Using neutral theory to reveal the contribution of meta-community processes to assembly in complex landscapes

Journal of Limnology

Volumn 73, Issue 1 SUPPL, 2014, Pages 61-73

  Gravel, Dominique ^a,b   Poisot, Timothée ^a,b   Desjardins Proulx, Philippe ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITÉ DU QUÉBEC À RIMOUSKI   (Canada)

^b QC Centre for Biodiversity Science   (Canada)

Author keywords

Centrality; Metacommunity; Metapopulation; Neutral theory; Spatial network; Species sorting

Indexed keywords

CHANNEL MORPHOLOGY; COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION; COMPETITION (ECOLOGY); DISPERSAL; DIVERSITY INDEX; LANDSCAPE; LIMNOLOGY; METAPOPULATION; SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION;

EID: 84904269054     PISSN: 11295767     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.4081/jlimnol.2014.807     Document Type: Article

References (86)

1. Appel MJB, Najim CA, Russo RP, 2002. Limit laws for the diameter of a random point set. adv. Appl. Probab. 34:1-10.
2. d. Adv. Appl. Probab. 29:567-581.
3. d. Adv. Appl. Probab. 29:582-594.
4. d. stat. Probabil. Lett. 60:351-357.
5. Bahn V, McGill BJ, 2007. Can niche-based distribution models outperform spatial interpolation? Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 16:733-742.
6. Bell G, 2000. The distribution of abundance in neutral communities. Am. Nat. 155:606-617.
7. Bell G, 2001. Neutral macroecology. science 293:2413-2418.
8. Borcard D, Legendre P, 2002. All-scale spatial analysis of ecological data by means of principal coordinates of neighbour matrices. EcoI. Modell. 153:51-68.
9. Borcard D, Legendre P, Drapeau P, 1992. Partialling out the spatial component of ecological variation. ecology 73:1045-1055.
10. Boulangeat I, Gravel D, Thuiller W, 2012. Accounting for dispersal and biotic interactions to disentangle the drivers of species distributions and their abundances. Ecol. Lett. 15:584-593.
11. Canard E, Mouquet N, Marescot L, Gaston KJ, Gravel D, Mouillot D, 2012. emergence of structural patterns in neutral trophic networks. PLos one 7:e38295.
12. Carrara F, Altermatt F, Rodriguez-iturbe I, Rinaldo A, 2012. Dendritic connectivity controls biodiversity patterns in experimental metacommunities. P. Natl. Acad. sci. usA 109:5761-5766.
13. Chave J, 2004. Neutral theory and community ecology. Ecol. Lett. 7:241-253.
14. Chen A, Wang S, Pacala SW, 2012. Comment on "Global correlations in tropical tree species richness and abundance reject neutrality". science 336:1639.
15. Clark JS, 2012. The coherence problem with the unified neutral Theory of Biodiversity. Trends EcoI. EvoI. 27:199-203.
16. Cottenie K, 2005 integrating environmental and spatial processes in ecological community dynamics. Ecol. Lett. 8:1175-1182.
17. Coyne JA, Orr HA, 2004. speciation. sinauer Associates, sunderland, MA, USA: 545 pp.
18. Dale MRT, Fortin MJ, 2010. From graphs to spatial graphs. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. s. 41:21-38.
19. Desjardins-Proulx P, Gravel D, 2012a. A complex speciationrichness relationship in a simple neutral model. Ecol. Evol. 2:1781-1790.
20. Desjardins-Proulx P, Gravel D, 2012b. How likely is speciation in neutral ecology? Am. Nat. 179:137-44.
21. Dijkstra EW, 1959. A note on two problems in connexion with graphs. Numer. Math. 1:269-271.
22. Economo EP, 2011. Biodiversity conservation in metacommunity networks: linking pattern and persistence. Am. nat. 177:E167-180.
23. Economo EP, Keitt TH, 2008. species diversity in neutral metacommunities: a network approach. Ecol. Lett. 11:52-62.
24. Economo EP, Keitt TH, 2010. network isolation and local diversity in neutral metacommunities. oikos 10:1-9.
25. Etienne RS, Rosindell j, 2011. The spatial limitations of current neutral models of biodiversity. Plos one, 6:e14717.
26. Etienne RS, Apol MEF, Olff H, Weissing FJ, 2007. Modes of speciation and the neutral theory of biodiversity. oikos 116:241-258.
