Global patterns and determinants of
vascular plant diversity
Holger Kreft*
and Walter Jetz
*Nees Institute for Biodiversity of Plants, University of Bonn, Meckenheimer Allee 170, D-53115 Bonn, Germany; and Division of Biological
Sciences, University of California at San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive MC 0116, La Jolla, CA 92093-0116
Edited by F. Stuart Chapin III, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, AK, and approved January 25, 2007 (received for review September 22, 2006)
Plants, with an estimated 300,000 species, provide crucial primary
production and ecosystem structure. To date, our quantitative
understanding of diversity gradients of megadiverse clades such as
plants has been hampered by the paucity of distribution data.
Here, we investigate the global-scale species-richness pattern of
vascular plants and examine its environmental and potential historical
determinants. Across 1,032 geographic regions worldwide,
potential evapotranspiration, the number of wet days per year,
and measurements of topographical and habitat heterogeneity
emerge as core predictors of species richness. After accounting for
environmental effects, the residual differences across the major
floristic kingdoms are minor, with the exception of the uniquely
diverse Cape Region, highlighting the important role of historical
contingencies. Notably, the South African Cape region contains
more than twice as many species as expected by the global
environmental model, confirming its uniquely evolved flora. A
combined multipredictor model explains 70% of the global
variation in species richness and fully accounts for the enigmatic
latitudinal gradient in species richness. The models illustrate the
geographic interplay of different environmental predictors of
species richness. Our findings highlight that different hypotheses
about the causes of diversity gradients are not mutually exclusive,
but likely act synergistically with water­energy dynamics playing
a dominant role. The presented geostatistical approach is likely to
prove instrumental for identifying richness patterns of the many
other taxa without single-species distribution data that still escape
our understanding.
biodiversity historical contingency latitudinal gradient macroecology
species richness
Geographic patterns of species distributions are central to
ecology (1­7). Progress toward more general and, importantly,
global models of gradients of species richness to date has
been hampered by the many species that remain only poorly
documented in their geographic occurrence or altogether unknown
(8). For an understanding of the global distribution of
diversity, plants might be of particular relevance. Plants comprise
some 300,000 species, are key structural elements of
terrestrial ecosystems, and are the basis of all terrestrial food
webs. High plant diversity is likely associated with high biotic
heterogeneity and thus a higher potential for specialization in
various animal groups (9). Generally, medium to strong positive
relationships between producer and consumer diversity have
been found (10­12). Plants may thus play a central role as an
indicator group; under this assumption, their richness pattern
has already been used extensively for global-scale conservation
priority setting (13).
Recently, considerable progress has been made toward documenting
broad-scale patterns of plant richness (11, 14­21). In
general, two different data-type approaches are possible to map
and analyze global richness gradients (22). First, studies may be
based on single-species occurrence data in the form of locality
records or expert range maps (23­25). Unfortunately, this
approach is limited by the relatively small fraction of all species
for which such data are available. Second, and consequently, a
single-species approach for mapping and analyzing global distributions
of many speciose groups, such as vascular plants, will
long remain elusive. Thus, the method of choice is analyzing the
species-richness information for geographic units with floras
that have been well described (11, 21, 22). This method offers a
powerful approach to understanding the variability of plant
species richness at a global scale.
A number of studies have shown a remarkably strong association
between contemporary climate and species richness (4, 5,
7, 11, 16, 26­28). According to the ``water­energy dynamics
hypothesis,'' species richness at higher latitudes is controlled by
the availability of ambient heat, whereas, in the thermally
suitable tropics, water- and humidity-related variables are the
main driving factors (4, 5, 28). Alternatively or additionally, the
sensitivity of most plants to frost or drought may constrain their
richness outside warm and humid regions (5, 29). Another set of
hypotheses states that habitat heterogeneity governs speciesrichness
gradients by local and regional species turnover (30, 32).
Third, historical/evolutionary hypotheses attribute speciesrichness
gradients to geographic differences in the geological
and climatic history, such as tectonic movements, uplift of
mountain ranges, long-term climatic stability, or Pleistocene
cooling and dryness. These historic factors may cause divergent
rates of diversification (32­35). Recently, water- and energyrelated
variables have been found to be dominant predictors of
global angiosperm family richness (27). Whether this would
question a major role for historical factors has been debated (35).
To date, relative roles of potential environmental and historical
drivers of species diversity lack scrutiny.
