Beta diversity of stream diatoms at two hierarchical spatial scales: implications for biomonitoring

Jyrkänkallio‐Mikkola, Jenny; Heino, Jani; Soininen, Janne

doi:10.1111/fwb.12697

Cited by 32 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 61 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Besides species interaction, environmental heterogeneity may also be an important factor affecting beta diversity of understory communities, which contributed to the interactive effects of forest type and latitude. Previous studies have found that environmental heterogeneity/variability tends to increase beta diversity of plants [5,40,41]. In the current study, there was larger variability in soil temperature and EC in broadleaf than coniferous forests at higher latitudes and smaller variability at lower latitudes, which was consistent with the patterns in beta diversity of understory communities.…”

Section: Interactive Effects Of Forest Type and Latitude On Beta Divesupporting

confidence: 90%

Diversity of Understory Communities in Boreal Forests: Influences of Forest Type, Latitude, and Spatial Scale

Jin

Wang

et al. 2019

Forests

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understory vegetation hosts high biodiversity and plays a critical role in the ecosystem processes of boreal forests. However, the drivers of understory plant diversity in this high-latitude ecosystem remain uncertain. To investigate the influences of forest type and latitude on understory beta diversity at different scales, we quantified the species composition of Vaccinium uliginosum Linnaeus communities under broadleaf and coniferous forests at two latitudes at the quadrat (2 × 2 m) and plot (10 × 10 m) scales in the Greater Xing’an Mountains, NE China. At the quadrat scale, species alpha diversity of V. uliginosum communities was higher in broadleaf forests than that in coniferous forests at both latitudes. The differences in species beta diversity (the Sørensen’s dissimilarity) in two forest types depended on the latitude: beta diversity in broadleaf forests was higher than that in coniferous forests at the higher latitude, while beta diversity in coniferous forests was higher at the lower latitude. At the plot scale, alpha and beta diversity of V. uliginosum communities decreased from broadleaf forests to coniferous forests at the higher latitude, and they did not show significant differences between forest types at the lower latitude. These results indicate the interactive effects of forest type and latitude on beta diversity of understory vegetation. Moreover, the influences of forest type and latitude on species alpha and beta diversity were different across the two spatial scales, suggesting that the assembly mechanisms underlying species diversity may be different at different scales. Understanding the maintenance of understory vegetation diversity will benefit the conservation and management of boreal forests.

show abstract

Section: Interactive Effects Of Forest Type and Latitude On Beta Divesupporting

confidence: 90%

Diversity of Understory Communities in Boreal Forests: Influences of Forest Type, Latitude, and Spatial Scale

Jin

Wang

et al. 2019

Forests

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our results underline the role of water chemistry in structuring aquatic microbial communities (Soininen et al ., ) at regional scales, but also give support to the inclusion of physical variables into the analyses (Jyrkankallio‐Mikkola et al ., ), as variables from both chemical and physical groups were found to significantly affect microbial communities. Although local factors explained little of the community variation in variation partitioning, many of them were still significant for both diatoms and bacteria in RDA.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Typically, most of the variation in microbial community composition remains unexplained even in cases where a large number of explanatory variables are available. In our study, the percentage of explained variation in variation partitioning for diatom communities (38%) generally agreed with the results of previous studies (Meier et al ., ; Jyrkankallio‐Mikkola et al ., ). The lower percentage of explained variation in bacterial communities (6.3%), compared with earlier studies (29–89% explained variation in Van der Gucht et al .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Stream microbial communities are affected by both natural (Lear et al, 2012) and anthropogenic factors (land use change and nutrient run-off (Smal et al, 2005;Stendera & Johnson, 2006)). Moreover, physical environmental heterogeneity, in addition to water chemistry, and biotic interactions shape the structure of these communities (Heino et al, 2013;Jyrkankallio-Mikkola et al, 2016). Hence, understanding the mechanisms that control stream microbial communities requires consideration of not only local or geographical drivers, but also multiple drivers at the catchment level.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Disentangling multi‐scale environmental effects on stream microbial communities

