, 113-119.
Castelletta, M., Thiollay, J.-M. & Sodhi, N.S. (2005) The effects of extreme forest
fragmentation on the bird community of Singapore Island. Biological
Conservation, 121, 135-155.
Cayuela, L., Golicher, D.J., Benayas, J.M.R., González-Espinosa, M. & RamÍrezMarcial, N. (2006) Fragmentation, disturbance and tree diversity conservation in
tropical montane forests. Journal of Applied Ecology, 43, 1172-1181.
Crooks, K.R. (2002) Relative sensitivities of mammalian carnivores to habitat
fragmentation. Conservation Biology, 16, 488-502.
Crooks, K.R., Suarez, A.V., Bolger, D.T. & Soulé, M.E. (2001) Extinction and
colonization of birds on habitat islands. Conservation Biology, 15, 159-172.
Crowe, T.M. (1979) Lots of weeds: insular phytogeography of vacant urban lots.
Journal of Biogeography, 6, 169-181.
Darlington, J.P.E.C., Kaib, M. & Brand, R. (2001) Termites (Isoptera) in forest
remnants and forest Islands in the Shimba Hills National Reserve, coastal
province of Kenya. Sociobiology, 37, 527-538.
Dickman, C.R. (1987) Habitat fragmentation and vertebrate species richness in an urban
environment. Journal of Applied Ecology, 24, 337-351.
dos Anjos, L. & Boçon, R. (1999) Bird communities in natural forest patches in
southern brazil. The Wilson Bulletin, 111, 397-414.
dos Santos, K., Kinoshita, L.S. & dos Santos, F.A.M. (2007) Tree species composition
and similarity in semideciduous forest fragments of southeastern Brazil.
Biological Conservation, 135, 268-277.
Dunn, C.P. & Loehle, C. (1988) Species–area parameter estimation: testing the null
model of lack of relationship. Journal of Biogeography, 15, 721-728.
Ferraz, G., Russell, G.J., Stouffer, P.C., Bierregaard, R.O., Pimm, S.L. & Lovejoy, T.E.
(2003) Rates of species loss from Amazonian forest fragments. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences USA, 100, 14069-14073.
Flaspohler, D.J., Giardina, C.P., Asner, G.P., Hart, P., Price, J., Lyons, C.K.A. &
Castaneda, X. (2010) Long-term effects of fragmentation and fragment
properties on bird species richness in Hawaiian forests. Biological Conservation,
143, 280-288.
Ford, H.A. (1987) Bird communities on habitat islands in England. Bird Study, 34, 205 218.
Forman, R.T.T., Galli, A.E. & Leck, C.F. (1976) Forest size and avian diversity in New
Jersey woodlots with some land use implications. Oecologia, 26, 1-8.
Frank, B. & Battisti, C. (2005) Area effect on bird communities, guilds and species in a
highly fragmented forest landscape of central Italy. Italian Journal of Zoology,
72, 297-304.
Gaublomme, E., Hendrickx, F., Dhuyvetter, H. & Desender, K. (2008) The effects of
forest patch size and matrix type on changes in carabid beetle assemblages in an
urbanized landscape. Biological Conservation, 141, 2585-2596.
Godefroid, S. & Koedam, N. (2003) How important are large vs. small forest remnants
for the conservation of the woodland flora in an urban context? Global Ecology
and Biogeography, 12, 287-298.
Granados, M., O'Kennon, R.J. & Benz, B.F. (2001) Plant species–area relationships in
ten central Texas protected natural areas. SIDA Contributions to Botany, 19,
1061-1072.
Hamel, P.B., Smith, W.P. & Wahl, J.W. (1993) Wintering bird populations of
fragmented forest habitat in the Central Basin, Tennessee. Biological
Conservation, 66, 107-115.
Hattori, T. & Ishida, H. (2000) Relationship between species diversity, species
composition and forest area of fragmented lucidophyllous forests in central
Miyazaki Prefecture. Japanese Journal of Ecology (Otsu), 50, 221-234.
Ishida, H., Hattori, T., Takeda, Y. & Kodate, S. (1998) Relationship between species
richness or species composition and area of fragmented lucidophyllous forests in
southeastern Hyogo Prefecture. Japanese Journal of Ecology (Tokyo), 48, 1-16.
Kelt, D.A. (2000) Small mammal communities in rainforest fragments in Central
Southern Chile. Biological Conservation, 92, 345-358.