Here, we present an analysis of geographic patterns and
putative macroecological determinants of vascular plant diversity
at the species level and with a global scope. Our analysis is
based on an exhaustive data set of 1,032 regions worldwide that
has been used to produce expert opinion-based continental to
global maps of plant species richness (11, 14, 17, 21). We use both
nonspatial and spatial (controlling for spatial autocorrelation)
modeling techniques to test, in turn, the predictive potential of
variables representing different hypotheses. We proceed to
develop a combined multipredictor model and use it in conjunction
with geostatistical techniques to predict vascular plant
diversity across the whole world. We thereby outline a general
geostatistical approach to capture the richness gradients of the
many less studied groups of organisms that still escape our
understanding.
Author contributions: H.K. and W.J. designed research; H.K. and W.J. performed research;
H.K. and W.J. analyzed data; and H.K. and W.J. wrote the paper.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
This article is a PNAS Direct Submission.
Abbreviations: AIC, Akaike information criterion; GLM, generalized linear model; PET,
potential evapotranspiration; SLM, spatial linear model.
To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: hk@uni-bonn.de.
This article contains supporting information online at www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/
0608361104/DC1.
 2007 by The National Academy of Sciences of the USA
www.pnas.org cgi doi 10.1073 pnas.0608361104 PNAS April 3, 2007 vol. 104 no. 14 5925­5930
ECOLOGY
Results and Discussion
The well known species­area relationship explains plant richness
at local to regional scales (36). Interestingly, even across a
variation of four orders of magnitude in our data set, area per se
is a relatively weak predictor of species richness and explains only
6.6% of the global variation of plant species richness (Table 1).
However, the explanatory power of area dramatically increases
when spatial autocorrelation is explicitly modeled (57.4% deviance).
This finding indicates strong neighborhood effects, which
are also observed for subsequent environmental predictors
[Table 1 and supporting information (SI) Table 3]. Furthermore,
we find that regional spatial heterogeneity (measured as the
number of vegetation types, elevational belts, or especially as a
variable combining both) is a strong predictor of plant richness
and is able to account for the effect of area (Table 1).
Among individual climatic variables, average annual temperature
is thought to be of particular importance for ectothermic
clades, given its exponential effect on rates of energy flux and
thus, potentially, rates of biological interaction and diversification
(3, 37). Although there is a significant positive effect of
average annual temperature (TEMP) on vascular plant species
richness (8.5% deviance; Table 1), there are indications for a
quadratic rather than linear trend [ AIC 25; where AIC
indicates the difference between the Akaike information criterion
(AIC) of the model of interest and the AIC of the best fitting
model]. Under the generally untested assumption of uniform
total abundance of individuals across space, the species-richness
extension of the metabolic theory of ecology predicts a slope of
9.0 between the inverse of temperature (1,000/K) and the natural
logarithm of species richness (37), which is very different from
the one observed here [ln(richness) 13.88 1.89 temperature
1
(1,000/K); test for difference in slope: t 54.33; P
10 15
].
Actual evapotranspiration emerges as the strongest single
climatic predictor [28.6% deviance generalized linear model
(GLM); Table 1]. Mean annual net primary productivity yields
somewhat poorer fits than actual evapotranspiration (26.7%;
AIC 28). Water­energy models that include interaction
terms tend to have stronger explanatory power than those with
only main effects confirming the important interdependence of
these determinants. Of all potential combinations of energyrelated
variables and water-related variables, the full interaction
model including potential evapotranspiration (PET) and the
annual number of days with rainfall (WETDAYS, a variable that
encapsulates both amount and temporal occurrence of precipitation)
is the strongest (36.8% deviance). Other variable combinations
to quantify the water­energy interaction (27, 38) yield
significantly poorer fits ( AIC 44). Visual inspection and
split-line analyses of the relationship between PET and species
richness indicate a threshold at 505-mm PET, above which the
