Extending the concept of keystone species to communities and ecosystems

Ecology Letters

Volumn 16, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 1-8

  Mouquet, Nicolas ^a   Gravel, Dominique ^b   Massol, François ^c,d   Calcagno, Vincent ^e  

^a UNIV MONTPELLIER   (France)

^b UNIVERSITÉ DU QUÉBEC À RIMOUSKI   (Canada)

^c UR EMAX   (France)

^d CNRS   (France)

^e Institut Sophia Agrobiotech   (France)

Author keywords

Burden; Dispersal; Habitat destruction; Keystone; Metacommunity; Metaecosystem; Patch dynamics; Source sink

Indexed keywords

DISPERSAL; ECOLOGICAL THEORY; ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT; HABITAT LOSS; HETEROGENEITY; KEYSTONE SPECIES; META-ANALYSIS; METAPOPULATION; PATCH DYNAMICS; SOURCE-SINK DYNAMICS; SPECIES CONSERVATION;

ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; ECOSYSTEM; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; MONTE CARLO METHOD;

CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES; ECOSYSTEM; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; MONTE CARLO METHOD;

EID: 84870884584     PISSN: 1461023X     EISSN: 14610248     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/ele.12014     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Allison, G.W., Lubchenco, J. & Carr, M.H. (1998). Marine reserves are necessary but not sufficient for marine conservation. Ecol. Appl., 8, S79-S92.
2. Amarasekare, P. (2008). Spatial dynamics of keystone predation. J. Anim. Ecol., 77, 1306-1315.
3. Amarasekare, P. & Nisbet, R.M. (2001). Spatial heterogeneity, source-sink dynamics and the local coexistence of competing species. Am. Nat., 158, 572-584.
4. Bodin, O. & Norberg, J. (2007). A network approach for analyzing spatially structured populations in fragmented landscape. Landscape Ecol., 2007, 31-44.
5. Bond, W.J. (1994). Kesytone species. In: Biodiversity and Ecosystem Function (eds Schulze, E.D., Mooney, H.A. & Schulze, E.D.). Springer, Berlin, pp. 237-253.
6. Bond, E.M. & Chase, J.M. (2002). Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning at local and regional spatial scales. Ecol. Lett., 5, 467-470.
7. Brachet, S., Olivieri, I., Godelle, B., Klein, E., Frascaria-Lacoste, N. & Gouyon, P.H. (1999). Dispersal and metapopulation viability in a heterogeneous landscape. J. Theor. Biol., 198, 479-495.
8. Burnham, K.P. & Anderson, D.R. (2002). Model Selection and Multimodel Inference: A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach. Springer, New York.
9. Calcagno, V., Mouquet, N., Jarne, P. & David, P. (2006). Coexistence in a metacommunity: the competition-colonization trade-off is not dead. Ecol. Lett., 9, 897-907.
10. Cardinale, B.J., Ives, A.R. & Inchausti, P. (2004). Effects of species diversity on the primary productivity of ecosystems: extending our spatial and temporal scales of inference. Oikos, 104, 437-450.
11. Christianou, M. & Ebenman, B. (2005). Keystone species and vulnerable species in ecological communities: strong or weak interactors? J. Theor. Biol., 235, 95-103.
12. Davidar, P., Yoganand, K. & Ganesh, T. (2001). Distribution of forest birds in the Andaman islands: importance of key habitats. J. Biogeogr., 28, 663-671.
13. Debruyn, L.A.L. & Conacher, A.J. (1990). The role of termites and Ants in soil modification - a review. Aust. J. Soil Res., 28, 55-93.
14. Dobson, A., Lodge, D., Alder, J., Cumming, G.S., Keymer, J., McGlade, J. et al. (2006). Habitat loss, trophic collapse, and the decline of ecosystem services. Ecology, 87, 1915-1924.
15. Economo, E.P. (2011). Biodiversity conservation in metacommunity networks: linking pattern and persistence. Am. Nat., 177, E167-180.
16. Economo, E.P. & Keitt, T.H. (2008). Species diversity in neutral metacommunities: a network approach. Ecol. Lett., 11, 52-62.
17. Estes, J.A., Smith, N.S. & Palmisano, J.F. (1978). Sea otter predation and community organization in Western Aleutian Islands, Alaska. Ecology, 59, 822-833.
18. Fahrig, L. (2003). Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst., 34, 487-515.
19. Gonzalez, A., Mouquet, N. & Loreau, M. (2009). Biodiversity as spatial insurance: the effects of habitat fragmentation and dispersal on ecosystem functioning. In: Biodiversity, Ecosystem Functioning and Ecosystem Services (eds Naeem, S., Bunker, D., Hector, A., Loreau, M. & Perrings, C.). Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 134-146.
20. Gravel, D., Guichard, F., Loreau, M. & Mouquet, N. (2010a). Source and sink dynamics in meta-ecosystems. Ecology, 91, 2172-2184.
21. Gravel, D., Mouquet, N., Loreau, M. & Guichard, F. (2010b). Patch dynamics, persistence, and species coexistence in metaecosystems. Am. Nat., 176, 289-302.
22. Hanski, I. (1994). A practical model of metapopulation dynamics. J. Anim. Ecol., 63, 151-162.
23. Hanski, I. (1999). Metapopulation Ecology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York.
24. Hanski, I., Moitalen, A. & Gyllenberg, M. (1996). Minimum viable metapopulation size. Am. Nat., 147, 527-541.
25. Harrison, S. & Bruna, E. (1999). Habitat fragmentation and large-scale conservation: what do we know for sure? Ecography, 22, 225-232.
