Aim\ud \ud We studied global variation in beta diversity patterns of lake macrophytes using regional data from across the world. Specifically, we examined (1) how beta diversity of aquatic macrophytes is partitioned between species turnover and nestedness within each study region, and (2) which environmental characteristics structure variation in these beta diversity components.\ud Location\ud \ud Global.\ud Methods\ud \ud We used presence–absence data for aquatic macrophytes from 21 regions distributed around the world. We calculated pairwise-site and multiple-site beta diversity among lakes within each region using Sørensen dissimilarity index and partitioned it into turnover and nestedness coefficients. Beta regression was used to correlate the diversity coefficients with regional environmental characteristics.\ud Results\ud \ud Aquatic macrophytes showed different levels of beta diversity within each of the 21 study regions, with species turnover typically accounting for the majority of beta diversity, especially in high-diversity regions. However, nestedness contributed 30–50% of total variation in macrophyte beta diversity in low-diversity regions. The most important environmental factor explaining the three beta diversity coefficients (total, species turnover and nestedness) was elevation range, followed by relative areal extent of freshwater, latitude and water alkalinity range.\ud Main conclusions\ud \ud Our findings show that global patterns in beta diversity of lake macrophytes are caused by species turnover rather than by nestedness. These patterns in beta diversity were driven by natural environmental heterogeneity, notably variability in elevation range (also related to temperature variation) among regions. In addition, a greater range in alkalinity within a region, likely amplified by human activities, was also correlated with increased macrophyte beta diversity. These findings suggest that efforts to conserve aquatic macrophyte diversity should primarily focus on regions with large numbers of lakes that exhibit broad environmental gradients

The Anthropocene presents formidable threats to freshwater ecosystems. Lakes are especially vulnerable and important at the same time. They cover only a small area worldwide but harbour high levels of biodiversity and contribute disproportionately to ecosystem services. Lakes differ with respect to their general type (e.g. land‐locked, drainage, floodplain and large lakes) and position in the landscape (e.g. highland versus lowland lakes), which contribute to the dynamics of these systems. Lakes should be generally viewed as ‘meta‐systems’, whereby biodiversity is strongly affected by species dispersal, and ecosystem dynamics are contributed by the flow of matter and substances among locations in a broader waterscape context. Lake connectivity in the waterscape and position in the landscape determine the degree to which a lake is prone to invasion by non‐native species and accumulation of harmful substances. Highly connected lakes low in the landscape accumulate nutrients and pollutants originating from ecosystems higher in the landscape. The monitoring and restoration of lake biodiversity and ecosystem services should consider the fact that a high degree of dynamism is present at local, regional and global scales. However, local and regional monitoring may be plagued by the unpredictability of ecological phenomena, hindering adaptive management of lakes. Although monitoring data are increasingly becoming available to study responses of lakes to global change, we still lack suitable integration of models for entire waterscapes. Research across disciplinary boundaries is needed to address the challenges that lakes face in the Anthropocene because they may play an increasingly important role in harbouring unique aquatic biota as well as providing ecosystem goods and services in the future.

Metacommunity patterns and underlying processes in aquatic organisms have typically been studied within a drainage basin. We examined variation in the composition of six freshwater organismal groups across various drainage basins in Finland. We first modelled spatial structures within each drainage basin using Moran eigenvector maps. Second, we partitioned variation in community structure among three groups of predictors using constrained ordination: (1) local environmental variables, (2) spatial variables, and (3) dummy variable drainage basin identity. Third, we examined turnover and nestedness components of multiple-site beta diversity, and tested the best fit patterns of our datasets using the "elements of metacommunity structure" analysis. Our results showed that basin identity and local environmental variables were significant predictors of community structure, whereas within-basin spatial effects were typically negligible. In half of the organismal groups (diatoms, bryophytes, zooplankton), basin identity was a slightly better predictor of community structure than local environmental variables, whereas the opposite was true for the remaining three organismal groups (insects, macrophytes, fish). Both pure basin and local environmental fractions were, however, significant after accounting for the effects of the other predictor variable sets. All organismal groups exhibited high levels of beta diversity, which was mostly attributable to the turnover component. Our results showed consistent Clementsian-type metacommunity structures, suggesting that subgroups of species responded similarly to environmental factors or drainage basin limits. We conclude that aquatic communities across large scales are mostly determined by environmental and basin effects, which leads to high beta diversity and prevalence of Clementsian community types.

Aim Spatial extent is inherently related to the potential roles of the main mechanisms structuring metacommunities. We examined the effects of varying spatial extent (ecological province, region and subregion) on the environmental and spatial components of variation in lake macrophyte communities. We also studied these effects separately for three macrophyte functional groups.