About the paper on changes in mammal communities in Kenya: I'd really like to know what was the change in species richness for all sites combined? Are the patterns of increased species richness at most sites but decreased beta diversity explained by gains of the same species across all/most of the sites, but losses of some other, unique/site-specific species? Is the overall area better or worse for species richness?
The paper seems to be telling a story of conservation success, which is really heartening. But I guess I'm just a bit suspicious. I'd like to know how overall (across all sites) species richness has changed. Are there species that have been completely lost from the region? If so, how many? Have there been other species that have been gained to the overall region - that is, weren't present 100 years ago, but now are?
With regards to the Toth et al. paper: I am by no means experienced in measuring diversity, so while reading the paper, I looked up some of the definitions. Beta diversity caught my attention; it seems to be quite controversial! I came across a paper that states that Beta diversity may be underestimated due to a hidden dependence on alpha diversity; in particular when the additive or multiplicative forms are used with high alpha diversities. How was the Beta diversity calculated in this paper? Could this influence the Beta diversity in the paper?
The Toth et al. paper compared body size and trophic (diet) distributions across time and space and concluded that vegetation changes were not the cause of the beta diversity changes. Can you comment on if in fact there have been changes in vegetation or land use, since I was unclear from the paper if this had in fact occurred or not.
From the map of the protected sites in Kenya, the National Parks appear to be fairly separate from one another, with large distances of unprotected land. How may some of the animals be moving between the parks or outside of the parks limits, that may be affecting the data? That is, I assume the parks to be open and thus allow animals to move in and out as they please, but because some animals are more likely to be targeted for things like hunting, how could this potentially effect the data collected from within the park in terms of species densities and biotic interactions that may play important roles in species richness and distributions?
The Toth et al. paper mentioned that the park boundaries limit the dispersal of species. I was wondering if there are any efforts to maintain genetic diversity by allowing interbreeding between the parks (assuming the populations were once intermixed).
Regarding Chp 5 from the Macroecology text, the similarity in body size distributions raises the prospect of convergence of mammalian body sizes for a given habitat type and scale. However, there is currently a strong phylogenetic overlap at the family level in all continents but Australia. Perhaps the observed similarity in body size is due to the similarity in phylogenetic makeup. The best test that I can think of is between Eurasia/N.America/Africa vs pre-land bridge S. America and Australia. How similar are the distributions from these continents, and do they support the hypothesis of convergence?
The small size of Australia raises the question of how to account for continental scale. Is there landmass scaling factor, such as the species area curve, that can be used to correct for landmass difference and thereby compare species distributions? If so, much more data could be used, particularly island data. This would permit more rigorous analysis and hypothesis testing of proposed mechanisms.
In the Tóth paper, the research shows that in the past century there was an increase in number of species of mammals and a decrease in community uniqueness. What is meant by “community uniqueness?”
Also, is mammal diversity preservation seen as a cause for concern in other National Parks? And if so, what is it that the Kenya National Park system is doing that other parks are not?
About the paper on changes in mammal communities in Kenya: I'd really like to know what was the change in species richness for all sites combined? Are the patterns of increased species richness at most sites but decreased beta diversity explained by gains of the same species across all/most of the sites, but losses of some other, unique/site-specific species? Is the overall area better or worse for species richness?
ReplyDeleteThe paper seems to be telling a story of conservation success, which is really heartening. But I guess I'm just a bit suspicious. I'd like to know how overall (across all sites) species richness has changed. Are there species that have been completely lost from the region? If so, how many? Have there been other species that have been gained to the overall region - that is, weren't present 100 years ago, but now are?
With regards to the Toth et al. paper: I am by no means experienced in measuring diversity, so while reading the paper, I looked up some of the definitions. Beta diversity caught my attention; it seems to be quite controversial! I came across a paper that states that Beta diversity may be underestimated due to a hidden dependence on alpha diversity; in particular when the additive or multiplicative forms are used with high alpha diversities. How was the Beta diversity calculated in this paper? Could this influence the Beta diversity in the paper?
ReplyDeleteThe Toth et al. paper compared body size and trophic (diet) distributions across time and space and concluded that vegetation changes were not the cause of the beta diversity changes. Can you comment on if in fact there have been changes in vegetation or land use, since I was unclear from the paper if this had in fact occurred or not.
ReplyDeleteFrom the map of the protected sites in Kenya, the National Parks appear to be fairly separate from one another, with large distances of unprotected land. How may some of the animals be moving between the parks or outside of the parks limits, that may be affecting the data? That is, I assume the parks to be open and thus allow animals to move in and out as they please, but because some animals are more likely to be targeted for things like hunting, how could this potentially effect the data collected from within the park in terms of species densities and biotic interactions that may play important roles in species richness and distributions?
ReplyDeleteThe Toth et al. paper mentioned that the park boundaries limit the dispersal of species. I was wondering if there are any efforts to maintain genetic diversity by allowing interbreeding between the parks (assuming the populations were once intermixed).
ReplyDeleteRegarding Chp 5 from the Macroecology text, the similarity in body size distributions raises the prospect of convergence of mammalian body sizes for a given habitat type and scale. However, there is currently a strong phylogenetic overlap at the family level in all continents but Australia. Perhaps the observed similarity in body size is due to the similarity in phylogenetic makeup. The best test that I can think of is between Eurasia/N.America/Africa vs pre-land bridge S. America and Australia. How similar are the distributions from these continents, and do they support the hypothesis of convergence?
ReplyDeleteThe small size of Australia raises the question of how to account for continental scale. Is there landmass scaling factor, such as the species area curve, that can be used to correct for landmass difference and thereby compare species distributions? If so, much more data could be used, particularly island data. This would permit more rigorous analysis and hypothesis testing of proposed mechanisms.
In the Tóth paper, the research shows that in the past century there was an increase in number of species of mammals and a decrease in community uniqueness. What is meant by “community uniqueness?”
ReplyDeleteAlso, is mammal diversity preservation seen as a cause for concern in other National Parks? And if so, what is it that the Kenya National Park system is doing that other parks are not?