62

CHAPTER 3.2 RANK-ABUNDANCE DISTRIBUTIONS

considered a weak test of the underlying macroecological theories because a) several proposed mechanisms can yield the same curve, b) free parameters can fit almost any function to data, and c) different measures of fit to data yield different judgements of what functions fits the data best (McGill 2003b). Stronger tests of macroecological theories would involve more precise, and multiple, predictions of curve parameters under different situations (ecological or scale-related; McGill 2003b).

Methodological constraints on measures of relative abundance Data on species abundance in samples stem from light-trapping, which has two potential weaknesses: Light-trapping abundances are strongly influenced by not habitat-specific effects of weather, moonlight and surrounding vegetation (e.g. Yela & Holyoak 1997), and species might be unequally attracted to light (e.g. Kempton & Taylor 1974). The latter methodological problem has been thoroughly discussed in chapter 2. While the effect is certainly present in some species, it probably does not create a large bias in light-trapping samples. Species-abundance relationships have been successfully analysed in light catches of Lepidoptera, and no general biases were observed when compared to data from unbiased samples such as vegetation counts (e.g. May 1975). The influence of parameters like weather and moonlight (which cannot be standardized under realistic field sampling conditions), on the other hand, lets absolute abundance of species at the light become almost worthless only a conversion to relative abundance within a catch (frequencies) creates figures that are comparable across sites. Treating frequencies as measure of local population size or density makes the assumption of equal productivity on the sites (with regard 35 30 to the hawkmoth community). This is 25 not a completely unreasonable 20 15 approximation within a relatively 10 homogenous region like insular 5 Southeast-Asia, which has no huge 0 1 10 100 1000 10000 gradients of light or water availability Specimens that would lead to great differences in primary production (see e.g. maps in Cramer et al. 1999). However, some 35 30 differences in productivity do certainly 25 exist, which diminishes the exactness 20 15 of data if frequencies are viewed as an 10 approximation of population density. 5
% Frequency
% Frequency

Sample sites are neither from a homogenous habitat (which would be assumed by neutral models on speciesabundance relationships, e.g. Hubbell 2001), nor are there large numbers of randomly chosen sites which would reflect the available habitats in a

0 0 20 40 Sites 60 80

Figure 3.13 shows the relation between absolute abundance of species in pooled samples and their mean frequency (upper graph, abundance on log10scale) and the number of occupied sites and species frequency (lower graph).