macroecology & uneven distributions of wealth
DESCRIPTION
Macroecology & uneven distributions of wealth. Ken Locey. http://tchester.org/srp/plants/communities/figures/global_biodiversity_by_area.gif. 183,913,348 records of birds in the Global Biodiversity Information Facility database. Macroecology. …study of ecological relationships - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Macroecology & uneven distributions of wealth
Ken Locey
http://tchester.org/srp/plants/communities/figures/global_biodiversity_by_area.gif
183,913,348 records of birds in theGlobal Biodiversity Information Facility database
Abundance: ni/N
Distribution: f(k;λ) = λke-λ/k!
Diversity: H’ = -Σpi*ln(pi)
…study of ecological relationshipsthat involves characterizing and explaining statistical patterns of…
Macroecology
Land birds
Landmammals
Geographic range patternsN
orth
-Sou
th (k
m)
East-West (km) 100 1,000 10,000
Metabolic Theory of Ecology (MTE)Ecological phenomenon ∝ M3/4e-E/kt
Temp. corrected max. rate of whole organism biomass production
Slope = 0.76R2 = 0.99
1 3 6 10 14 19 33 38 69 93150
0123456789
10
Species Abundance Distribution
Abundance Class
freq
uenc
y(frequency distribution)
http://encyclopediaurantia.org/images/ROM11.JPG
DATA
Computing
GISMath & Stats
Metabolic rate ∝ M3/4e-E/kt
Information:
Tools
COLLABORATION & SHARING
Code
dev
elop
men
t Sharing
Source networks
GISProgrammingPublished ResearchData managementMath & StatsCollaboration
Undergraduate &Graduate research
Skills
Jobs
Grad School
Center for Macroecology, Evolution, & Climate www.macroecology.ca
macroecology.ku.dk
whitelab.weecology.org
Species Abundance Distribution
Abundance Class
freq
uenc
y(frequency distribution)
1 3 6 10 14 19 33 38 69 93150
0123456789
10
1 6 11 16 21 26 31 361
10
100
Species Abundance Distribution
Rank in Abundance
Abun
danc
e(Rank-abundance distribution)
Wheat Production (tons)
tons62.9 104588178.7
Poverty in Rural America, 2008
Percent in Poverty54.5 - 25 25 - 20 20 – 14.3 14.2 – 12.2 12.1 - 10 10 – 3.1
Distributions of Wealth (DOW)Supreme importance attaches to one economic problem, that of the distribution of wealth. Is there a natural law according to which the wealth of society is divided? – John Bates Clark
Wealth: sources of human welfare which are material, transferable, and limited in quantity.
Total quantity (Q)Community abundanceGlobal Oil ConsumptionGDP, GNP
Number of entities (N)SpeciesNationsEconomic classes
Distributions of Wealth (DOW)
If Q = 10 and N = 3, then:8 unordered ways to sum Npositive integers to obtain Q 8+1+1 7+2+1 6+3+1 6+2+2 5+4+1 5+3+2 4+4+2 4+3+3
Distributions of Wealth (DOW)
Do we observe the average of possible DOWs?
The feasible set(all possible shapes of the DOW)
16,958 shapes forQ = 50 & N = 10
Rank
Wea
lth
Combinatorial Explosion
Q N Size of feasible set
50 10 16,928
500 10 2.013 × 1012
5000 10 1.531 × 1021
Heat mapping the feasible set(or a random sample)
ln(w
ealth
)
Rank
Q=1,000N=80
Heat mapping the feasible set(or a random sample)
ln(a
bund
ance
)
Rank in abundance
ca. 4.02x1029 possible shapes for N=1000 & S=80
Ecological DOWs(species-abundance distributions)
• North American Breeding Bird Survey (1,583 sites)• Forest Inventory and Analysis (7,403 sites)• Mammal Community Database (42 sites)• North American Butterfly Association (306 sites)• Aquatic prokaryotes (92 metagenomes)
– Arctic surface waters, Deep-sea Hydrothermal vents
• Terrestrial prokaryotes (48 metagenomes) – Arctic soils, agricultural soils
• Indoor fungi (124 metagenomes)– All continents except Antarctica
Total: 9,598 different sites of diverse communities
Q = Total community abundance (i.e. number of individuals)
N = Species richness (i.e. number of species)
Ecological DOWs(species-abundance distributions)
Obs
erve
d w
ealth