Jyrkänkallio‐Mikkola

Meier

Heino

et al. 2017

Journal of Biogeography

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim Climate change and anthropogenic environmental deterioration strongly affect aquatic microbial communities. Although microbes have irreplaceable roles in various ecosystems, the spatial variation in microbial communities has received less attention in comparison to macro‐organisms. Studies aiming to disentangle the effects of local environmental, catchment and climatic variables on microbial communities are also rare. Here, we disentangled the effects of local, catchment, spatial and climatic variables on boreal stream diatom and bacterial communities. Location Western Finland Methods We sampled 21 boreal river basins comprising 105 study sites spanning 520 km in north‐south direction and 330 km in east‐west direction in western Finland. We used principal coordinates of neighbour matrix analysis (PCNM), redundancy analyses (RDA), variation partitioning, boosted regression trees (BRT) and regression analyses to examine variation in community composition and species richness. Results Water chemistry and physical variables had significant effects on the community composition of both microbial groups. Catchment level variables explained a slightly larger amount of variation in diatom community composition than local level variables. Agriculture was the most significant determinant of variation in diatom community composition among catchment level variables and was also related with variation in the richness of both groups. Of spatial and climatic variables, growing degree days (GDD) and spatial variables were the most significant drivers determining diatom community composition. GDD was also positively associated with the richness of diatoms and bacteria. Unique effects of spatial and climate variables accounted for the largest amount of variation in the community composition of both diatoms and bacteria. Main conclusions Our results highlight that aquatic microbial communities can exhibit biogeographical variation at regional scales due to the joint influence of local, catchment and climatic variables, and possibly because of dispersal limitation. Catchment properties, especially agriculture, can be used as a proxy for the effects of landscape alteration on aquatic microbial communities.

show abstract

“…Dendritic systems, such as streams, are spatially structured in a hierarchical manner. Studies have largely ignored the hierarchical spatial structure of stream systems (but see Heino & Grönroos, ; Jyrkänkallio‐Mikkola, Heino, & Soininen, ), and we therefore do not fully understand the implications of such a structure. One implication for changing hierarchical spatial scale is that it typically alters the relative importance of environmental and spatial factors on metacommunity structure.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Metacommunity Structure of Stream Insects across Three Hierarchical Spatial scales

Soininen

Deng³

et al. 2020

Ecology and Evolution

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A major challenge in community ecology is to understand the underlying factors driving metacommunity (i.e., a set of local communities connected through species dispersal) dynamics. However, little is known about the effects of varying spatial scale on the relative importance of environmental and spatial (i.e., dispersal related) factors in shaping metacommunities and on the relevance of different dispersal pathways. Using a hierarchy of insect metacommunities at three spatial scales (a small, within‐stream scale, intermediate, among‐stream scale, and large, among‐sub‐basin scale), we assessed whether the relative importance of environmental and spatial factors shaping metacommunity structure varies predictably across spatial scales, and tested how the importance of different dispersal routes vary across spatial scales. We also studied if different dispersal ability groups differ in the balance between environmental and spatial control. Variation partitioning showed that environmental factors relative to spatial factors were more important for community composition at the within‐stream scale. In contrast, spatial factors (i.e., eigenvectors from Moran's eigenvector maps) relative to environmental factors were more important at the among‐sub‐basin scale. These results indicate that environmental filtering is likely to be more important at the smallest scale with highest connectivity, while dispersal limitation seems to be more important at the largest scale with lowest connectivity. Community variation at the among‐stream and among‐sub‐basin scales were strongly explained by geographical and topographical distances, indicating that overland pathways might be the main dispersal route at the larger scales among more isolated sites. The relative effect of environmental and spatial factors on insect communities varied between low and high dispersal ability groups; this variation was inconsistent among three hierarchical scales. In sum, our study indicates that spatial scale, connectivity, and dispersal ability jointly shape stream metacommunities.

show abstract

Beta diversity of stream diatoms at two hierarchical spatial scales: implications for biomonitoring

Cited by 32 publications

References 61 publications

Diversity of Understory Communities in Boreal Forests: Influences of Forest Type, Latitude, and Spatial Scale

Diversity of Understory Communities in Boreal Forests: Influences of Forest Type, Latitude, and Spatial Scale

Disentangling multi‐scale environmental effects on stream microbial communities

Metacommunity Structure of Stream Insects across Three Hierarchical Spatial scales

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About