The geographic scaling of biotic interactions

Araújo, Miguel B.; Rozenfeld, Alejandro

doi:10.7287/peerj.preprints.82v1

Cited by 136 publications

(229 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

209

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…First, ignoring large‐scale factors, such as climate gradients, dispersal barriers, historical contingencies and evolutionary history, can mask the outcomes of small‐scale processes, such as local abiotic filters and competition (Cardinale et al, 2013; Cavender‐Bares, Keen, & Miles, 2006; Swenson, Enquist, Pither, Thompson, & Zimmerman, 2006; Vamosi et al, 2009). Second, ignoring small‐scale factors, such as intraspecific variation in trait values (Albert et al, 2012; Siefert et al, 2015) and the fine‐scale spatial arrangement of individuals (Diekmann, Law & Metz, 2000), can lead to the underlying processes being overlooked because their effects may not scale up to large‐scale diversity patterns (Araujo & Rozenfeld, 2014; Thuiller et al, 2010; Turcotte & Levine, 2016). For example, it has been shown that trait plasticity increases niche differences in communities and thereby stabilizes coexistence and promotes diversity (Pérez‐Ramos, Matías, Gómez‐Aparicio, & Godoy, 2019).…”

Section: Common Pitfallsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dos and don'ts when inferring assembly rules from diversity patterns

Münkemüller

Gallien

Pollock

et al. 2020

Global Ecol Biogeogr

124

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: More than ever, ecologists seek to understand how species are distributed and have assembled into communities using the "filtering framework". This framework is based on the hypothesis that local assemblages result from a series of abiotic and biotic filters applied to regional species pools and that these filters leave predictable signals in observed diversity patterns. In theory, statistical comparisons of expected and observed patterns enable data-driven tests of assembly processes. However, so far this framework has fallen short in delivering generalizable conclusions, challenging whether (and how) diversity patterns can be used to characterize and understand underlying assembly processes better.Methods: By synthesizing the previously raised critiques and suggested solutions in a comprehensive way, we identify 10 pitfalls that can lead to flawed interpretations of α-diversity patterns, summarize solutions developed to circumvent these pitfalls and provide general guidelines. Results:We find that most issues arise from an overly simplistic view of potential processes that influence diversity patterns, which is often motivated by practical constraints on study design, focal scale and methodology. We outline solutions for each pitfall, such as methods spanning over spatial, environmental or phylogenetic scales, and suggest guidelines for best scientific practices in community ecology.

show abstract

Section: Common Pitfallsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dos and don'ts when inferring assembly rules from diversity patterns

Münkemüller

Gallien

Pollock

et al. 2020

Global Ecol Biogeogr

124

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Conducting such investigations can help to detect robust patterns and processes that transcend taxonomic and geographic boundaries (Brown, 1999), and help to control for potential biases occurring from studying too few species or spatial scales that are too small (Hulme et al, 2013). Despite the vast number of smaller-scale investigations on biological invasions, these studies cannot provide comprehensive insight into the complexities of invasions at macroscales (Pauchard & Shea, 2006), as data required to do so need to be collected across multiple geographic scales (Ara ujo & Rozenfeld, 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Region-specific patterns and drivers of macroscale forest plant invasions

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim Stronger inferences about biological invasions may be obtained when accounting for multiple invasion measures and the spatial heterogeneity occurring across large geographic areas. We pursued this enquiry by utilizing a multimeasure, multiregional framework to investigate forest plant invasions at a subcontinental scale. Location United States of America (USA). Methods Using empirical data from a national survey of USA forests, we compiled and mapped invasion richness (number of invasive species) and invasion prevalence (percentage of plots invaded) for 2524 counties. We then modelled each of these invasion measures as functions of 22 factors reflective of propagule pressure and/or habitat invasibility for eastern and western forests separately using simultaneous autoregressive spatial error models. Results Eastern forests had higher mean invasion richness (6.1) and prevalence (48%) than western forests (3.2 and 10%, respectively). Spatial patterns of invasion richness and prevalence differed, especially in the West. Propagule pressure factors were always positively associated with both invasion measures. Factors associated with human legacy were nearly six times more strongly associated with western than eastern invasions. Unlike propagule pressure factors, habitat invasibility factors shared inconsistent associations with invasion measures. Main conclusions The weaker associations between human legacy and invasions in the heavily invaded East, compared to the less‐invaded West, suggest a declining effect of propagule pressure over time with increasing invasion intensity. The importance of propagule pressure in less‐invaded western forests suggests that spatial variability in propagule inputs, coupled with lags between establishment and commonness, drives the spatial differences between invasion richness and prevalence during early invasion stages. Meanwhile, declining spatial disagreement between invasion measures and the relative unimportance of propagule pressure, in heavily invaded eastern forests, suggest that species‐specific variation in response to habitat invasibility drives spatial differences between invasion measures during later invasion stages. These insights further illustrate the importance of spatial heterogeneity in invasive plant management and policy at macroscales.

show abstract

“…While it is a tenet that climate would shape the geographical distribution of biodiversity, an increasing number of studies have showed that biotic interactions also play important roles in limiting species distribution (Araújo & Rozenfeld, 2014;Kissling & Schleuning, 2015;Wisz et al, 2013).For example, global mammal predator richness is more associated with prey species richness than productivity, climate, and human influence (Sandom et al, 2013). Herbivore diversity in the Arctic is positively related with species richness of predators (Barrio et al, 2016).…”

Section: Biotic Interactions and Geographical Distribution Of Mammamentioning

confidence: 99%

Climate and food diversity as drivers of mammal diversity in Inner Mongolia

Feng

Yan

Yang

2019

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Traditionally, geographical distribution of biodiversity is assumed to be codetermined by multiple factors, for example, temperature, precipitation, environmental heterogeneity, and biotic interactions. However, few studies have simultaneously compared the relative roles of these factors in shaping the mammal diversity patterns for different feeding groups, that is, herbivores, insectivores, and carnivores. In this study, we assessed the relations between mammal diversity and current climate (mean annual temperature and precipitation), altitudinal range as well as mammal's food diversity in Inner Mongolia. Our results showed that the species richness for the three feeding guilds of mammals consistently increased with their food diversity, that is, species richness of plants, insects, and rodents. Mammal diversity also significantly decreased with mean annual temperature and precipitation. Random Forest models indicated that climate and food diversity were always included in the combinations of variables most associated with mammal diversity. Our findings suggest that while climate is an important predictor of large scale distribution of mammal diversity, biotic interactions, that is, food diversity, could also play important roles.

show abstract

The geographic scaling of biotic interactions

Abstract: A central tenet of ecology and biogeography is that the broad outlines of

Cited by 136 publications

References 1 publication

Dos and don'ts when inferring assembly rules from diversity patterns

Dos and don'ts when inferring assembly rules from diversity patterns

Region-specific patterns and drivers of macroscale forest plant invasions

Climate and food diversity as drivers of mammal diversity in Inner Mongolia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About