27. Fall A, Fortin MJ, Manseau M, O'Brien D, 2007. spatial graphs: principles and applications for habitat connectivity. Ecosystems 10:448-461.
28. Garroway CJ, Bowman j, Carr D, Wilson PJ, 2008. Applications of graph theory to landscape genetics. Evol. Appl. 1:620.630.
29. Gilarranz LJ, Bascompte j, 2012. spatial network structure and metapopulation persistence. j. Theor. Biol. 297:11-6.
30. Gilbert B, Lechowicz MJ, 2004. neutrality, niches, and dispersal in a temperate forest understory. P. Natl. Acad. sci. UsA 101:7651-7656.
31. Gotelli NJ, 2000. NuII model analysis of species co-occurrence patterns. Ecology 81:2606.
32. Gotelli NJ, Graves G, 1996. Null models in ecology. smithsonian inst. Press, Washington, usA: 368 pp.
33. Gotelli NJ, McGill BJ, 2006. Null versus neutral models: what's the difference? Ecography 29:793-800.
34. Gravel D, Beaudet M, Messier C, 2008. Partitioning the factors of spatial variation in regeneration density of shade-tolerant tree species. Ecology 89:2879-88.
35. Gravel D, Canard E, Guichard F, Mouquet N, 2011. Persistence increases with diversity and connectance in trophic metacommunities. Plos one 6:e19374.
36. Gravel D, Canham CD, Beaudet M, Messier C, 2006. Reconciling niche and neutrality: the continuum hypothesis. Ecol. Lett. 9:399-409.
37. Gravel D, Guichard F, Hochberg ME, 2011. species coexistence in a variable world. Ecol. Lett. 14:828-839.
38. Gravel D, Guichard F, Loreau M, Mouquet N, 2010. source and sink dynamics in meta-ecosystems. Ecology 91:2172-2184.
39. Gross JL, Yellen J, 2006. Graph theory and its applications, 2nd ed. Chapman & Hall: 800 pp.
40. Hanski I, 1998. Metapopulation dynamics. Nature 396:41-49.
41. Hanski I, 1999. Metapopulation ecology. oxford university Press: 313 pp.
42. Hanski I, Gyllenberg M, 1997. Uniting two general patterns in the distribution of species. science 275:397-400.
43. Hardy O, 2004. spatial pattern analysis of tree species distribution in a tropical rain forest of Cameroon: assessing the role of limited dispersal and niche differentiation. Forest Ecol. and Manag. 197:191-202.
44. Holt RD, 1996. Food webs in space: an island biogeographic perspective, p. 313-323. In: GA Polis and KO Winemiller (eds.), Food webs: contemporary perspectives. Chapman & Hall, London, uK.
45. Hubbell SP, 2001. The unified neutral theory of biodiversity and biogeography, Princeton, NJ: 448 pp.
46. Hubbell SP, He F, Condit R, Borda-de-Água L, Kellner j, Ter Steege H, 2008. How many tree species are there in the amazon and how many of them will go extinct? P. Natl. Acad. sci. usA 105:11498-11504.
47. Klausmeier CA, 1998. Models of habitat destruction. Am. Nat. 152:303-310.
48. Kobayashi K, 1994. on the spatial graph. Kodai Math. J. 17:511-517.
49. Leduc A, Drapeau P, Bergeron Y, Legendre P, 1992. study of spatial components of forest cover using partial Mantel tests and path analysis. j. veg. sci. 3:69-78.
50. Legendre P, 1993. spatial autocorrelation: trouble or new paradigm? Ecology 74:1659-1673.
51. Legendre P, Borcard D, Peres-Neto PR, 2005. Analyzing beta diversity: partitioning the spatial variation of composition data. Ecol. Monogr. 75:435-450.
52. Leibold MA, Norberg J, 2004. Biodiversity in metacommunities: plankton as complex adaptive systems? limnol. oceanogr. 49:1278-1289.
53. Leibold MA, Holyoak M, Mouquet N, Amarasekare P, Chase JM, Hoopes MF, Holt RD, Shurin JB, Law R, Tilman D, Loreau M, Gonzalez A, 2004. The metacommunity concept: a framework for multi-scale community ecology. EcoI. Lett. 7:601-613.
54. Levins R, 1969. some demographic and genetic consequences of environmental heterogeneity for biological control. B. Entomol. soc. Am.15:237-240.
55. Logue J, Mouquet N, Peter H, Hillebrand H, Metacommunity Working Group, 2011. Empirical approaches to metacommunities: a review and comparison with theory. Trends EcoI. Evol. 26:482-491.
56. McGill B, 2003. strong and weak tests of macroecological theory. Oikos 102:679-685.