Kitchener, D.J., Dell, J., Muir, B.G. & Palmer, M. (1982) Birds in Western Australian
wheatbelt reserves—implications for conservation. Biological Conservation, 22,
127-163.
Kitchener, D.J., Chapman, A., Muir, B.G. & Palmer, M. (1980) The conservation value
for mammals of reserves in the western australian wheatbelt. Biological
Conservation, 18, 179-207.
Lawesson, J.E., de Blust, G., Grashof, C., Firbank, L., Honnay, O., Hermy, M., Hobitz,
P. & Jensen, L.M. (1998) Species diversity and area–relationships in Danish
beech forests. Forest Ecology and Management, 106, 235-245.
Lehvävirta, S., Kotze, D., Niemelä, J., Mäntysaari, M. & O’Hara, B. (2006) Effects of
fragmentation and trampling on carabid beetle assemblages in urban woodlands
in Helsinki, Finland. Urban Ecosystems, 9, 13-26.
Levenson, J.B. (1981) Woodlots as biogeographic islands in southern Wisconsin. Forest
island dynamics in man-dominated landscapes (ed. by R.L. Burgess and D.M.
Sharpe), pp. 13-39. Springer-Verlag, New York.
Lomolino, M.V. & Perault, D.R. (2001) Island biogeography and landscape ecology of
mammals inhabiting fragmented, temperate rain forests. Global Ecology and
Biogeography, 10, 113-132.
Lorenzetti, E. & Battisti, C. (2007) Nature reserve selection on forest fragments in a
suburban landscape (Rome, Central Italy): indications from a set of avian
species. Landscape Research, 32, 57-78.
Lövei, G.L., Magura, T., Tothmeresz, B. & Kodobocz, V. (2006) The influence of
matrix and edges on species richness patterns of ground beetles (Coleoptera :
Carabidae) in habitat islands. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 15, 283-289.
Loyn, R.H. (1987) Effects of patch area and habitat on bird abundances, species
numbers and tree health in fragmented Victorian forests. Nature conservation:
the role of remnants of native vegetation (ed. by D.A. Saunders, G.W. Arnold,
A.A. Burbridge and A.J.M. Hopkins), pp 65–77. Surrey Beatty and Sons,
Chipping Norton, NSW.
Lyman, A.J. (1997) Rapid decline of small mammal diversity in monsoon evergreen
forest fragments in Thailand. Tropical forest remnants: ecology, management
and conservation of fragmented communities (ed. by W.F. Laurance and R.O.
Bierregaard), pp. 222-240. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Magura, T., Kodobocz, V. & Tothmeresz, B. (2001) Effects of habitat fragmentation on
carabids in forest patches. Journal of Biogeography, 28, 129-138.
Matthiae, P.E. & Stearns, F. (1981) Mammals in forests islands in southeastern
Wisconsin. Forest island dynamics in man-dominated landscapes (ed. by R.L.
Burgess and D.M. Sharpe), pp. 55–66. Springer-Verlag, New York.
McFrederick, Q.S. & LeBuhn, G. (2006) Are urban parks refuges for bumble bees
Bombus spp. (Hymenoptera: Apidae)? Biological Conservation, 129, 372-382.
Metzger, J.P., Bernacci, L.C. & Goldenberg, R. (1997) Pattern of tree species diversity
in riparian forest fragments of different widths (SE Brazil). Plant Ecology, 133,
135-152.
Miller, R.I. & Harris, L.D. (1977) Isolation and extirpations in wildlife reserves.
Biological Conservation, 12, 311-315.
Miyashita, T., Shinkai, A. & Chida, T. (1998) The effects of forest fragmentation on
web spider communities in urban areas. Biological Conservation, 86, 357-364.
Natuhara, Y. & Imai, C. (1999) Prediction of species richness of breeding birds by
landscape-level factors of urban woods in Osaka Prefecture, Japan. Biodiversity
and Conservation, 8, 239-253.
Newmark, W.D. (1991) Tropical forest fragmentation and the local extinction of
understory birds in the eastern Usambara Mountains, Tanzania. Conservation
Biology, 5, 67-78.
Onderdonk, D. & Chapman, C. (2000) Coping with forest fragmentation: the primates of
Kibale National Park, Uganda. International Journal of Primatology, 21, 587611.
Pahl, L.I., Winter, J.W. & Heinsohn, G. (1988) Variation in responses of arboreal
marsupials to fragmentation of tropical rainforest in north eastern Australia.
Biological Conservation, 46, 71-82.