Table 1. Results of GLM and SLM for selected predictor variables and species richness of vascular plants
GLM SLM
Hypothesis and model t Deviance, % AIC Moran's I z Deviance, % AIC Moran's I
NULL -- -- 738 0.43 -- 39.2 306 --
AREA 8.5 6.6 669 0.53 20.2*** 57.4 24 0.02
Energy
PET 14.2 25.4 (16.3) 439 (556) 0.34 6.9*** 58.7 (40.6) 72 (265) 0.02
TEMP 9.8 16.9 (8.5) 551 (648) 0.37 13.6* 57.3 (39.1) 22 (303) 0.02
Water
PRE 17.6 35.9 (23.2) 283 (467) 0.33 11.1*** 63.9 (44.1) 216 (200) 0.03
WETDAYS 8.9 16.5 (7.2) 556 (663) 0.43 9.1*** 64.2 (43.8) 196 (228) 0.03
Water­energy
AET 20.3 41.4 (28.6) 191 (391) 0.28 13.1*** 63.8 (44.2) 224 (187) 0.02
WAT-ENER 20.2 41.3 (28.4) 193 (394) 0.29 12.8*** 64.5 (45.4) 241 (169) 0.02
PET WETDAYS 51.1 (34.9) 6 (299) 0.24 65.8 (46.1) 296 (145) 0.02
PET 20.9 34.6 (27.7) 11.5***
WETDAYS 17.1 25.7 (18.5) 11.9***
PET WETDAYS 52.6 (36.8) 24 (270) 0.21 65.8 (46.1) 297 (143) 0.02
PET 3.9 34.6 (27.7) 0.8
WETDAYS 4.6 25.7 (18.5) 1.3
PET:WETDAYS 5.6 1.5 (1.9) 1.99*
Heterogeneity
TOPOVEG 20.3 28.7 (28.6) 392 (392) 0.50 24.4*** 63.9 (61.9) 206 ( 161) 0.03
TOPO 17.2 24.8 (22.4) 447 (478) 0.47 19.5*** 64.2 (55.9) 208 ( 16) 0.03
VEG 13.4 20 (20) 512 (510) 0.50 20.9*** 63.9 (61.9) 116 ( 57) 0.03
Structure
STRUCT 14.5 29.5 (14.5) 381 (549) 0.30 5.7*** 60 (40.1) 103 (279) 0.03
History
KINGDOM -- 20.4 (13.1) 505 (605) 0.35 -- 57.8 (39.7) 33 (296) 0.02
Others
BIOME -- 46.4 (30.2) 120 (391) 0.18 -- 62.4 (42.3) 155 (248) 0.02
LAT 12.4 22.4 (13) 480 (595) 0.36 5.6*** 58.2 (40) 57 (280) 0.02
Species richness and all continuous predictor variables (except for VEG, TOPO, and TOPOVEG) were log10-transformed. Null model: deviance 123.01; AIC
737.61; n 1,032. Values in parentheses refer to models without control for area. Because GLMs do not remove spatial autocorrelation from the residuals,
significance levels are not reported. High percentage of explained deviance in single predictor SLM is mostly due to the strong influence of spatial trend term.
SLMs leave no significant spatial autocorrelation in the residuals (all global Moran's I have P 0.05). PRE, mean annual precipitation [millimeters per year (mm/a)];
WAT-ENER, water­energy model according to ref. 36; KINGDOM, floristic kingdom membership; BIOME, biome membership; LAT, absolute latitude. *, P 0.05;
***, P 0.001.
5926 www.pnas.org cgi doi 10.1073 pnas.0608361104 Kreft and Jetz
relationship between species richness becomes largely independent
from further increasing annual energy input (Fig. 1a).
Above the same breakpoint, the number of wet days, a nonsignificant
predictor in low-energy regions, assumes strong predictive
power (Fig. 1b), highlighting that water constrains richness
only in high-energy regions (4). A similar interaction occurs with
topographical complexity (Fig. 1c), but not habitat heterogeneity
as such (Fig. 1d). The interaction with topography is qualitatively
similar to previous findings for North American mammals
(39) but with a breakpoint at much lower energy levels (505vs.
1,000-mm PET). This finding strongly points to the different
energetic and physiological constraints between these two
groups (ectothermic vs. endothermic). These differential constraints
may have affected rates of diversification and range
limits of species. Determinants of species richness might change
with spatial scale (31), and we therefore test for interactions
between area and all predictor variables. Despite the large
variation in areas, no significant effects emerge ( AIC between
0.3 and 2.7), corroborating the validity of our model results
across a wide range of scales.
Historical effects, i.e., regional differences in rates of past
speciation, extinction, and dispersal, are notoriously difficult to
quantify and often covary with contemporary environment and
physiography. Topographic heterogeneity often is associated
with a high potential for speciation during past periods of climate
change (25, 34, 40) or during a recent uplift of mountain ranges,
such as the Andes or Himalaya (25, 41, 42). We already noted a
strong effect of topographic complexity. An alternative way to
capture regional histories is to compare historically distinct
biotas composed of almost completely nonoverlapping taxa--
i.e., realms or, in our case, six floristic kingdoms (KINGDOM;
largely following ref. 43), which may be considered as statistical
replicates. Kingdom membership alone explains a substantial
amount of deviance (13.1%), a value that decreases to 2.9%
when kingdoms are combined into three broad longitudinal
bands (Americas, Europe­Africa, Asia­Australia) to minimize
environmental collinearity.
