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":"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?","authors":"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","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":"{\"title\":\"Using Plant Invasions to Compare Occurrence- and Abundance-Based Calculations of Biotic Homogenisation: Are Results Complementary or Contradictory?\",\"authors\":\"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\",\"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}","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}
Using Plant Invasions to Compare Occurrence- and Abundance-Based Calculations of Biotic Homogenisation: Are Results Complementary or Contradictory?
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.
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.