Pearce, J., Venier, L., Eccles, G., Pedlar, J. & McKenney, D. (2005) Habitat islands,
forest edge and spring-active invertebrate assemblages. Biodiversity and
Conservation, 14, 2949-2969.
Ramanamanjato, J.-B. (2000) Fragmentation effects on reptile and amphibian diversity
in the littoral forest of southeastern Madagascar. Isolated vertebrate communities
in the tropics (ed. by G. Rheinwald), pp. 297–308. Zoologisches
Forschungsinstitut und Museum A. Koenig, Bonn.
Recher, H.F., Shields, J., Kavanagh, R. & Webb, G. (1987) Retaining remnant mature
forest for nature conservation at Eden, New South Wales: a review of theory and
practice. Nature conservation: the role of remnants of native vegetation (ed. by
D.A. Saunders, G.W. Arnold, A.A. Burbridge and A.J.M. Hopkins), pp. 177194. Surrey Beatty & Sons, Chipping Norton, NSW.
Rosenblatt, D.L., Heske, E.J., Nelson, S.L., Barber, D.M., Miller, M.A. & MacAllister,
B. (1999) Forest fragments in east-central Illinois: islands or habitat patches for
mammals? The American Midland Naturalist, 141, 115-123.
Shreeve, T.G. & Mason, C.F. (1980) The number of butterfly species in woodlands.
Oecologia, 45, 414-418.
Soulé, M.E., Wilcox, B.A. & Holtby, C. (1979) Benign neglect: a model of faunal
collapse in the game reserves of East Africa. Biological Conservation, 15, 259272.
Soulé, M.E., Bolger, D.T., Allison, C.A., Wright, J., Sorice, M. & Hill, S. (1988)
Reconstructed dynamics of rapid extinctions of chaparral-requiring birds in
urban habitat islands. Conservation Biology, 2, 75-92.
Summerville, K.S., Veech, J.A. & Crist, T.O. (2002) Does variation in patch use among
butterfly species contribute to nestedness at fine spatial scales? Oikos, 97, 195204.
Tellería, J.L. & Santos, T. (1995) Effects of forest fragmentation on a guild of wintering
passerines: the role of habitat selection. Biological Conservation, 71, 61-67.
Viveiros de Castro, E.B. & Fernandez, F.A.S. (2004) Determinants of differential
extinction vulnerabilities of small mammals in Atlantic forest fragments in
Brazil. Biological Conservation, 119, 73-80.
Watson, D.M. (2003) Long-term consequences of habitat fragmentation – highland birds
in Oaxaca, Mexico. Biological Conservation, 111, 283-303.
Watson, D.M., Mac Nally, R. & Bennett, A.F. (2000) The avifauna of severely
fragmented, Buloke Allocasuarina luehmanni woodland in western Victoria,
Australia. Pacific Conservation Biology, 6, 46-60.
Weaver, M. & Kellman, M. (1981) The effects of forest fragmentation on woodlot tree
biotas in Southern Ontario. Journal of Biogeography, 8, 199-210.
Western, D. & Ssemakula, J. (1981) The future of the savannah ecosystems: ecological
islands or faunal enclaves? African Journal of Ecology, 19, 7-19.
Whitcomb, R.F., Robbins, C.S., Lynch, J.F., Whitcomb, B.L., Klimkiewicz, M.K. &
Bystrak, D. (1981) Effects of forest fragmentation on avifauna of the Eastern
Deciduous Forest. Forest island dynamics in man-dominated landscapes (ed. by
R.L. Burgess and D.M. Sharpe), pp. 125-205. Springer-Verlag, New York.
Woolhouse, M.E.J. (1983) The theory and practice of the species–area effect, applied to
the breeding birds of British Woods. Biological Conservation, 27, 315-332.
Appendix S2 Supplementary results.
The supplementary results comprise Tables S1–S3 and Fig. S1, below.
Table S1 Comparison of the number of selected best island species–area relationship
models before (BC) and after (AC) applying the Cook’s distance criterion for each of
the different versions of the dataset (untransformed, semi-log and log–log). Note that it
is the ‘after’ set of models which are the focus of the paper (n = 76). Note also that six of
the best models changed between the BC and AC analyses for log–log versions of the
datasets, and four for the semi-log versions, but the overall number of best models in
each category remains unchanged.