We proceed to select the best single predictor variable or
interaction term from each category to construct a combined
multipredictor model. Consisting of six explanatory variables
(AREA, PET, WETDAYS, TOPOVEG, STRUCT, and KINGDOM),
the combined model explains 65.9% of the observed
deviance in a GLM framework (AIC 353.5) and 70.2% in
spatial linear model (SLM) (AIC 456.9) (Fig. 2 and SI Fig.
4). The SLM approach successfully removes spatial autocorreFig.
2. Partial residuals plots for all variables included in the combined model
of global plant richness (compare Table 2). These plots show the effects of a
given variable when all others in the model are statistically controlled for.
(a­e) Hatched lines partial fits. (e and f) Boxes indicate second and third
quartiles, black notches denote 95% confidence intervals, and whiskers indicate
10th and 90th percentiles. NEA, Nearctic; PAA, Palaearctic; NET, Neotropic;
PAT, Paleotropic; CAP, Cape; AUS, Australis. Note high partial residuals of
the Cape floristic kingdom after controlled-for environmental differences
(***, significant at P 0.001; Tukey post hoc test). Specifically, a partial
residual plot is a plot of ri bk ik vs. xik, where ri is the ordinary residual for
the ith observation, xik is the ith observation of the kth predictor, and bk is the
regression coefficient estimate for the kth predictor.
Fig. 1. Relationship between environmental predictors and species richness
of vascular plants in low- and high-energy regions. Species richness is standardized
to 10,000 km2. (a) The effect of PET [millimeters per year (mm/a)] on
species richness. A close association is observed in regions with 505 mm/a PET
(filled circles), whereas in regions with higher energy input (open circles) the
relationship is not significant (breakpoint confirmed by split-line regression).
(b­d) Also shown are relationships for wet days (b), topographical complexity
measured as the number of elevational bands (c), and heterogeneity measured
in number of vegetation types per region (d).
Kreft and Jetz PNAS April 3, 2007 vol. 104 no. 14 5927
ECOLOGY
lation from the model residuals (SI Fig. 5; for a map of GLM and
SLM residuals, see SI Fig. 6). No interaction terms (including the
previously asserted energy­water interactions) significantly improve
the model fit. The most important model predictor is PET
(11.1% partial deviance; Fig. 2) followed by number of wet days
and environmental heterogeneity (both 7.2%).
When controlling for environmental dissimilarities in the
combined model, floristic kingdom only has a small, yet significant,
effect on richness [combined model (Table 2) compared
with a model without term for kingdom: AIC 68 and 2.7%
deviance, GLM; AIC 29 and 0.9% deviance, SLM]. Despite
above and beyond differences due to environment, the world's
floristic kingdoms appear to be remarkably similar in richness.
There is one glaring exception: the Southern African Cape
region, highlighted before for its unique biota and apparent high
richness (16, 44) but never evaluated in the global context. We
find that translated into species numbers, the Cape flora has
more than twice as many species (on average 655 species per
12,100 km2
grid cell more; maximum: 1,637) per unit area than
expected given its contemporary environment and topography,
confirming, from a global perspective, its outstanding richness
(44). The potential causes of the unique plant diversity of the
Cape region are still debated and include climatic shifts from
summer to winter rains starting in the Oligocene, pollinator
specialization, mesoscale habitat specialization, and fire regimes,
giving rise to an enormous diversification in some clades (45, 45).
Crucially, we find that many regional differences in species
richness that have classically been attributed to historical factors
can also be predicted by contemporary differences in the environment.
For instance, the long recognized greater diversity of
Neotropical rainforests in relation to their African counterparts
(mean 95% confidence interval; number of species per 12,100
km2
: 2,479 39 vs. 1,886 43) can at least statistically be
predicted by environmental differences alone (e.g., mean annual
precipitation: 2,186 49 vs. 1,661 57 mm; mean wet days:
199 3 vs. 133 3).
