Effects of primary productivity on beta diversity of ecological communities

Abstract

Aim Several ecological factors are predicted to affect beta diversity - the dissimilarity of communities among localities or through time. Considering the effect of primary productivity, there is a divergence in the literature concerning if it is positive, negative or hump-shaped. This is relevant considering the discussion on the role of primary productivity on deterministic and stochastic processes shaping ecological communities. The main goal of this study was to review ecological literature to explore causes for variation in the predominant relationship between beta diversity and primary productivity. Methods We have performed a scientometric analysis following the PRISMA statement for systematic reviews and the articles search was made through the ISI Web of Science® database. Results The number of articles approaching the relationship between beta diversity and primary productivity is growing more than expected by the natural growth in published articles. From the 465 articles found, only 38 directly dealt with beta diversity-productivity relationship. From them, we extracted 76 relationships, most of them positive, in almost all factors analyzed. Even so, the proportion of negative studies was higher in aquatic environments. In the Afrotropic region, only negative relationships in terrestrial studies were found. There is a clear inclination towards studies regarding large spatial scales, terrestrial environments, with vertebrates and in the Neartic or Paleartic regions. In aquatic environments there was a clear dominance of studies using small-body organisms, contrasting with terrestrial studies that used more often vertebrates and plants. Conclusions There is an increasing interest in studies concerning this relationship. Positive relations can be explained by several ecological factors, and the more common negative relationships in aquatic environments can be explained by the fact that productivity can cause eutrophication. We also pointed out gaps in the knowledge, especially considering studies in small and medium spatial scales, groups beyond plants and vertebrates in terrestrial environments, and aquatic studies in Afrotropic and Indo – Malaya regions.