26. Hastings, A. (1980). Disturbance, coexistence, history and the competition for space. Theor. Popul. Biol., 18, 363-373.
27. Hector, A. & Bagchi, R. (2007). Biodiversity and ecosystem multifunctionality. Nature, 448, 188-190.
28. Hurlbert, S.H. (1997). Functional importance vs keystoneness: reformulating some questions in theoretical biocenology. Aust. J. Ecol., 22, 369-382.
29. Isbell, F., Calcagno, V., Hector, A., Connolly, J., Harpole, W.S., Reich, P.B. et al. (2011). High plant diversity is needed to maintain ecosystem services. Nature, 477, 199-202.
30. Jones, C.G., Lawton, J.H. & Shachak, M. (1994). Organisms as ecosystem engineers. Oikos, 69, 373-386.
31. Leibold, M.A. (1996). A graphical model of keystone predators in food webs: trophic regulation of abundance, incidence, and diversity patterns in communities. Am. Nat., 147, 784-812.
32. Leibold, M.A., Holyoak, M., Mouquet, N., Amarasekare, P., Chase, J., Hoopes, M. et al. (2004). The metacommunity concept: a framework for multi-scale community ecology. Ecol. Lett., 7, 601-613.
33. Levins, R. (1969). Some demographic and genetic consequences of environmental heterogeneity for biological control. Bull. Entomol. Soc. Am., 15, 237-240.
34. Libralato, S., Christensen, V. & Pauly, D. (2006). A method for identifying keystone species in food web models. Ecol. Model., 195, 153-171.
35. Logue, J.B., Mouquet, N., Peter, H. & Hillebrand, H. (2011). Empirical approaches to metacommunities - a review and comparison to theory. Trends Ecol. Evol., 26, 482-491.
36. Loreau, M., Naeem, S., Inchausti, P., Bengtsson, J., Grime, J.P., Hector, A. et al. (2001). Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: current knowledge and future challenges. Science, 294, 804-808.
37. Loreau, M., Mouquet, N. & Gonzalez, A. (2003a). Biodiversity as spatial insurance in heterogeneous landscapes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA., 100, 12765-12770.
38. Loreau, M., Mouquet, N. & Holt, R. (2003b). Meta-ecosystem: a framework for a spatial ecosystem ecology. Ecol. Lett., 6, 673-679.
39. Massol, F., Gravel, D., Mouquet, N., Cadotte, M., Fukami, T. & Leibold, M. (2011). Linking community and ecosystem dynamics through spatial ecology. Ecol. Lett., 14, 313-323.
40. Melbourne, B.A., Davies, K.F., Margules, C.R., Lindenmayer, D.B., Saunders, D.A., Wissel, C. et al. (2004). Species survival in fragmented landscapes: where to from here? Biodivers. Conserv., 13, 275-284.
41. Menge, B.A., Berlow, E.L., Blanchette, C.A., Navarrete, S.A. & Yamada, S.B. (1994). The keystone species concept - variation in interaction strength in a rocky intertidal habitat. Ecol. Monogr., 64, 249-286.
42. Mills, L.S., Soule, M.E. & Doak, D.F. (1993). The keystone-species concept in ecology and conservation. Bioscience, 43, 219-224.
43. Mouquet, N. & Loreau, M. (2002). Coexistence in metacommunities: the regional similarity hypothesis. Am. Nat., 159, 420-426.
44. Mouquet, N. & Loreau, M. (2003). Community patterns in source-sink metacommunities. Am. Nat., 162, 544-557.
45. Mouquet, N., Moore, J.L. & Loreau, M. (2002). Plant species richness and community productivity: why the mechanism that promotes coexistence matters. Ecol. Lett., 5, 56-65.
46. Mouquet, N., Mathiessen, B., Miller, T. & Gonzalez, A. (2011). Consequences of habitat destruction in source sink metacommunities. PlosOne, 6, e17567.
47. Nee, S. & May, R.M. (1997). Extinction and the loss of evolutionary history. Science, 288, 328-330.
48. Paine, R.T. (1966). Food web complexity and species diversity. Am. Nat., 100, 65-75.
49. Paine, R.T. (1969). A note on trophic complexity and community stability. Am. Nat., 103, 91-93.
50. Peres-Neto, P.R., Legendre, P., Dray, S. & Borcard, D. (2006). Variation partitioning of species data matrices: estimation and comparison of fractions. Ecology, 87, 2614-2625.
51. Polis, G.A., Anderson, W.B. & Holt, R.D. (1997). Toward an integration of landscape and food web ecology: the dynamics of spatially subsidized food webs. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst., 28, 289-316.
52. Power, M.E., Tilman, D., Estes, J.A., Menge, B.A., Bond, W.J., Mills, L.S. et al. (1996). Challenges in the quest for keystones. Bioscience, 46, 609-620.
53. Tews, J., Brose, U., Grimm, V., Tielborger, K., Wichmann, M.C., Schwager, M. et al. (2004). Animal species diversity driven by habitat heterogeneity/diversity: the importance of keystone structures. J. Biogeogr., 31, 79-92.
54. Tilman, D. (1982). Resource Competition and Community Structure. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
55. Tilman, D. (1994). Competition and biodiversity in spatially structured habitats. Ecology, 75, 2-16.
56. Urban, D. & Keitt, T. (2001). Landscape connectivity: a graph-theoretic perspective. Ecology, 82, 1205-1218.
57. Urban, D.L., Minor, E.S., Treml, E.A. & Schick, R.S. (2009). Graph models of habitat mosaics. Ecol. Lett., 12, 260-273.
58. Venail, P.A., Maclean, R.C., Meynard, C.N. & Mouquet, N. (2010). Dispersal scales up the biodiversity-productivity relationship in an experimental source-sink metacommunity. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci., 277, 2339-2345.