In summary, our combined model successfully explains the
latitudinal gradient of plant species richness (SI Fig. 4), and the
predicted global map (Fig. 3b) confirms many regional trends
and hotspots anticipated before (11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 46). Geostatistical
models (Fig. 3 c and d) additionally incorporate information
of environmental covariation and neighborhood effects. Given
the importance of these effects asserted in the SLM, they
improve the quality of predictions, especially in relatively well
sampled regions (e.g., North America, Europe, and Me-
soamerica).
We have shown that relatively few variables, namely a combination
of high annual energy input with constant water supply
and extraordinarily high spatiotopographic complexity, are able
to accurately predict the location of global centers of plant
richness (Costa Rica­Choco´, Tropical Eastern Andes, Atlantic
Table 2. Global model of plant diversity
GLM SLM
Combined model Coefficient t Coefficient z
AREA 0.096 9.4 0.118 11.5***
PET 0.759 18.2 0.747 12.4***
WETDAYS 0.507 14.9 0.542 12.3***
TOPOVEG 0.011 14.9 0.010 11.3***
STRUCT 0.030 5.9 0.022 4.5***
KINGDOM -- --
NEA 0.154 2.2 0.081 1.7
AUS 0.061 3.9 0.162 2.2*
CAP 0.285 6.1 0.281 4.1***
PAT 0.051 2.3 0.062 1.5
PAA 0.006 0.2 0.023 0.5
Deviance, % 65.9 70.2
AIC 353.5 456.9
Moran's I 0.17*** 0.01NS
Results of GLM and SLM of a combined six-predictor model. KINGDOM:
NEA, Nearctic; AUS, Australis; CAP, Capensis; PAT, Paleotropic; PAA, Palaearctic.
Estimates for KINGDOM refer to deviations from Neotropic (NET). NS, not
significant; ***, P 0.001.
Fig. 3. Global patterns of vascular plant species richness. (a) The geographic
distribution of the richness data of vascular plants for the 1,032 geographic
regions analyzed in this study (each dot presents the mass centroid of a
geographic entity; note that regions differ in size and that species counts have
not been standardized). (b­d) The species-richness maps show areastandardized
predictions of three different global models across an equal area
grid ( 12,100 km2, 1° latitude 1° longitude near the equator) based on the
combined multipredictor model (b), ordinary kriging of species richness
(where species richness is interpolated purely as a function of spatial autocorrelation
in the response variable) (c), and ordinary cokriging (which incorporates
both the spatial autocorrelation in species richness and the combined
model as an underlying trend) (d).
5928 www.pnas.org cgi doi 10.1073 pnas.0608361104 Kreft and Jetz
Brazil, Northern Borneo, and New Guinea) (14, 17). Astonishingly,
the most species-rich grid cell according to our combined
model (situated between Colombia and Ecuador; Fig. 3b) has
already been identified as such by Alexander von Humboldt (47)
200 years ago in the parlance of his time:
This portion of the surface of the globe affords in the
smallest space the greatest possible variety of impressions
from the contemplation of nature. . . . There, the
different climates are ranged the one above the other,
stage by stage, like the vegetable zones, whose succession
they limit; and there the observer may readily trace
the laws that regulate the diminution of heat, as they
stand indelibly inscribed on the rocky walls and abrupt
declivities of the Cordilleras.
Over the last decades, much controversy has arisen from the
ambition to find one single factor that explains the enigmatic
latitudinal gradient in species richness. Our findings demonstrate
that different hypotheses are not mutually exclusive and core
drivers likely act synergistically. Furthermore, our findings illustrate
the significant advance that spatial analysis techniques
applied to even megadiverse taxa at the global scale allow to both
improve conceptual understanding as well as the quantitative
knowledge base for conservation of yet understudied taxa. The
challenge now is to close the many alarming taxonomic and
geographic gaps in data availability that, surely to Humboldt's
dismay, still exist.
Materials and Methods
Richness Data. We analyzed the species richness of vascular plants
(i.e., ferns, gymnosperms, and angiosperms) across 1,032 geographic
units worldwide (Fig. 3a). Geographic units represent
natural (e.g., mountain ranges, desert, and biogeographic provinces)
or political units (e.g., countries, provinces, and national
parks) and were derived from floras, checklists, and other
literature sources (refer to ref. 46 for a full list of references). The
data set was originally assembled to produce expert opinionbased
global maps of plant species richness (11, 14, 17, 19, 46)
and continental geostatistical (16, 48, 49) analyses. The original
data set consists of 3,300 species-richness accounts referring to
1,800 geographic units. We excluded oceanic islands because
isolation or geological age play a major role in the assembly of
island floras (50). Furthermore, we excluded geographic units
with an area of 10 km2
and 300,000 km2
to avoid spatially
overlapping units. The data set covers almost the full spectrum
of the global variation in abiotic conditions and includes all
major biomes and floristic kingdoms.
