Environmental drivers of taxonomic, functional and phylogenetic diversity (alpha, beta and gamma components) in estuarine fish communities

Abstract

Aim We applied a diversity partitioning approach to identify the influence of multiple environmental factors on taxonomic, functional and phylogenetic diversity of estuarine fish assemblages at different spatial scales. Our aim was to determine (1) how variation in γ‐diversity (estuary scale) is supported by changes in α‐ (local scale) and β‐components (dissimilarity between these two scales) for the three diversity facets and (2) how these diversity measures are related to biogeographic, hydroclimatic, marine, estuarine and land cover conditions. Location French estuaries, North East Atlantic. Taxon Fish communities. Methods Fish assemblages were sampled using standardized beam trawl surveys in 32 estuaries during spring and autumn (period 2005–2016). The Rao's quadratic entropy was used to decompose the γ‐diversity into α‐diversity and β‐diversity. For the three diversity facets, we used linear mixed models (LMMs) to determine the strength of the relationships between α‐, β‐ and γ‐diversities. Then, LMMs were applied to identify which environmental factors were the best predictors of diversity patterns. Results Variability in γ‐diversity is better explained by β‐diversity than by local (α‐) diversity for the three diversity facets. The relationship between γ‐ and α‐diversity revealed a saturation effect for both taxonomic and phylogenetic indices. The influence of the five categories of explanatory variables differed depending on the diversity facet and component. We found that marine conditions were the primary drivers of phylogenetic and functional α‐diversity, whereas β‐diversity was mainly influenced by estuarine characteristics. LMMs also evidenced a role of biogeographic, hydroclimatic and land cover conditions on β‐diversity. Main conclusions Our results support the statement that fish diversity is chiefly supported by changes in species composition along estuarine gradients, while functional dissimilarity is limited in space and time. Although diversity is influenced by numerous environmental factors, the ecological connection with the marine ecosystem appears as a key component to promote local diversity.

Environmental drivers of species composition and functional diversity of dung beetles along the Atlantic Forest–Pampa transition zone

“…For each domain (Atlantic Forest or Pampa), the ratio human‐driven changes/dominant ecosystem was calculated to evaluate the importance of humankind's footprint relative to non‐modified areas (Teichert et al . ).…”

“…Consequently, there is a need to understand the processes that drive and maintain biodiversity in these ecosystems aiming to guide conservation and management efforts (Teichert et al . ), such as the establishment of ecologically satisfactory protected areas in a human‐dominated world (Laurance et al . ).…”

Drivers affecting mammal community structure and functional diversity under varied conservation efforts in a tropical rainforest in Cameroon

“…As a result, functional diversity is increasingly studied in different taxonomical groups (e.g. birds; Hidasi‐Neto, Barlow & Cianciaruso, ; Monnet et al ., ; Sitters et al ., ; fish; Wu et al ., ; Colin et al ., ; Teichert et al ., and mammals; Flynn et al ., ; Ahumada et al ., ; Chillo & Ojeda, ) and on regional and global levels (Safi et al ., ; Magioli et al ., ; González‐Maya et al ., ; Mazel et al ., ).…”

Revealing the drivers of taxonomic and functional diversity of nearshore fish assemblages: Implications for conservation priorities

“…The urbanization effect, however, was not so clear. We found higher values of Fdis at sites with low (between 1 and 2) and high (>3) UI, suggesting that, despite having lower species richness and abundance of individuals, fish assemblages in urbanized sites may maintain high functional diversity (Sousa Gomes-Gonçalves et al, 2020;Teichert et al, 2018). Also, beaches with a steep slope have deep surf zones that consist of less microhabitats (like runnels and bars) (Wright & Short, 1984), which can explain the decrease of functional dispersion, since less ecological niches are available to be filled by distinct functional groups.…”