Abstract
Most models that examine the effects of habitat conversion on species extinctions assume that habitat conversion occurs at random. This assumption allows predictions about extinction rates based on the species-area relationship. We show that the spatially aggregated nature of habitat conversion introduces a significant bias that may lead species-loss rates to exceed those predicted by species-area curves. Correlations between human activity and major compositional gradients, or species richness, also alter predicted species extinction rates. We illustrate the consequences of nonrandom patterns of habitat conversion by using a data set that combines the distribution of native vascular plants with human activity patterns in California.