JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

No abstract

Aim  Although many factors undoubtedly affect species geographic distributions, can a single, simple model nonetheless capture most of the spatial variation in the probability of presence/absence in a large set of species? For 482 North American tree species that occur east of the Rocky Mountains, we investigated the shape(s) of the relationship between the probability of occupancy of a given location and macroclimate, and its consistency among species and regions. Location  North America. Methods  Using Little's tree range maps, we tested four hypothetical shapes of response relating occupancy to climate: (1) high occupancy of all suitable climates; (2) threshold response (i.e. unsuitable climates exclude species, but within the thresholds, species presence is independent of climate); (3) occupancy is a bivariate normal function of annual temperature and precipitation; and (4) asymmetric limitation (i.e. abiotic factors set abrupt range limits in stressful climates only). Finally, we compared observed climatic niches with the occupancy of similar climates on off‐shore islands as well as west of the Rockies. Results  (a) Species' distributions in climatic space do not have strong thresholds, nor are they systematically skewed towards less stressful climates. (b) Occupancy can generally be described by a bivariate normal function of temperature and precipitation, with little or no interaction between the two variables. This model, averaged over all species, accounts for 82% of the spatial variation in the probability of occupancy of a given area. (c) Occupied geographic ranges are typically ringed by unoccupied, but climatically suitable areas. (d) Observed climatic niche positions are largely conserved between regions. Main conclusions  We conclude that, despite the complexities of species histories and biologies, to a first approximation most of the variation in their geographic distributions relates to climate, in similar ways for nearly all species.

Summary Although meiofauna occur in large numbers in many streams, almost nothing is known about their functional role. In other systems, meiofauna influence microbial and organic matter dynamics through consumption and bioturbation. Given that these are important processes in streams, meiofauna have the potential to influence lotic function by changing the quality and availability of organic matter as well as the number and biotic activity of benthic microbes. Selective feeding by meiofauna has the potential to alter the availability of nutrients and organic carbon. Meiofauna generally contribute only a small amount to metazoan production and biomass in streams, although exceptions occur. Within a stream, the relative importance of meiofauna may reflect whether the temporary or permanent meiofauna dominate the meiobenthos as well as the season when samples are collected. We suggest stream conditions (small sediment grain size, restricted interstitial flow) under which meiofauna have the greatest likelihood of influencing stream ecosystem function. Important areas for future research include addressing whether meiofauna feed selectively, whether meiofauna are links or sinks for carbon in streams, and whether bioturbation by meiofauna influences stream ecosystem processes in a predictable manner.

1. Stream riffles in southern Ontario and western Quèbec were sampled for biomass (58 stations from 51 streams) and production (22 stations from 21 streams) of algae and bacteria in periphyton to test the hypothesis that bacteria in benthic biofilms compete with algae for nutrients. 2. Algal and bacterial biomass were positively correlated, as were algal and bacterial production. Bacterial production was also positively correlated to algal and bacterial biomass, but the relationship was not significant. The ratio of algal to bacterial biomass did not vary with nutrients whereas algal production tended to increase with nutrients more rapidly than bacterial production. 3. Instream nitrogen concentrations explained 38-58% of the variability in algal biomass and production. Bacterial abundance explained an additional 9-29% of the residual variance in algal production and biomass. However, the relationship between bacterial abundance and algal production and biomass, once nutrients were taken into account, was positive, in contrast to the predicted effect of competition. 4. Hence, we reject our original hypothesis that bacteria in biofilms compete with algae for nutrients and instead suggest that bacteria and algae in biofilms coexist in an association that offers space and resources to sustain production of both groups of organisms.