Untransformed
Semi-Log
Log–Log
BC
AC
BC
AC
BC
AC
Simple, linear
(positive)
14
14
24
24
24
24
Simple, linear
(negative)
1
1
0
0
0
0
Piecewise – continuous
(steep–shallow)
17
17
5
5
12
12
Piecewise – continuous
(shallow–steep)
1
0
6
6
0
0
Piecewise – zero slope
0
1
11
11
5
5
Piecewise –
discontinuous
4
4
6
6
7
7
Non-significant
39
39
24
24
28
28
Table S2 The results of the sensitivity analysis: the best fit ISAR model for 76 habitat
island datasets, tallying the best fit models separately for each data transformation. The
results presented relate to the model selection after accounting for the initial
optimization of the breakpoints and increase in model complexity by increasing the
number of model parameters to k = 4 for the piecewise continuous model with zero
slope, k = 5 for the piecewise continuous model, and k = 6 for the piecewise
discontinuous model, when calculating AICc. The best model for each version of the
dataset (i.e. untransformed, semi-log and log–log) was chosen based on AICc (ΔAICc>2)
calculating using the aforementioned number of parameters. These results were tallied
following the application of Cook’s distance criterion and are thus comparable with
Table 1.
Number of datasets (percentages in
parentheses)
Model type
Untransformed
Semi-log
Log–log
Linear (positive relationship)
16 (21%)
36 (47%)
32 (42%)
Linear (negative relationship)
1 (1%)
0
0
Piecewise continuous (steep–
shallow)
9 (12%)
2 (3%)
9 (12%)
Piecewise continuous (shallow–
steep)
0
1 (1%)
0
Piecewise zero slope (i.e. flat–
steep)
0
5 (7%)
1 (1%)
Piecewise discontinuous
3 (4%)
4 (5%)
3 (4%)
Non-significant
47 (62%)
28 (37%)
31 (41%)
Table S3 The best fit ISAR model for habitat island datasets according to the three
taxonomic groups, tallying the best fit models separately for each data transformation.
Studies were grouped into three taxonomic groups: (a) vertebrates, (b) plants, and (c)
invertebrates. The best model within a transformation was chosen based on AICc (ΔAICc
> 2). These results were tallied following the application of Cook’s distance criterion
(see ‘Materials and Methods’).
(a) Vertebrates (n = 39)
Number of datasets (percentages in
parentheses)
Model type
Untransformed
Semi-log
Log–log
Linear (positive relationship)
9 (23%)
14 (36%)
10 (26%)
Linear (negative relationship)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
Piecewise continuous (steep–
shallow)
10 (26%)
4 (10%)
9 (23%)
0 (0%)
2 (5%)
0 (0%)
Piecewise zero slope (i.e. flat–
steep)
1 (3%)
8 (21%)
4 (10%)
Piecewise discontinuous
0 (0%)
1 (3%)
3 (8%)
Non-significant
19 (49%)
10 (26%)
13 (33%)
Piecewise continuous (shallow–
steep)
(b) Plants (n = 23)
Number of datasets (percentages in
parentheses)
Model type
Untransformed
Semi-log
Log–log
Linear (positive relationship)
4 (17%)
7 (30%)
10 (43%)
Linear (negative relationship)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
Piecewise continuous (steep–
shallow)
4 (17%)
0 (0%)
2 (8%)
Piecewise continuous (shallow–
steep)
0 (0%)
2 (8%)
0 (0%)
Piecewise zero slope (i.e. flat–
steep)
0 (0%)
2 (8%)
0 (0%)
Piecewise discontinuous
3 (13%)
5 (22%)
4 (17%)
Non-significant
12 (52%)
7 (30%)
7 (30%)
(c) Invertebrates (n = 14)
Number of datasets (percentages in
parentheses)
Model type
Untransformed
Semi-log
Log–log
Linear (positive relationship)
1 (7%)
3 (21%)
4 (29%)
Linear (negative relationship)
1 (7%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
Piecewise continuous (steep–
shallow)
3 (21%)
2 (14%)
1 (7%)
Piecewise continuous (shallow–
steep)
0 (0%)
1 (7%)
0 (0%)
Piecewise zero slope (i.e. flat–
steep)
0 (0%)
1 (7%)
1 (7%)
Piecewise discontinuous
1 (7%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
Non-significant
8 (57%)
7 (50%)
8 (57%)
Figure S1 A selection of plots depicting discontinuous piecewise models selected as the
best for particular datasets. Plot source data (clockwise from top left): Crowe (1979),
Levenson (1981; shrub species), Darlington et al. (2001), Hattori & Ishida (2000).