Search

The relationship between β-diversity and latitude still remains to be a core question in ecology because of the lack of consensus between studies. One hypothesis for the lack of consensus between studies is that spatial scale changes the relationship between latitude and β-diversity. Here, we test this hypothesis using tree data from 15 large-scale forest plots (greater than or equal to 15 ha, diameter at breast height ≥ 1 cm) across a latitudinal gradient (3–30 o ) in the Asia-Pacific region. We found that the observed β-diversity decreased with increasing latitude when sampling local tree communities at small spatial scale (grain size ≤0.1 ha), but the observed β-diversity did not change with latitude when sampling at large spatial scales (greater than or equal to 0.25 ha). Differences in latitudinal β-diversity gradients across spatial scales were caused by pooled species richness (γ-diversity), which influenced observed β-diversity values at small spatial scales, but not at large spatial scales. Therefore, spatial scale changes the relationship between β-diversity, γ-diversity and latitude, and improving sample representativeness avoids the γ-dependence of β-diversity.

Both habitat filtering and dispersal limitation influence the compositional structure of forest communities, but previous studies examining the relative contributions of these processes with variation partitioning have primarily used topography to represent the influence of the environment. Here, we bring together data on both topography and soil resource variation within eight large (24–50 ha) tropical forest plots, and use variation partitioning to decompose community compositional variation into fractions explained by spatial, soil resource and topographic variables. Both soil resources and topography account for significant and approximately equal variation in tree community composition (9–34% and 5–29%, respectively), and all environmental variables together explain 13–39% of compositional variation within a plot. A large fraction of variation (19–37%) was spatially structured, yet unexplained by the environment, suggesting an important role for dispersal processes and unmeasured environmental variables. For the majority of sites, adding soil resource variables to topography nearly doubled the inferred role of habitat filtering, accounting for variation in compositional structure that would previously have been attributable to dispersal. Our results, illustrated using a new graphical depiction of community structure within these plots, demonstrate the importance of small-scale environmental variation in shaping local community structure in diverse tropical forests around the globe.

The assertion that the spatial location of different species is independent of each other is fundamental in major ecological theories such as neutral theory that describes a stochastic geometry of biodiversity. However, this assertion has rarely been tested. Here we use techniques of spatial point pattern analysis to conduct a comprehensive test of the independence assertion by analysing data from three large forest plots with different species richness: a species-rich tropical forest at Barro Colorado Island (Panama), a tropical forest in Sinharaja (Sri Lanka), and a temperate forest in Changbaishan (China). We hypothesize that stochastic dilution effects owing to increasing species richness overpower signals of species associations, thereby yielding approximate species independence. Indeed, the proportion of species pairs showing: (i) no significant interspecific association increased with species richness, (ii) segregation decreased with species richness, and (iii) small-scale interspecific interaction decreased with species richness. This suggests that independence may indeed be a good approximation in the limit of very species-rich communities. Our findings are a step towards a better understanding of factors governing species-rich communities and we propose a hypothesis to explain why species placement in species-rich communities approximates independence.

Supplementary figures and tables

Supplementary figures and tables

Supplementary figures and tables