Putative Determinants. We tested 40 variables as potential determinants
of species richness (see SI Table 3 for full descriptions
and references of all examined variables). Climatic variables and
net primary productivity data were derived from interpolated,
digitally available global data sets. The net primary productivity
data set represents an average of 17 different global models (see
ref. 51 for details). Mean values were extracted across all 1,032
investigated geographical units in ArcINFO (ESRI, Redlands,
CA). Water­energy dynamics received particular attention in
our analyses. We analyzed the predictive power of variables or
variable combinations that have been previously reported to be
strong predictors of plant richness (4, 27, 38) as well as all other
possible combinations of energy-related and water-related variables.
To analyze the potential effects of historical contingencies,
we included floristic kingdom membership as a further variable
(43). When simultaneously controlling for environmental dissimilarity
of core predictors, deviations in species richness from
the global environmental trend may point to an additional
influence of idiosyncratic historical events on species richness
(40, 52). We also tested different variables describing habitat
heterogeneity. The number of 300-m elevational belts per geographic
unit (range of elevation divided by 300; TOPO) was
calculated as a proxy of topographical complexity (31) by using
the GTOPO-30 digital elevation model. Furthermore, the number
of different vegetation types (VEG) and soil types (SOIL)
occurring in a geographic unit were counted. We additionally
created the combined variable TOPOVEG (TOPO VEG)
because global land cover data tend to underestimate changes
along elevational gradients. As a measure of space use of the
vegetation, all biomes were ranked according to their threedimensional
structural complexity (STRUCT). This measure
varies from one (desert and tundra) to six (tropical broadleaf
forest) along an integer scale. Variables were assigned to different
categories corresponding to different hypotheses of
species-richness gradients.
GLM Analyses. First, we performed GLMs to analyze potential
single predictors of species richness. In a second step, more
complex models were created (compare Tables 1 and 2 and SI
Table 4). The fit of individual models is reported by using the
proportion of deviance explained [deviance 2 maximized
log-likelihood; percentage deviance explained (100-null deviance
/ residual deviance) 100], because that makes GLM and
SLM results directly comparable. The best single predictor or
combination of predictors from each category was included into
a combined multipredictor model. The goodness-of-fit in relation
to the model complexity was evaluated by using the AIC,
which incorporates the maximized log-likelihood of the model
and a term that penalizes models with greater complexity (53).
Model selection was then based on AIC, which is the difference
between the AIC of the model of interest and the AIC of the best
fitting model (53).
Spatial Analyses. Spatial autocorrelation of species richness and
predictor variables is a general feature of macroecological data
sets (54). It inflates type I errors of traditional statistical tests and
might affect parameter estimates (55). Because spatial autocorrelation
also is present in the data set analyzed here, we
performed simultaneous autoregressive models. Three different
simultaneous autoregressive model types (lagged-response,
lagged-mixed, and spatial error) were evaluated with different
neighborhood structures and spatial weights (lag distances between
200 and 2,000 km, weighted and binary neighborhood
coding). Final model selection was based on the reduction of
spatial autocorrelation in the residuals and the minimization of
AIC values. Simultaneous autoregressive models of the spatial
error model type with a lag distance of 800 km and weighted
neighborhood structure accounted best for the spatial structure
in the analyzed data set. Spatial statistics were performed with
the ``spdep'' library in the R software package (56). We assessed
spatial autocorrelation in model residuals by using Moran's I,
which can be considered a spatial equivalent to Pearson's
correlation coefficient and normally varies between 1 (positive
autocorrelation) and 1 (negative autocorrelation). The expected
Moran's I value for lacking spatial autocorrelation is close
to 0 (57). Spatial Moran's I correlograms for the response
variable as well as for the GLM and SLM residuals are provided
in SI Fig. 5.