100 101 102
Predicted wealth
102
101
100
R2 per site
OBSERVED: [1, 2, 10, 12, 20, 30, 40, 60, 110]PREDICTED: [1, 2, 11, 11, 22, 28, 43, 50, 117]
R2 = 0.99
Obs
erve
d ab
unda
nce
100 101 102
Predicted abundance
102
101
100
R2 per siteR2 = 0.99R2 = 0.89R2 = 0.80R2 = 0.75
Obs
erve
d ab
unda
nce
100 101 102
Predicted abundance
102
101
100
R2 per siteR2 = 0.99R2 = 0.89R2 = 0.80R2 = 0.75
R2 per site
0.0 1.0
Obs
erve
d ab
unda
nce
100 101 102
Predicted abundance
102
101
100
R2 per site0.0 1.0
R2 = 0.93
Obs
erve
d ab
unda
nce
R2 = 0.931,583 sites in the Breeding Bird Survey
100 101 102
102
101
100
R2 per site
Predicted abundance
0.0 1.0
R2 = 0.84
7,403 treecommunities
R2 = 0.80
306 butterflycommunities
R2 = 0.78
42 mammal communities
Observed abundance vs. Abundance at the center of the feasible set
Count data
R2 = 0.58
48 terrestrial prokaryote
Observed abundance vs. Abundance at the center of the feasible set
R2 = 0.83
92 aquatic prokaryote
R2 = 0.76
124 indoor fungi
Metagenomes
Food & Agriculture Organization of the UN
US Dept of Energy, Energy Information Admin.
0.83 0.91 0.93
Predicted supply
Obs
erve
d su
pply
Food supply among nations(1960-2010)
grams/capita/day * 0.1tons * 0.0001grams/capita/day
0.69 0.77 0.91
Predicted pop. size
Obs
erve
d po
p. si
zePopulation sizes among nations
(1960-2009, millions of people)
0.88 0.92 0.92
Predicted
Obs
erve
d
Oil use among nations(1980-2009, barrels per day * 0.01)
Predicted home runs
Obs
erve
d ho
me
runs
0.93 0.88 0.90
0.91 0.91 0.89
0.94 0.93
(2002-2010)http://mlb.mlb.com
Are DOWs similar to the average of possible shapes? …very often
Do Q and N constrain the DOW more than ever realized? …Yup
Is the feasible set good for more than predictions? …Absolutely
Is combinatorial explosion a pain in the *expletive*? …Not for long…?
Funding
• USU College of Science– Willard L. Eccles Fellowship
• NSF CAREER award to Ethan White
• Research grant from Amazon Web Services
Acknowledgments• Individuals, agencies, organizations responsible for the collection
and management of the:– Breeding Bird Survey, Christmas Bird Count, Forest Inventory and Analysis,
Mammal Community Database, North American Butterfly Association, Argonne National Laboratory’s MG-RAST metagenomic server
• Colleagues & Collaborators– USU: Ethan White, Xiao Xiao, Dan McGlinn– Berkeley Harte Lab: Justin Kitzes– SESYNC: Bill Burnside
• UCO college of Math and Science
The feasible set as a framework
Understanding
Comparing
Inequality
Perc
entil
e of
the
feas
ible
set
Gini’s coefficient of inequality
The feasible set(all possible values of species evenness)Sp
ecie
s eve
nnes
s
Species richness, S
Total abundance, N = 60
pdf10,173 sites
R2 (obs vs. random sample)
Combinatorial Explosion
Q N Size of feasible set
1000 10 886,745,696,653,253
1000 100 302,194,941,264,401,427,042,462,944,147
1000 900 190,569,292
1,583 sites in the Breeding Bird Survey
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
R2 (obs vs. random sample)
Feasible sets are dominatedby hollow-curves
Evar
Prob
abili
ty d
ensit
y fu
nctio
nN = 50, S = 205,507 macrostates
N = 50, S = 1016,928 macrostates
Q=50, N=20
Q=50, N=10
Evenness(Smith & Wilson, 1996)
MTE prediction: species richness decreases with temperature (S ∝ Ae-Ea/kT )
Computer Science Student:Biology student:
Chemistry Studentmodels based on chemical kinetics/activation energy
microbe data,reasons why MTEshould (not) workfor microbes
model developmentdata scraping & management
Temperature-richness predictions of MTE do not hold for diverse microbe communities as tested using several models of chemical kinetics. This may be explained by microbial dormancy and dispersal.
+Conclusion(?)
Body mass (g)
Land birds Land mammals
Body-size distributions
Num
ber o
f spe
cies continental
regional
patch