Context dependency and metacommunity structuring in boreal headwater streams

Oikos

Volumn 121, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 537-544

  Heino, Jani ^a   Grönroos, Mira ^a   Soininen, Janne ^b   Virtanen, Risto ^a   Muotka, Timo ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OULU   (Finland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI   (Finland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALGA; BRYOPHYTE; DRAINAGE BASIN; EIGENVALUE; ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECT; ENVIRONMENTAL FACTOR; HEADWATER; MACROINVERTEBRATE; METAPOPULATION; SPATIAL ANALYSIS; STREAMWATER;

ALGAE; BRYOPHYTA; BRYOPHYTES;

EID: 84858336415     PISSN: 00301299     EISSN: 16000706     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0706.2011.19715.x     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Alonso D. and McKane A. J. 2004. Sampling Hubbell's neutral theory of biodiversity. Ecol. Lett. 7: 901-910.
2. Anderson M. J. 2006. Distance-based tests for homogeneity of multivariate dispersions. Biometrics 62: 245-253.
3. Anderson M. J. et al. 2008. PERMANOVA + for PRIMER. Guide to software and statistical methods. - PRIMER-E Ltd.
4. Anderson M. J. et al. 2011. Navigating the multiple meanings of β diversity: a roadmap for the practicing ecologist. Ecol. Lett. 14: 19-28.
5. Beisner B. E. et al. 2006. The role of environmental and spatial processes in structuring lake communities from bacteria to fish. Ecology 87: 2985-2991.
6. Bennett J. R. et al. 2010. Broad-scale environmental response and niche conservatism in lacustrine diatom communities. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 19: 724-732.
7. Borcard D. and Legendre P. 2002. All-scale analysis of ecological data by means of principal coordinates of neighbour matrices. Ecol. Modell. 153: 51-68.
8. Borcard D. et al. 2004. Dissecting the spatial structure of ecological data at multiple spatial scales. Ecology 85: 1826-1832.
9. Brown B. L. and Swan C. M. 2010. Dendritic network structure constraints metacommunity properties in riverine ecosystems. J. Anim. Ecol. 79: 571-580.
10. Chase J. M. and Bentgtsson J. 2010. Increasing spatio-temporal scales: metacommunity ecology. - In: Verhoef H. A. and Morin P. J. (eds), Community ecology: processes, models and applications. Oxford Univ. Press, pp. 57-68.
11. Cottenie K. 2005. Integrating environmental and spatial processes in ecological community dynamics. Ecol. Lett. 8: 1175-1182.
12. Cottenie K. et al. 2003. Zooplankton metacommunity structure: regional vs local processes in highly interconnected ponds. Ecology 84: 991-1000.
13. Declerk S. et al. 2011. Scale dependency of processes structuring metacommunities of cladocerans in temporary pools of high-Andes wetlands. Ecography 34: 296-305.
14. Diniz-Filho J. A. F. and Bini L. M. 2005. Modelling geographical patterns in species richness using eigenvector-based spatial filters. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 14: 177-185.
15. Drakou E. G. et al. 2009. Freshwater fish community structure structured more by dispersal limitation than by environmental heterogeneity. Ecol. Freshwater Fish 18: 369-379.
16. Finlay B. J. 2002. Global dispersal of free-living microbial eukaryote species. Science 296: 1061-1063.
17. Finlay B. J. and Fenchel T. 2004. Cosmopolitan metapopulations of free-living microbial eukaryotes. Protist 155: 237-244.
18. Gilbert B. and Bennett J. R. 2010. Partitioning variation in ecological communities: do the numbers add up? J. Appl. Ecol. 47: 1071-1082.
19. Gilbert B. and Lechowicz M. J. 2004. Neutrality, niches and dispersal in a temperate forest understorey. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 101: 7651-7656.
20. Gravel D. et al. 2006. Reconciling niche and neutrality: the continuum hypothesis. Ecol. Lett. 9: 399-409.
21. Griffith D. A. and Peres-Neto P. R. 2006. Spatial modeling in ecology: the flexibility of eigenfunction spatial analyses in exploiting relative location information. Ecology 87: 2603-2613.
22. Hájek M. et al. 2011. Environmental and spatial controls of biotic assemblages in a discrete semi-terrestrial habitat: comparison of organisms with different dispersal abilities sampled in the same plots. J. Biogeogr. 38: 1683-1693.
23. Heino J. 2011. A macroecological perspective of diversity patterns in the freshwater realm. Freshwater Biol. 56: 1703-1722.
24. Heino J. and Soininen J. 2005. Assembly rules and community models for unicellular organisms: patterns in diatoms of boreal streams. Freshwater Biol. 50: 567-577.
25. Heino J. and Mykrä H. 2008. Control of stream insect assemblages: roles of spatial configuration and local environmental variables. Ecol. Entomol. 33: 614-622.
26. Heino J. et al. 2009. Surveying biodiversity in protected and managed areas: algae, macrophytes and macroinvertebrates in boreal forest streams. Ecol. Ind. 9: 1179-1187.