Global Predictions. We derive global predictions of plant richness
across an equal area grid of 110 110 km (12,100 km2
;
approximating an area of 1° latitude 1° longitude near the
equator) (Fig. 3b). We first make predictions based on the parameter
estimates of the combined GLM and by using the same
predictor variables for the global grid. This approach does not
account for the spatial structure in the data except for what is
dictated by the predictor variables. In the absence of richness
Kreft and Jetz PNAS April 3, 2007 vol. 104 no. 14 5929
ECOLOGY
data for unsampled neighboring locations, the incorporation of
the spatial autocorrelation signal when predicting into unsampled
areas is not trivial. We used a two-level approach. First,
we applied the geostatistical interpolation technique of ordinary
kriging, which is commonly applied in other disciplines, such as
mining, meteorology, and soil research (57). This approach
interpolates between sampled quadrats exclusively according to
the spatial dependence of the response variable and ignores
underlying environmental gradients but has the advantage of an
exact interpolation method at sampled locations (Fig. 3c). Second,
we link this limited approach with the GLM-based environmental
model by using ordinary cokriging, a commonly
applied technique to enhance interpolation estimates (57).
Whereas the former considers only the spatial dependence of the
response variable, the latter also accounts for the environmental
covariation. The resulting global species-richness map (Fig. 3d)
accounts for both environmental gradients and underlying spatial
trends in the richness of plants. Geostatistical analyses were
performed with the Geostatistical Analyst extension in ArcGIS
(ESRI).
We thank Jens Mutke, Gerold Kier, and Wilhelm Barthlott (all of
University of Bonn) for access to their global plant-richness data set; two
anonymous reviewers for valuable comments; and Robert Ricklefs,
David Currie, and Lauren Buckley for feedback on preliminary results.
This study is part of the doctoral thesis of H.K., supervised by Wilhelm
Barthlott at the University of Bonn. H.K. received funding and travel
support from the German National Academic Foundation (Bonn, Ger-
many).
1. Schall JJ, Pianka ER (1978) Science 201:679­686.
2. Wright DH (1983) Oikos 41:496­506.
3. Rohde K (1992) Oikos 65:514­527.
4. Hawkins BA, Field R, Cornell HV, Currie DJ, Gue´gan J-F, Kaufman DM, Kerr
JT, Mittelbach GG, Oberdorff T, O'Brien EM, et al. (2003) Ecology 84:3105­
3117.
5. Currie DJ, Mittelbach G, Cornell HV, Field R, Gue´gan J, Hawkins BA,
Kaufman DM, Kerr JT, Oberdorff T, O'Brien EM, Turner JRG (2004) Ecol
Lett 7:1121­1134.
6. Ricklefs RE (2004) Ecol Lett 7:1­15.
7. Jetz W, Rahbek C (2002) Science 297:1548­1551.
8. Lomolino MV (2004) in Frontiers of Biogeography: New Directions in the
Geography of Nature, eds Lomolino MV, Heaney LR (Sinauer, Sunderland,
MA), pp 293­296.
9. Hutchinson GE (1959) Am Nat 93:145­159.
10. Gaston KJ (1992) Funct Ecol 6:243­247.
11. Mutke J, Barthlott W (2005) Biologiske Skrifter 55:521­538.
12. Currie DJ (1991) Am Nat 137:27­49.
13. Myers N, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG, da Fonseca GAB, Kent J (2000)
Nature 403:853­858.
14. Barthlott W, Lauer W, Placke A (1996) Erdkunde 50:317­328.
15. Linder HP (1998) in Chorology, Taxonomy and Ecology of the Floras of Africa
and Madagascar, eds Huxley CR, Lock JM, Cutler DF (R Botan Gard, Kew,
UK), pp 67­86.
16. Mutke J, Kier G, Braun G, Schultz C, Barthlott W (2002) Syst Geogr Plants
71:1125­1136.
17. Barthlott W, Mutke J, Rafiqpoor MD, Kier G, Kreft H (2005) Nova Acta
Leopoldina 92:61­83.
18. Davis SD, Heywood VH, Hamilton AC, eds (1994) Centres of Plant Diversity:
A Guide and Strategy for Their Conservation (Int Union Conserv Nat Natural
Resour, Cambridge, UK), Vol 1.
19. Davis SD, Heywood VH, Hamilton AC, eds (1995) Centres of Plant Diversity:
A Guide and Strategy for Their Conservation (Int Union Conserv Nat Natural
Resour, Cambridge, UK), Vol 2.
20. Davis SD, Heywood VH, Herrera-MacBryde O, Villa-Lobos J, Hamilton AC,
eds (1997) Centres of Plant Diversity: A Guide and Strategy for Their Conservation
(Int Union Conserv Nat Natural Resour, Cambridge, UK), Vol 3.
