Interspecific abundance–occupancy relationships of British mammals and birds: is it possible to explain the residual variation?

AimThe majority of studies concerning positive interspecific abundance–occupancy relationships have used broad‐scale and microcosm data to test the occurrence and correlates of the relationship to determine which of the proposed mechanisms give rise to it. It has been argued recently that studying the residual variation about abundance–occupancy relationships is a more logical analysis and may yield faster progress in identifying the relative roles of the mechanisms. However, to date this approach has been largely unsuccessful. Here we test if fundamental species traits such as the status (native and introduced), habitat and trophic group of mammal and bird species may explain any of the residual variation about their respective abundance–occupancy relationships. LocationThe study used British mammal and bird species. MethodsWe tested if species traits explained any of the variation about abundance–occupancy relationships using linear regression techniques both treating species as independent data points for analysis and controlling for phylogenetic association. ResultsNone of the species traits could explain any residual variation about the positive interspecific abundance–occupancy relationships of British mammals and birds. This applied both when treating species as independent data points and after controlling for phylogenetic association. ConclusionsGiven the lack of explanatory power of the species traits here and in other studies using this approach it seems that the variation about positive interspecific abundance–occupancy relationships is not explicable in a simple fashion. Predicting the likely influence of traits that are independent of phylogeny is also problematic. Therefore, the general utility of this approach and its future role in understanding the mechanisms causing positive interspecific abundance–occupancy relationships is doubtful.