Diversity–stability relationships across organism groups and ecosystem types become decoupled across spatial scales
Type | Article | ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Date | 2023-09 | ||||||||||||||||
Language | English | ||||||||||||||||
Author(s) | Wisnoski Nathan I.1, 2, 3, Andrade Riley4, 5, Castorani Max C. N.6, Catano Christopher P.7, Compagnoni Aldo8, 9, Lamy Thomas10, 11, Lany Nina K.12, Marazzi Luca13, 14, Record Sydne15, 16, Smith Annie C.17, 18, 19, 20, Swan Christopher M.21, Tonkin Jonathan D.22, 23, 24, Voelker Nicole M.21, Zarnetske Phoebe L.18, 19, Sokol Eric R.25, 26 | ||||||||||||||||
Affiliation(s) | 1 : Department of Biological Sciences Mississippi State University Mississippi State MS,USA 2 : Wyoming Geographic Information Science Center University of Wyoming Laramie WY ,USA 3 : Department of Biology Indiana University Bloomington IN, USA 4 : Department of Natural Resources & Environmental Sciences University of Illinois at Urbana‐Champaign Urbana IL, USA 5 : Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation University of Florida Gainesville FL,USA 6 : Department of Environmental Sciences University of Virginia Charlottesville VA, USA 7 : Department of Plant Biology Michigan State University East Lansing MI, USA 8 : Martin Luther University Halle‐Wittenberg, Am Kirchtor 1 Halle (Saale),Germany 9 : German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle‐Jena‐Leipzig Puschstrasse 4 Leipzig ,Germany 10 : Marine Science Institute University of California Santa Barbara CA ,USA 11 : MARBEC University of Montpellier, CNRS, Ifremer, IRD Montpellier, France 12 : Northern Research Station, Forest Service U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Durham NH, USA 13 : Institute of Environment Florida International University Miami FL ,USA 14 : Thames21 London,UK 15 : Department of Biology Bryn Mawr College Bryn Mawr PA ,USA 16 : Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Conservation Biology University of Maine Orono ME ,USA 17 : Department of Forestry Michigan State University East Lansing MI ,USA 18 : Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior Program Michigan State University East Lansing MI,USA 19 : Department of Integrative Biology Michigan State University East Lansing MI,USA 20 : Washington State Department of Natural Resources Olympia WA,USA 21 : Department of Geography & Environmental Systems University of Maryland, Baltimore County Baltimore MD, USA 22 : School of Biological Sciences University of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800 Christchurch ,New Zealand 23 : Te Pūnaha Matatini Centre of Research Excellence University of Canterbury Christchurch ,New Zealand 24 : Bioprotection Aotearoa Centre of Research Excellence University of Canterbury Christchurch ,New Zealand 25 : National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON), Battelle Boulder CO ,USA 26 : Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research (INSTAAR) University of Colorado Boulder CO ,USA |
||||||||||||||||
Source | Ecology (0012-9658) (Wiley), 2023-09 , Vol. 104 , N. 9 , P. e4136 (17p.) | ||||||||||||||||
DOI | 10.1002/ecy.4136 | ||||||||||||||||
WOS© Times Cited | 2 | ||||||||||||||||
Keyword(s) | community variability, diversity-stability relationship, metacommunity, spatial insurance hypothesis, stability | ||||||||||||||||
Abstract | The relationship between biodiversity and stability, or its inverse, temporal variability, is multidimensional and complex. Temporal variability in aggregate properties, like total biomass or abundance, is typically lower in communities with higher species diversity (i.e., the diversity–stability relationship or DSR). At broader spatial extents, regional-scale aggregate variability is also lower with higher regional diversity (in plant systems) and with lower spatial synchrony. However, focusing exclusively on aggregate properties of communities may overlook potentially destabilizing compositional shifts. It is not yet clear how diversity is related to different components of variability across spatial scales, nor whether regional DSRs emerge across a broad range of organisms and ecosystem types. To test these questions, we compiled a large collection of long-term metacommunity data spanning a wide range of taxonomic groups (e.g., birds, fish, plants, invertebrates) and ecosystem types (e.g., deserts, forests, oceans). We applied a newly developed quantitative framework for jointly analyzing aggregate and compositional variability across scales. We quantified DSRs for composition and aggregate variability in local communities and metacommunities. At the local scale, more diverse communities were less variable, but this effect was stronger for aggregate than compositional properties. We found no stabilizing effect of γ-diversity on metacommunity variability, but β-diversity played a strong role in reducing compositional spatial synchrony, which reduced regional variability. Spatial synchrony differed among taxa, suggesting differences in stabilization by spatial processes. However, metacommunity variability was more strongly driven by local variability than by spatial synchrony. Across a broader range of taxa, our results suggest that high γ-diversity does not consistently stabilize aggregate properties at regional scales without sufficient spatial β-diversity to reduce spatial synchrony. |
||||||||||||||||
Full Text |
|