21. Barthlott W, Biedinger N, Braun G, Feig F, Kier G, Mutke J (1999) Acta
Botanica Fennica 162:103­110.
22. Kier G, Ku¨per W, Mutke J, Rafiqpoor MD, Barthlott W (2006) in Taxonomy
and Ecology of African Plants, Their Conservation and Sustainable Use, eds
Ghazanfar SA, Beentje HJ (Royal Botan Gard, Kew, UK), pp 409­425.
23. Lovett JC, Rudd S, Taplin J, Frimodt-Mller C (2000) Biodivers Conserv
9:37­46.
24. Crisp MD, Laffan S, Linder HP, Monro A (2001) J Biogeogr 28:183­198.
25. Kreft H, Sommer JH, Barthlott W (2006) Ecography 29:21­30.
26. Wright DH, Currie DJ, Maurer BA (1993) in Species Diversity in Ecological
Communities: Historical and Geographical Perspectives, eds Ricklefs RE,
Schluter D (Univ of Chicago Press, Chicago), pp 66­74.
27. Francis AP, Currie DJ (2003) Am Nat 161:523­536.
28. Field R, O'Brien EM, Whittaker RJ (2005) Ecology 86:2263­2277.
29. Wiens JJ, Donoghue MJ (2004) Trends Ecol Evol 19:639­644.
30. Shmida A, Wilson MV (1985) J Biogeogr 12:1­20.
31. Rahbek C, Graves GR (2001) Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:4534­4539.
32. Ricklefs RE (1987) Science 235:167­171.
33. Dynesius M, Jansson R (2000) Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 97:9115­9120.
34. Jetz W, Rahbek C, Colwell RK (2004) Ecol Lett 7:1180­1191.
35. Qian H, Ricklefs RE (2004) Am Nat 163:773­779.
36. Rosenzweig ML (1995) Species Diversity in Space and Time (Cambridge Univ
Press, Cambridge, UK).
37. Allen AP, Brown JH, Gillooly J (2002) Science 297:1545­1548.
38. Venevsky S, Veneskaia I (2003) Ecol Lett 6:1004­1016.
39. Kerr JT, Packer L (1997) Nature 385:252­254.
40. Qian H, Ricklefs RE (2000) Nature 407:180­182.
41. Gentry AH (1982) Ann Mo Bot Gard 69:557­593.
42. Hughes C, Eastwood R (2006) Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103:10334­10339.
43. Good R (1974) The Geography of the Flowering Plants (Longman, London).
44. Linder HP (2003) Biol Rev 78:597­638.
45. Cowling RM, Pressey RL (2001) Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:5452­5457.
46. Kier G, Mutke J, Dinerstein E, Ricketts TH, Ku¨per W, Kreft H, Barthlott W
(2005) J Biogeogr 32:1107­1116.
47. von Humboldt A (1845­1858) Kosmos: Entwurf einer physischen Weltbeschreibung
(Cotta, Stuttgart/Tu¨bingen, Germany).
48. Mutke J (2002) Ra¨umliche Muster Biologischer Vielfalt: Die Gefa¨ßpflanzenflora
Amerikas im Globalen Kontext (Univ of Bonn, Bonn).
49. Mutke J, Barthlott W (2000) in Results of Worldwide Ecological Studies.
Proceedings of the First Symposium by the A.F.W. Schimper-Foundation, eds
Breckle S-W, Schweizer B, Arndt U (Heimbach, Stuttgart, Germany), pp
435­447.
50. Whittaker RJ (1998) Island Biogeography: Ecology, Evolution, and Conservation
(Oxford Univ Press, Oxford).
51. Cramer W, Kicklighter DW, Bondeau A, Moore B, III, Churkina G, Nemry B,
Ruimy A, Schloss AL, Participants of ``Potsdam '95'' (1999) Global Change Biol
5:1­15.
52. Whittaker RJ, Willis KJ, Field R (2001) J Biogeogr 28:453­470.
53. Johnson JB, Omland KS (2004) Trends Ecol Evol 19:101­108.
54. Legendre P (1993) Ecology 74:1659­1673.
55. Lennon JJ (2000) Ecography 23:101­113.
56. R Development Core Team (2005) R: A Language and Environment for
Statistical Computing (R Found Stat Comput, Vienna).
57. Fortin M-J, Dale MRT (2005) Spatial Analysis: A Guide for Ecologists (Cambridge
Univ Press, Cambridge, UK).
5930 www.pnas.org cgi doi 10.1073 pnas.0608361104 Kreft and Jetz