Daniel Suárez, Paula Arribas, Amrita Srivathsan, Rudolf Meier, Brent C. Emerson
{"title":"Environmental heterogeneity, rather than stability, explains spider assemblage differences between ecosystems","authors":"Daniel Suárez, Paula Arribas, Amrita Srivathsan, Rudolf Meier, Brent C. Emerson","doi":"10.1111/ecog.07454","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The open ecosystem (e.g. grasslands, prairies, shrublands) tends to be ecologically less stable than closed one (i.e. forests) and encompassess higher spatial heterogeneity in terms of environmental diversity. Such differences are expected to differentially constrain the diversity and structure of the communities that inhabit each of them, but identifying the specific processes driving contrasting biodiversity patterns between open and closed systems is challenging. In order to understand how environmental variability might structure spider assemblages, both between and within open and closed ecosystems, we implement a high throughput multiplex barcode sequencing approach to generate a dataset for 8585 specimens representing 168 species, across the open ecosystem within the Canary Islands. Combining these with spider sequences from the closed ecosystem within the same islands, we show that spider communities in the open ecosystem show higher species richness, higher beta diversity, and higher proportions of rare species but proportionately lower numbers of endemic species than communities in the closed ecosystem. We furthermore assess if environmental heterogeneity and habitat stability are the major drivers of such differences by assessing spatial genetic structuring and the influence of bioclimatic variables. Our results point to environmental heterogeneity rather than stability as a major driver of spatial patterns between open and closed ecosystems.","PeriodicalId":51026,"journal":{"name":"Ecography","volume":"34 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ecography","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.07454","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The open ecosystem (e.g. grasslands, prairies, shrublands) tends to be ecologically less stable than closed one (i.e. forests) and encompassess higher spatial heterogeneity in terms of environmental diversity. Such differences are expected to differentially constrain the diversity and structure of the communities that inhabit each of them, but identifying the specific processes driving contrasting biodiversity patterns between open and closed systems is challenging. In order to understand how environmental variability might structure spider assemblages, both between and within open and closed ecosystems, we implement a high throughput multiplex barcode sequencing approach to generate a dataset for 8585 specimens representing 168 species, across the open ecosystem within the Canary Islands. Combining these with spider sequences from the closed ecosystem within the same islands, we show that spider communities in the open ecosystem show higher species richness, higher beta diversity, and higher proportions of rare species but proportionately lower numbers of endemic species than communities in the closed ecosystem. We furthermore assess if environmental heterogeneity and habitat stability are the major drivers of such differences by assessing spatial genetic structuring and the influence of bioclimatic variables. Our results point to environmental heterogeneity rather than stability as a major driver of spatial patterns between open and closed ecosystems.
期刊介绍:
ECOGRAPHY publishes exciting, novel, and important articles that significantly advance understanding of ecological or biodiversity patterns in space or time. Papers focusing on conservation or restoration are welcomed, provided they are anchored in ecological theory and convey a general message that goes beyond a single case study. We encourage papers that seek advancing the field through the development and testing of theory or methodology, or by proposing new tools for analysis or interpretation of ecological phenomena. Manuscripts are expected to address general principles in ecology, though they may do so using a specific model system if they adequately frame the problem relative to a generalized ecological question or problem.
Purely descriptive papers are considered only if breaking new ground and/or describing patterns seldom explored. Studies focused on a single species or single location are generally discouraged unless they make a significant contribution to advancing general theory or understanding of biodiversity patterns and processes. Manuscripts merely confirming or marginally extending results of previous work are unlikely to be considered in Ecography.
Papers are judged by virtue of their originality, appeal to general interest, and their contribution to new developments in studies of spatial and temporal ecological patterns. There are no biases with regard to taxon, biome, or biogeographical area.