Search

Who interacts with whom is a key question in community and network ecology. The concept that these interactions may be driven by a match between the traits of consumer and resource species is known as trait‐matching. If trait‐matching would allow for general predictions of interaction structure based on sufficiently few and easily‐measurable traits, then this approach could replace the laborious description of each individual pairwise interaction. To resolve imprints of trait‐matching in a species‐rich tri‐trophic Salix–galler–parasitoid network, and to identify the most relevant traits, we applied five different methods, each approaching the same phenomenon from a different perspective. As traits, we used, body sizes, gall type (position on plant, structure of gall) and phenology, among others, as well as phylogenetic proxies. When jointly applied, the methods demonstrate distinctly different imprints of traits within the two bipartite network elements (Salix–galler versus galler–parasitoid interactions). Of the galler–parasitoid sub‐network's interactions, approximately half were explainable by the species traits used; of the Salix–galler sub‐network's interactions, traits explained at most two‐fifths. Gall type appeared to be the most important structuring trait in both networks. Phylogeny explained as much, or more than did our tested traits, suggesting that traits may be conserved and phylogeny therefore an effective proxy. Overall, the more specialized structure of the Salix–galler network versus the more nested structure of the galler–parasitoid network meant that different methods were more effective at capturing interactions and interaction structure in the different sub‐networks. Thus, our analysis reveals how structuring impacts may vary even between levels within the same multitrophic network, and calls for comparative analyses of trait matching across a wide set of systems and methods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The three‐dimensional rarity typology proposed by Rabinowitz in 1981, based on geographic range, habitat specificity, and local abundance, is among the most widely used frameworks for describing rarity in ecological and conservation research. While this framework is descriptive and is not meant to explain the causes of rarity, recent advances in ecology may be leveraged to add explanatory power. Here we present a macroecological exploration of rarity and its underlying causes. We propose a modification of Rabinowitz's typology to better distinguish between the dimensions of rarity and the ecological processes that drive them, and explore the conservation implications of our modified framework. We propose to add occupancy (the proportion of occupied sites within a species' range) as a rarity axis, and recast habitat specificity as a cause of rarity, thus yielding a modified classification based on range size, occupancy, and local abundance. Under our framework, habitat specialists are no longer considered rare if they are widespread and abundant; we argue that this modification more accurately identifies truly rare species, as habitat specialists may be common if their habitat is abundant. Finally, we draw on the macroecological and theoretical literature to identify the key processes and associated traits that drive each rarity axis. In this respect, we identify four processes (environmental filtering, movement, demography and interactions), and hypothesise that range size and occupancy are primarily driven by environmental filtering and movement, whereas local abundance is more strongly influenced by demography and interactions. We further use ecological theory to hypothesise the conservation concerns associated with each rarity axis, and propose conservation measures that may be suitable for conserving different types of rare species. Our work may provide a basis for developing hypotheses about the causes of rarity of particular focal taxa or groups, and inform the development of targeted conservation strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The integration of ecosystem processes over large spatial extents is critical to predicting whether and how local and global changes may impact biodiversity and ecosystem functions. Yet, there remains an important gap in meta‐ecosystem models to predict multiple functions (e.g. carbon sequestration, elemental cycling, trophic efficiency) across ecosystem types (e.g. terrestrial‐aquatic, benthic‐pelagic). We derive a flexible meta‐ecosystem model to predict ecosystem functions at landscape extents by integrating the spatial dimension of natural systems as spatial networks of different habitat types connected by cross‐ecosystem flows of materials and organisms. We partition the physical connectedness of ecosystems from the spatial flow rates of materials and organisms, allowing the representation of all types of connectivity across ecosystem boundaries. Through simulating a forest‐lake‐stream meta‐ecosystem, our model illustrates that even if spatial flows induced significant local losses of nutrients, differences in local ecosystem efficiencies could lead to increased secondary production at regional scale. This emergent result, which we dub the 'cross‐ecosystem efficiency hypothesis', emphasizes the importance of integrating ecosystem diversity and complementarity in meta‐ecosystem models to generate empirically testable hypotheses for ecosystem functions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Community ecology aims to understand what factors determine the assembly and dynamics of species assemblages at different spatiotemporal scales. To facilitate the integration between conceptual and statistical approaches in community ecology, we propose Hierarchical Modelling of Species Communities ( HMSC) as a general, flexible framework for modern analysis of community data. While non-manipulative data allow for only correlative and not causal inference, this framework facilitates the formulation of data-driven hypotheses regarding the processes that structure communities. We model environmental filtering by variation and covariation in the responses of individual species to the characteristics of their environment, with potential contingencies on species traits and phylogenetic relationships. We capture biotic assembly rules by species-to-species association matrices, which may be estimated at multiple spatial or temporal scales. We operationalise the HMSC framework as a hierarchical Bayesian joint species distribution model, and implement it as R- and Matlab-packages which enable computationally efficient analyses of large data sets. Armed with this tool, community ecologists can make sense of many types of data, including spatially explicit data and time-series data. We illustrate the use of this framework through a series of diverse ecological examples. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Surveying ecological communities often means the tedious work of collecting detailed information on each species within each sampling unit (e.g. trap, transect, quadrat). In this paper, we first argue that presence-absence and abundance data are the two extremes of a spectrum of data formats. By counting individuals of each species within a sampling unit until either a predefined (user-defined) number of individuals is reached or all individuals of the species are counted, all intermediate cases can be generated. By independently correlating each intermediate case with the complete abundance data, we show that it is not necessary to count all individuals to recover the patterns of variation characterizing a community data table. When the same procedure is applied in combination with different distance coefficients such as the Hellinger, chord, χ2, percentage difference or modified Gower, or the distance between species profiles, an even lower number of individuals per species need to be counted within a sampling unit for the patterns of variation defining a community to be recovered. By applying the same counting procedure to data collected during a pilot study, we show that the maximum number of individuals that need to be counted within a sampling unit for a species can be estimated from a pilot study containing as little as 3% of randomly selected sampling units throughout the complete survey area. An example of how to apply this new counting method is presented, using data from a boreal forest Carabidae community sampled in northwestern Alberta, Canada. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]