**Genetics and Life Sciences**

94 Biodiversity Conservation and Utilization in a Diverse World

invertebrates in soil. J. Environ. Manag. 67: 255–266.

Ecol. 9: 81–86.

[113] Koehler H (1998) Secondary succession of soil mesofauna: A 13 year study. Appl. Soil

[114] Black HIJ, Parekh NR, Chaplow JS, Monson F, Watkins J, Creamer R, Potter ED, Poskitt JM, Rowland P, Ainsworth G, Hornung M (2003) Assessing soil biodiversity across Great Britain: national trends in the occurrence of heterotrophic bacteria and

[115] Berg MP, Hemerik L (2004) Secondary succession of terrestrial isopod, centipede, and

millipede in grasslands under restoration. Biol. Fertil. Soils 40: 163-170.

**Chapter 4** 

© 2012 Deng and Zhang, licensee InTech. This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

© 2012 Deng and Zhang, licensee InTech. This is a paper distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

*<sup>T</sup> S JA B B* . In this expression, *E* is the activation

0 0 *B bM* , where *b*0 is a

**Species Distribution Patterns, Species-Area** 

It is a fascinating issue for ecologists to develop a general theory or principle to interpret the mechanisms of global gradients and stabilization of biodiversity. This question has perplexed biogeographers and ecologists for about 100 years, and the diverse theories and hypotheses have been put forward to account for latitudinal gradients in biodiversity (Wright 1983; Rohde, 1992; Waide *et al*., 1999; Colwell & Lees, 2000; Gaston, 2000; Allen *et al*. 2002; Hawkins *et al*., 2003; Willig *et al*. 2003; Ricklefs, 2004; Evans & Gaston, 2005; Evans *et al*., 2005; Mittelbach *et al*. 2007; Gillooly& Allen, 2007; Storch *et al.* 2007; Cardinale, *et al*., 2009), Recent decade, the metabolic theory of biodiversity (MTB) is developed and attracting a lot of attentions of ecologists as a novel hypothesis based on metabolic theory of ecology (MTE) and the energeticequivalence rule (West *et al*. 1997, 1999; Enquist *et al*. 1998; Allen *et al*. 2002, 2007; Brown *et al*. 2004; Deng *et al*. 2006, 2008). The MTB is recognized as a general principle that can quantify relationships between the dynamic processes of population and biodiversity patterns in ecosystem, and between species richness and environmental factors (see also Allen *et al*. 2003, 2006; Allen & Gillooly 2006; Gillooly & Allen 2007). The metabolic eco-evolutionary model of biodiversity, the most recent extension of the MTB, has been developed by Stegen *et al*., (2009).

The MTB considered that species richness, *S*, in plots of fixed area, *A*, should be described by

energy of metabolism, -0.6 to -0.7 eV, *k* is Boltzmann's constant (8.62×10-5 eV K-1, where *K* is

normalization constant that varies by taxonomic group, *M* is individual body size, *BT* is the total energy flux of a population per unit area, varying with taxonomic group and plot area *A*, and *J/A* is the total density of individual per unit area. Apparently, the species richness should vary as a function of abundance, body size and environmental temperature. So, when

<sup>0</sup> ( )( )e *E T*

degrees Kelvin), *T* is environmental temperature in degrees kelvin, 3 4

**and Species-Temperature Relationships** 

**in Eastern Asian Plants** 

Jianming Deng and Qiang Zhang

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/48509

**1. Introduction** 

Additional information is available at the end of the chapter

a form of equation as following <sup>k</sup>
