SUMMARY1. Metacommunity ecology addresses the situation where sets of local communities are connected by the dispersal of a number of potentially interacting species. Aquatic systems (e.g. lentic versus lotic versus marine) differ from each other in connectivity and environmental heterogeneity, suggesting that metacommunity organisation also differs between major aquatic systems. Here, we review findings from observational field studies on metacommunity organisation in aquatic systems. 2. Species sorting (i.e. species are 'filtered' by environmental factors and occur only at environmentally suitable sites) prevails in aquatic systems, particularly in streams and lakes, but the degree to which dispersal limitation interacts with such environmental control varies among different systems and spatial scales. For example, mainstem rivers and marine coastal systems may be strongly affected by 'mass effects' (i.e. where high dispersal rates homogenise communities to some degree at neighbouring localities, irrespective of their abiotic and biotic environmental conditions), whereas isolated lakes and ponds may be structured by dispersal limitation (i.e. some species do not occur at otherwise-suitable localities simply because sites with potential colonists are too far away). Flow directionality in running waters also differs from water movements in other systems, and this difference may also have effects on the role of dispersal in different aquatic systems. 3. Dispersal limitation typically increases with increasing spatial distance between sites, mass effects potentially increase in importance with decreasing distance between sites, and the dispersal ability of organisms may determine the spatial extents at which species sorting and dispersal processes are most important. 4. A better understanding of the relative roles of species sorting, mass effects and dispersal limitation in affecting aquatic metacommunities requires the following: (i) characterising dispersal rates more directly or adopting better proxies than have been used previously; (ii) considering the nature of aquatic networks; (iii) combining correlative and experimental approaches; (iv) exploring temporal aspects of metacommunity organisation and (v) applying past approaches and statistical methods innovatively for increasing our understanding of metacommunity organisation.

Within a metacommunity, both environmental and spatial processes regulate variation in local community structure. The strength of these processes may vary depending on species traits (e.g., dispersal mode) or the characteristics of the regions studied (e.g., spatial extent, environmental heterogeneity). We studied the metacommunity structuring of three groups of stream macroinvertebrates differing in their overland dispersal mode (passive dispersers with aquatic adults; passive dispersers with terrestrial adults; active dispersers with terrestrial adults). We predicted that environmental structuring should be more important for active dispersers, because of their better ability to track environmental variability, and that spatial structuring should be more important for species with aquatic adults, because of stronger dispersal limitation. We sampled a total of 70 stream riffle sites in three drainage basins. Environmental heterogeneity was unrelated to spatial extent among our study regions, allowing us to examine the effects of these two factors on metacommunity structuring. We used partial redundancy analysis and Moran's eigenvector maps based on overland and watercourse distances to study the relative importance of environmental control and spatial structuring. We found that, compared with environmental control, spatial structuring was generally negligible, and it did not vary according to our predictions. In general, active dispersers with terrestrial adults showed stronger environmental control than the two passively dispersing groups, suggesting that the species dispersing actively are better able to track environmental variability. There were no clear differences in the results based on watercourse and overland distances. The variability in metacommunity structuring among basins was not related to the differences in the environmental heterogeneity and spatial extent. Our study emphasized that (1) environmental control is prevailing in stream metacommunities, (2) dispersal mode may have an important effect on metacommunity structuring, and (3) some factors other than spatial extent or environmental heterogeneity contributed to the differences among the basins.

Ecologists have long investigated why communities are composed of a few common species and many rare species. Most studies relate rarity to either niche differentiation among species or spatial processes. There is a parallel between these processes and the processes proposed to explain the structure of metacommunities. Based on a metacommunity perspective and on data on stream macroinvertebrates from different regions of Brazil, we answer two questions. 1) Are sets of common and rare species affected by similar niche and spatial processes? 2) How does the community composition of common and of rare species differ? The main hypothesis we test is that common species are mainly affected by environmental factors, whereas rare species are mostly influenced by dispersal limitation. We used variation partitioning to determine the proportion of variation explained by the environment and space in common and rare species matrices. Contrary to our expectations, evidence supported the idea that both common and rare species are affected mainly by environmental factors, even after controlling for the differing information content between common and rare species matrices. Moreover, the abundance of some common species is also a good predictor of variation in rare species matrices. Niche differences are unlikely to be the sole cause of patterns of rarity in these metacommunities. We suggest that sets of common and rare species react to similar major environmental gradients and that rare species also respond to processes that operate at a more fine‐grained spatial scale, particularly biotic interactions. We extend the view that species sorting is the dominant process structuring metacommunities and argue that future studies focusing on rarity would benefit from a metacommunity perspective.

No abstract