Using Plant Invasions to Compare Occurrence- and Abundance-Based Calculations of Biotic Homogenisation: Are Results Complementary or Contradictory?

IF 6.3 1区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ECOLOGY
D. M. Buonaiuto, David Barnett, Dana M. Blumenthal, Andrea N. Nebhut, Ian S. Pearse, Helen R. Sofaer, Cascade J. B. Sorte, Jeffrey D. Corbin, Regan Early, Magda Garbowski, Ines Ibanez, Daniel C. Laughlin, Laís Petri, Montserrat Vilà, Bethany A. Bradley
{"title":"Using Plant Invasions to Compare Occurrence- and Abundance-Based Calculations of Biotic Homogenisation: Are Results Complementary or Contradictory?","authors":"D. M. Buonaiuto,&nbsp;David Barnett,&nbsp;Dana M. Blumenthal,&nbsp;Andrea N. Nebhut,&nbsp;Ian S. Pearse,&nbsp;Helen R. Sofaer,&nbsp;Cascade J. B. Sorte,&nbsp;Jeffrey D. Corbin,&nbsp;Regan Early,&nbsp;Magda Garbowski,&nbsp;Ines Ibanez,&nbsp;Daniel C. Laughlin,&nbsp;Laís Petri,&nbsp;Montserrat Vilà,&nbsp;Bethany A. Bradley","doi":"10.1111/geb.70022","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Aim</h3>\n \n <p>Beta diversity quantifies the similarity of ecological assemblages. Its increase, known as biotic homogenisation, can be a consequence of biological invasions. However, species occurrence (presence/absence) and abundance-based analyses can produce contradictory assessments of the magnitude and direction of changes in beta diversity. Previous work indicates these contradictions should be less frequent in nature than in theory, but a growing number of empirical studies report discrepancies between occurrence- and abundance-based approaches. Understanding if these discrepancies represent a few isolated cases or are systematic across a diversity of ecosystems would allow us to better understand the general patterns, mechanisms and impacts of biotic homogenisation.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Location</h3>\n \n <p>United States.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Time Period</h3>\n \n <p>1963–2020.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Major Taxa Studied</h3>\n \n <p>Vascular plants.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We used a dataset of more than 70,000 vegetation survey plots to assess differences in biotic homogenisation with and without invasion using both occurrence- and abundance-based metrics of beta diversity. We estimated taxonomic biotic homogenisation by comparing beta diversity of invaded and uninvaded plots with both classes of metrics and investigated the characteristics of the non-native species pool that influenced the likelihood that these metrics disagree.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>In 78% of plot comparisons, occurrence- and abundance-based calculations agreed in direction, and the two metrics were generally well correlated. Our empirical results are consistent with previous theory. Discrepancies between the metrics were more likely when the same non-native species was at high cover at both plots compared for beta diversity, and when these plots were spatially distant.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Main Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>In about 20% of cases, our calculations revealed differences in direction (homogenisation vs. differentiation) when comparing occurrence- and abundance-based metrics, indicating that the metrics are not interchangeable, especially when distances between plots are high and invader diversity is low. When data permit, combining the two approaches can offer insights into the role of invasions and extirpations in driving biotic homogenisation/differentiation.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":176,"journal":{"name":"Global Ecology and Biogeography","volume":"34 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Ecology and Biogeography","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/geb.70022","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim

Beta diversity quantifies the similarity of ecological assemblages. Its increase, known as biotic homogenisation, can be a consequence of biological invasions. However, species occurrence (presence/absence) and abundance-based analyses can produce contradictory assessments of the magnitude and direction of changes in beta diversity. Previous work indicates these contradictions should be less frequent in nature than in theory, but a growing number of empirical studies report discrepancies between occurrence- and abundance-based approaches. Understanding if these discrepancies represent a few isolated cases or are systematic across a diversity of ecosystems would allow us to better understand the general patterns, mechanisms and impacts of biotic homogenisation.

Location

United States.

Time Period

1963–2020.

Major Taxa Studied

Vascular plants.

Methods

We used a dataset of more than 70,000 vegetation survey plots to assess differences in biotic homogenisation with and without invasion using both occurrence- and abundance-based metrics of beta diversity. We estimated taxonomic biotic homogenisation by comparing beta diversity of invaded and uninvaded plots with both classes of metrics and investigated the characteristics of the non-native species pool that influenced the likelihood that these metrics disagree.

Results

In 78% of plot comparisons, occurrence- and abundance-based calculations agreed in direction, and the two metrics were generally well correlated. Our empirical results are consistent with previous theory. Discrepancies between the metrics were more likely when the same non-native species was at high cover at both plots compared for beta diversity, and when these plots were spatially distant.

Main Conclusions

In about 20% of cases, our calculations revealed differences in direction (homogenisation vs. differentiation) when comparing occurrence- and abundance-based metrics, indicating that the metrics are not interchangeable, especially when distances between plots are high and invader diversity is low. When data permit, combining the two approaches can offer insights into the role of invasions and extirpations in driving biotic homogenisation/differentiation.

利用植物入侵比较基于发生率和丰度的生物同质化计算:结果是互补的还是矛盾的?
目的利用Beta多样性量化生态组合的相似性。它的增加,被称为生物同质化,可能是生物入侵的结果。然而,物种发生(存在/缺失)和基于丰度的分析可能会对β多样性变化的幅度和方向产生相互矛盾的评估。先前的工作表明,这些矛盾在本质上应该比理论上更少,但越来越多的实证研究报告了基于发生度和丰度的方法之间的差异。了解这些差异是代表一些孤立的案例,还是在生态系统的多样性中是系统性的,将使我们更好地理解生物同质化的一般模式、机制和影响。地点:美国。时间:1963-2020。维管植物的主要分类群。方法使用超过70,000个植被调查样地的数据集,使用基于发生率和丰度的β多样性指标来评估有和没有入侵的生物同质化差异。我们通过比较入侵和未入侵样地的β多样性和这两类指标来估计分类生物同质化,并研究了影响这些指标不一致可能性的非本地物种池的特征。结果在78%的样地比较中,基于发生率和丰度的计算方向一致,两个指标总体上具有良好的相关性。我们的实证结果与以往的理论一致。当相同的非本地物种在两个样地都处于高覆盖时,与beta多样性相比,当这些样地在空间上距离较远时,这些指标之间的差异更可能出现。在大约20%的情况下,我们的计算显示,在比较基于发生度和丰度的指标时,方向(均质化vs分化)存在差异,这表明这些指标不可互换,特别是当样地之间的距离高而入侵者多样性低时。当数据允许时,结合这两种方法可以深入了解入侵和灭绝在推动生物同质化/分化中的作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Global Ecology and Biogeography
Global Ecology and Biogeography 环境科学-生态学
CiteScore
12.10
自引率
3.10%
发文量
170
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Global Ecology and Biogeography (GEB) welcomes papers that investigate broad-scale (in space, time and/or taxonomy), general patterns in the organization of ecological systems and assemblages, and the processes that underlie them. In particular, GEB welcomes studies that use macroecological methods, comparative analyses, meta-analyses, reviews, spatial analyses and modelling to arrive at general, conceptual conclusions. Studies in GEB need not be global in spatial extent, but the conclusions and implications of the study must be relevant to ecologists and biogeographers globally, rather than being limited to local areas, or specific taxa. Similarly, GEB is not limited to spatial studies; we are equally interested in the general patterns of nature through time, among taxa (e.g., body sizes, dispersal abilities), through the course of evolution, etc. Further, GEB welcomes papers that investigate general impacts of human activities on ecological systems in accordance with the above criteria.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信