Taxonomic versus functional diversity metrics: how do fish communities respond to anthropogenic stressors in reservoirs?

Sagouis, Alban; Jabot, Franck; Argillier, Christine

doi:10.1111/eff.12306

Cited by 27 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 72 publications

(141 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Here, we found that elevation range was an important driver of richness of the three considered facets similarly to what was found in several taxa of vertebrates (Meynard et al 2011, Sagouis et al 2017. Elevation range seems to be a more integrative surrogate for the overall diversity of environmental conditions over the river catchment than the area of the catchment.…”

Section: Drivers Of Freshwater Fish Diversity Patterns In Europesupporting

confidence: 76%

Spatial mismatch in morphological, ecological and phylogenetic diversity, in historical and contemporary European freshwater fish faunas

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biodiversity encompasses multiple facets, among which taxonomic, functional and phylogenetic aspects are the most often considered. Understanding how those diversity facets are distributed and what are their determinants has become a central concern in the current context of biodiversity crisis, but such multi‐faceted measures over large geographical areas are still pending. Here, we measured the congruence between the biogeographical patterns of freshwater fish morphological, ecological and phylogenetic diversity across Europe and identified the natural and anthropogenic drivers shaping those patterns. Based on freshwater fish occurrence records in 290 European river catchments, we computed richness and evenness for morphological, ecological and phylogenetic diversity using standardized effect sizes for each diversity index. We then used linear models including climatic, geo‐morphological, biotic and human‐related factors to determine the key drivers shaping freshwater fish biodiversity patterns across Europe. We found a weak spatial congruence between facets of diversity. Patterns of diversity were mainly driven by elevation range, climatic seasonality and species richness while other factors played a minor role. Finally, we found that non‐native species introductions significantly affected diversity patterns and influenced the effects of some environmental drivers. Morphological, ecological and phylogenetic diversity constitute complementary facets of fish diversity rather than surrogates, testifying that they deserve to be considered altogether to properly assess biodiversity. Although the same environmental and anthropogenic factors overall explained those diversity facets, their relative influence varied. In the current context of global change, non‐native species introductions may also lead to important reshuffling of assemblages resulting in profound changes of diversity patterns.

show abstract

Section: Drivers Of Freshwater Fish Diversity Patterns In Europesupporting

confidence: 76%

Spatial mismatch in morphological, ecological and phylogenetic diversity, in historical and contemporary European freshwater fish faunas

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…stocking, fishing). This summary enlightens the importance of moving towards a trait-based approach to get a mechanistic understanding of the effects of impoundment on fish communities (see Lima et al 2016bLima et al , 2018Sagouis et al 2017;) and to detect more subtle impacts in fish communities (i.e. changes in assemblage that occur before species loss).…”

Section: Mechanistic Understanding Of the Effects Of Impoundment On Fmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Earlier works have provided valuable information regarding the effects of dams on fish communities, but the divergences observed regarding fish responses to impoundment call for a global assessment that goes beyond taxonomic indices to include fish assemblage metrics and functional indices (Mérona & Vigouroux ; Mims & Olden ; Lima et al , ; Sagouis et al ; Santos et al ). Moreover, the effects brought about by dams and newly created reservoirs might also vary across latitudes according to the inherent adaptability of fish communities to respond to the physico‐chemical and biological changes (Rosenberg et al ; Gomes & Miranda ; Vörösmarty et al ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dams have varying impacts on fish communities across latitudes: a quantitative synthesis

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dams are recognised to impact aquatic biodiversity, but the effects and conclusions diverge across studies and locations. By using a meta‐analytical approach, we quantified the effects of impoundment on fish communities distributed across three large biomes. The impacts of dams on richness and diversity differed across biomes, with significant declines in the tropics, lower amplitude but similar directional changes in temperate regions, and no changes in boreal regions. Our analyses showed that non‐native species increased significantly in tropical and temperate regulated rivers, but not in boreal rivers. In contrast, temporal trajectories in fish assemblage metrics were common across regions, with all biomes showing an increase in mean trophic level position and in the proportion of generalist species after impoundment. Such changes in fish assemblages may affect food web stability and merit closer study. Across the literature examined, predominant mechanisms that render fish assemblages susceptible to impacts from dams were: (1) the transformation of the lotic environment into a lentic environment; (2) habitat fragmentation and (3) the introduction of non‐native species. Collectively, our results highlight that an understanding of the regional context and a suite of community metrics are needed to make robust predictions about how fish will respond to river impoundments.

show abstract

“…In some cases, traditional taxonomic-based diversity metrics fail to respond to changes in community structure resulting from environmental disturbances, for example, in the case of species invasions (Sagouis, Jabot, & Argillier, 2016). As such, incorporating multiple diversity metrics into conservation strategies can provide a more robust and systematic framework for conservation resource allocation (Strecker, Olden, Whittier, & Paukert, 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating functional diversity conservation for freshwater fishes resulting from terrestrial protected areas

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Protected areas are one of the hammers in conservation toolkits, yet few protected areas exist that were designed to protect freshwater ecosystems. This is problematic as freshwater ecosystems are among the most threatened systems on earth. Nonetheless, terrestrial protected areas (TPAs) may afford spill‐over benefits to freshwater ecosystems included within their boundaries, but evaluations of these potential benefits for the protection of freshwater fish diversity are lacking. Using fish community data from 175 lakes inside, outside, or bordering TPAs in Ontario, Canada, we sought to determine if TPAs preserve fish functional diversity. We focused on functional diversity because previous work indicated no taxonomic differences between these lakes, but a difference in normalised‐length size‐spectra slopes inside versus outside TPAs (indicator of unique predator–prey ratios and trophic energy transfer). We expected that communities inside TPAs would show greater functional diversity (i.e. functional dispersion and functional richness) and have more extreme trait combinations (i.e. functional divergence) than communities outside or bordering TPAs. We also tested for differences in the rarity of species‐specific functional traits between fish communities inside, outside, or bordering TPAs, between thermal guilds, and across average body size and overall prevalence of the species. Our results indicated no significant differences in functional diversity among lake fish communities inside, outside, or bordering TPAs. However, fish communities inside TPAs had more extreme trait combinations than outside TPAs because abundant species in lake communities outside TPAs had more ubiquitous trait combinations than abundant fishes inside TPAs. Small‐bodied species showed greater functional rarity than large‐bodied species, indicating that small‐bodied fishes fill functionally unique roles while the most prevalent, large‐bodied species possess a more generalist set of traits. Overall, the similarity of functional diversity metrics for lake fish communities inside, outside, or bordering TPAs in Ontario suggests that TPAs capture the functional diversity of Ontario's lake fish communities. However, we encourage similar evaluations in regions where environmental conditions and stressors are more distinct across TPA boundaries than they are in Ontario, as these types of evaluations will inform guidelines for the design of freshwater protected areas and monitoring of their effectiveness in the future.

show abstract

Taxonomic versus functional diversity metrics: how do fish communities respond to anthropogenic stressors in reservoirs?

Cited by 27 publications

References 72 publications

Spatial mismatch in morphological, ecological and phylogenetic diversity, in historical and contemporary European freshwater fish faunas

Spatial mismatch in morphological, ecological and phylogenetic diversity, in historical and contemporary European freshwater fish faunas

Dams have varying impacts on fish communities across latitudes: a quantitative synthesis

Evaluating functional diversity conservation for freshwater fishes resulting from terrestrial protected areas

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About