57. Minor ES, Urban DL, 2007. Graph theory as a proxy for spatially explicit population models in conservation planning. EcoI. Appl 17:1771-1782.
58. Minor ES, Urban DL, 2008. A graph theory framework for evaluating landscape connectivity and conservation planning. Conserv. Biol. 22:297-307.
59. Mouquet N, Gravel D, Massol F, Calcagno V, 2013. Extending the concept of keystone species to communities and ecosystems. Ecol. Lett. 16:1-8.
60. Mouquet N, Loreau M, 2002. Coexistence in metacommunities: the regional similarity hypothesis. Am. Nat. 159:420-426.
61. Mouquet N, Loreau M, 2003. Community patterns in sourcesink metacommunities. Am. Nat. 162:544-557.
62. Muneepeerakul R, Bertuzzo E, Lynch HJ, Fagan WF, Rinaldo A, Rodriguez-Iturbe i, 2008. Neutral metacommunity models predict fish diversity patterns in Mississippi-Missouri basin. Nature 453:220-222.
63. Newman M, 2010. Networks: an introduction. oxford university Press: 720 pp.
64. Penrose M, 2003. Random geometric graphs. oxford university Press: 344 pp.
65. Peres-Neto P, Leibold M, Dray s, 2012. Assessing the effects of spatial contingency and environmental filtering on metacommunity phylogenetics. Ecology 93:14-30.
66. Peterson EE, ver Hoef JM, Isaak DJ, Falke JA, Fortin MJ, Jordan CE, McNyset K, Monestiez P, Ruesch AS, Sengupta A, som N, Steel EA, Theobald DN, Torgersen CE, Wenger sj, 2013. Modelling dendritic ecological networks in space: an integrated network perspective. Ecol. Lett. 16:707-719.
67. Ricklefs RE, 2003. A comment on Hubbell's zero-sum ecological drift model. Oikos 100:185-192.
68. Ricklefs RE, Renner ss, 2012. Global correlations in tropical tree species richness and abundance reject neutrality. science 335:464-467.
69. Rosindell J, Phillimore AB, 2011. A unified model of island biogeography sheds light on the zone of radiation. Ecol. Lett. 14:552-560.
70. Rosindell J, Cornell SJ, Hubbell SP, Etienne RS, 2010. Protracted speciation revitalizes the neutral theory of biodiversity. Ecol. Lett. 13:716-727.
71. Rosindell J, Hubbel SP, He F, Harmon LJ, Etienne RS, 2012. The case for ecological neutral theory. Trends Ecol. Evol. 27:204-209.
72. Ryabov AB, Blasius B, 2011. A graphical theory of competition on spatial resource gradients. Ecol. Lett. 14:220-228.
73. Rybicki J, Hanski i, 2013. species-area relationships and extinctions caused by habitat loss and fragmentation. Ecol. Lett. 16:27-38.
74. Schwilk D, Ackerly D, 2005. Limiting similarity and functional diversity along environmental gradients. Ecol. Lett. 8:272-281.
75. rd ed. Addison-Wesley Professional: 528 pp.
76. Shmueli G, 2010. To explain or to predict? stat. sci. 25:289-310.
77. Svenning JC, Kinner DA, Stallard RF, Engelbrecht BMJ, Wright SJ, 2004. Ecological determinism in plant community structure across a tropical forest landscape. Ecology 85:2526-2538.
78. Thuiller W, Münkemüller T, Lavergne S, Mouillot D, Mouquet N, Schiffers K, Gravel D, 2013 A road map for integrating eco-evolutionary processes into biodiversity models. Ecol. Lett. 16:94-105.
79. Tilman D, 1994. Competition and biodiversity in spatially structured habitats. Ecology 75:2-16.
80. Tilman D, 2004. Niche tradeoffs, neutrality, and community structure: a stochastic theory of resource competition, invasion, and community assembly. P. Natl. Acad. sci. usA 101:10854-10861.
81. Tilman D, May RM, Lehman CL, Nowak MA, 1994. Habitat destruction and the extinction debt. Nature 371:65-66.
82. Urban DL, Minor ES, Treml EA, Schick RS, 2009. Graph models of habitat mosaics. Ecol. Lett. 12:260-273.
83. Venail P, MacLean R, Bouvier T, 2008. Diversity and productivity peak at intermediate dispersal rate in evolving metacommunities. Nature 452:2010-2014.
84. Wennekes PL, Rosindell j, Etienne RS, 2012. The neutralniche debate: a philosophical perspective. Acta Biotheor. 60:257-271.
85. Wootton JT, 2005. Field parameterization and experimental test of the neutral theory of biodiversity. Nature 433:309-312.
86. Wright S, 1921. Correlation and causation. J. Agric. Res. 20:557-585.