27. Heino J. et al. 2010. Geographical patterns of micro-organismal community structure: are diatoms ubiquitously distributed across boreal streams? Oikos 119: 129-137.
28. Holyoak M. et al. 2005. Metacommunities: a framework for large-scale community ecology. - In: Holyoak M. et al. (eds), Metacommunities: spatial dynamics and ecological communities. Univ. of Chicago Press, pp. 1-32.
29. Hubbell S. P. 2001. The unified neutral theory of biodiversity and biogeography. - Princeton Univ. Press.
30. Karst J. et al. 2005. Fern community assembly: the role of chance and the environment at local and intermediate scales. Ecology 86: 2473-2486.
31. Landeiro V. et al. 2011. Spatial eigenfunction analyses in stream networks: do watercourse and overland distances produce different results? Freshwater Biol. 56: 1184-1192.
32. Legendre P. and Legendre L. 1998. Numerical ecology. - Elsevier.
33. Legendre P. and Anderson M. J. 1999. Distance-based redundancy analysis: testing multispecies responses in multifactorial ecological experiments. Ecol. Monogr. 69: 1-24.
34. Legendre P. and Gallagher E. D. 2001. Ecologically meaningful transformations for ordination of species data. Oecologia 129: 271-280.
35. Legendre P. et al. 2005. Analyzing beta diversity: partitioning the spatial variation of community composition data. Ecol. Monogr. 75: 435-450.
36. Leibold M. A. et al. 2004. The metacommunity concept: a framework for multi-scale community ecology. Ecol. Lett. 7: 601-613.
37. Logue J. B. et al. 2011. Empirical approaches to metacommunities: a review and comparison with theory. Trends Ecol. Evol. 26: 482-491.
38. McArdle B. H. and Anderson M. J. 2001. Fitting multivariate models to community data: a comment on distance-based redundancy analysis. Ecology 82: 290-297.
39. Malmqvist B. et al. 2009. Rivers of the Fennoscandian shield. - In: Tockner K. et al. (eds), Rivers of Europe. Academic Press, pp. 297-336.
40. Maloney K. O. and Munguia P. 2011. Distance decay of similarity in temperate zone aquatic communities: effects of environmental transition zones, distance measure, and life histories. Ecography 34: 287-295.
41. Macneale K. H. et al. 2005. Stable isotopes identify dispersal patterns of stonefly populations living along stream corridors. Freshwater Biol. 50: 1117-1130.
42. Muotka T. and Virtanen R. 1995. The stream as a habitat templet for bryophytes: species' distributions along gradients in disturbance and substratum heterogeneity. Freshwater Biol. 33: 141-160.
43. Mykrä H. et al. 2006. The effect of sample duration on the efficiency of kick-sampling in two streams with contrasting substratum heterogeneity. Ver. Int. Ver. Theor. Ang. Limnol. 29: 1351-1355.
44. Mykrä H. et al. 2007. Scale-related patterns in the spatial and environmental components of stream macroinverteb-rate assemblage variation. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 16: 149-159.
45. Nabout J. C. et al. 2009. No evidence for environmental and spatial processes in structuring phytoplankton communities. Acta Oecol. 35: 720-726.
46. National Board of Waters and the Environment 1981. Vesihallinnon analyysimenetelmät. Publ. Nat. Board Wat. Finland. Report 213: 1-136.
47. Ng I. S. Y. et al. 2009. Hierarchical zooplankton metacommunities: distinguishing between high and limiting dispersal mechanisms. Hydrobiologia 619: 133-143.
48. Okuda T. et al. 2010. Contribution of environmental and spatial processes to rocky intertidal metacommunity structure. Acta Oecol. 36: 413-422.
49. Peres-Neto P. R. et al. 2006. Variation partitioning of species data matrices: estimation and comparison of fractions. Ecology 87: 2614-2625.
50. Petersen I. et al. 2004. Dispersal of adult aquatic insects in catchments of different land use. J. Appl. Ecol. 41: 934-950.
51. Rangel T. F. et al. 2010. SAM: a comprehensive application for spatial analysis in macroecology. Ecography 33: 46-50.
52. Shurin J. B. et al. 2009. Spatial autocorrelation and dispersal limitation in freshwater organisms. Oecologia 159: 151-159.
53. Smith J. and Lundholm J. T. 2010. Variation partitioning as a tool to distinguish between niche and neutral processes. Ecography 33: 648-655.
54. Soininen J. et al. 2007. Neutrality, niches and determinants of plankton metacommunity structure across boreal wetland ponds. Ecoscience 14: 146-154.
55. Stevens R. D. et al. 2007. Geographical ecology of Paraguayan bats: spatial integration and metacommunity structure of interacting assemblages. J. Anim. Ecol. 76: 1086-1093.
56. Thompson R. and Townsend C. R. 2006. A truce with neutral theory: local deterministic factors, species traits and dispersal limitation together determine patterns of diversity in stream invertebrates. J. Anim. Ecol. 75: 476-484.
57. Van De Meutter F. et al. 2007. Metacommunity structure of pond macroinvertebrates: effects of dispersal mode and generation time. Ecology 88: 1687-1695.
58. Vyverman W. et al. 2007. Historical processes constrain patterns in global diatom diversity. Ecology 88: 1924-1931.