Effect of landscape context on fish metacommunity structuring in stream networks

Abstract

This manuscript is contextually identical with the following published paper:Erős, T., Takács, P., Specziár, A., Schmera, D., Sály, P (2017 2. We examined the role of environmental selection (niche based species sorting), dispersal and drift (i.e. stochastic changes in species abundance) mechanisms on the structuring of fish metacommunities in riverscapes. We used a hierarchical design and examined metacommunity structuring 1) in individual running water habitat types, namely highland streams, lowland streams, highland rivers, and lowland rivers, 2) in landscape types, where patterns in highland and in lowland types were examined separately, and 3) at the level of the whole riverscape, where samples from all running water types were pooled. Elements of metacommunity structure (EMS) analysis, community-environmental relationships in redundancy analysis, and decay of community similarity with distance (distance decay)complemented with partial Mantel tests were used to reveal the mechanisms behind the observed patterns.3. Both the EMS framework and community-environment relationships revealed the prevalent role of selection (niche based species sorting mechanisms) on fish metacommunity structuring, although stochastic variability also influenced the results. Metacommunity structures reflecting niche based mechanisms (Clementsian or Quasi-Clementsian) were observed at higher hierarchical levels (i.e. at the riverscape and the landscape type levels), while Quasi-Clementsian or random patterns were found within single running water types.4. Distance decay relationships indicated that dispersal limitation did not clearly affect metacommunity structuring in any combination of running water types. Partial Mantel testsshowed that some part of the variation in distance decay could be explained by the correlation between environmental variables and fish assemblage structure in some habitat types, which further suggests the importance of niche based mechanisms in metacommunity structuring.5. Our study shows that different metacommunity structures can arise in a hierarchy of habitat types in riverscapes, and niche based species sorting mechanisms are more influential in their structuring than dispersal ones. Landscape classifications are useful for a better understanding of the structuring of metacommunities in both the freshwater and the terrestrial realm.

Do metacommunity theories explain spatial variation in fish assemblage structure in a pristine tropical river?

“…Clementsian assemblage structure has been found in plants (Meynard et al, 2013;Willig et al, 2011), mammals (López-González, Presley, Lozano, Stevens, & Higgins, 2012, and various freshwater organisms, including plankton, macroinvertebrates, and fish (Dallas & Drake, 2014;Erős et al, 2017;Fernandes, Henriques-Silva, Penha, Zuanon, & Peres-Neto, 2014;Tonkin, Stoll, Jähnig, & Haase, 2016;Torres & Higgins, 2016). Clementsian assemblage structure has been found in plants (Meynard et al, 2013;Willig et al, 2011), mammals (López-González, Presley, Lozano, Stevens, & Higgins, 2012, and various freshwater organisms, including plankton, macroinvertebrates, and fish (Dallas & Drake, 2014;Erős et al, 2017;Fernandes, Henriques-Silva, Penha, Zuanon, & Peres-Neto, 2014;Tonkin, Stoll, Jähnig, & Haase, 2016;Torres & Higgins, 2016).…”

“…ies(Castillo-Escrivà et al, 2016;Devercelli, Scarabotti, Mayora, Schneider, & Giri, 2016;Erős et al, 2017;Legendre & Legendre, 2012;Ter Braak & Šmilauer, 2012). The large amount of unexplained variation could be due to several factors, such as failure to include other relevant environmental variables and spatial predictors or variables related to other processes such as biotic interactions.…”

Opportunistic data reveal widespread species turnover in Enallagma damselflies at biogeographical scales

“…Spatial extent at which patterns are examined may also influence how among-community structure is shaped by environmental variation and the position of communities along gradients (Steinitz et al 2006). Species' ecological differences and environmental heterogeneity may be more apparent at larger spatial extents (Ricklefs 1987, Chase and Myers 2011, Erős et al 2017). Furthermore, larger extents are more likely to cross biogeographical boundaries (Ricklefs 1987, Heino 2011, increasing spatial variation in community composition irrespective of local interactions, environmental heterogeneity, and ecological drift.…”

Co-occurrence patterns of fish species in two aquatic habitats of the Arauca River floodplain, Venezuela

“…Undoubtedly, the assembly of fish communities has been intensely studied through different approaches that include the modeling of species abundances (Strange et al 1992), the effect of environmental filters (Mouillot et al 2007, Mouchet et al 2013, Pease et al 2015, trophic eco-morphology (Adlte and Winemiller 1996, Sampaio et al 2013, Blasina et al 2016, the elements of meta-community structure (Fernandes et al 2013, Erős et al 2016), among others. These studies have contributed to the understanding of the influence of environmental factors, landscape, the evolutionary history of the species and biotic interactions in the organization of communities.…”