Groups of small lakes maintain larger microalgal diversity than large ones

Abstract

The question of whether one large, continuous area, or many smaller habitats maintain more species is one of the most relevant questions in conservation ecology and it is referred to as SLOSS (Single Large Or Several Small) dilemma in the literature. This question has not yet been raised in the case of microscopic organisms, therefore we investigated whether the SLOSS dilemma could apply or not to phytoplankton and benthic diatom metacommunities. Benthic diatom and phytoplankton diversity in pools and ponds of different sizes (ranging between 10-2-10 7 m 2) was studied. Species richness of water bodies belonging the neighbouring size categories was compared step by step across the whole size gradient. With the exception of the compared 10 4-10 5 m 2 and 10 5-10 6 m 2 size categories, where phytoplankton and benthic diatom richness values of the SL water bodies were higher than that of the SS ones, diversity of several smaller (SS) sized waters was higher than that in single large ones (SL) throughout the whole studied size range. The rate of the various functional groups of algae, including both the benthic diatoms and phytoplankton, showed remarkable changes from the smaller water bodies to large sized ones.

Characteristics, Main Impacts, and Stewardship of Natural and Artificial Freshwater Environments: Consequences for Biodiversity Conservation

“…However, their dimension and spatial distribution are not the only heterogeneous feature of these ecosystems, and their variability actually spans over a number of physical, chemical and biological gradients (e.g., pH, conductivity, salinity, turbidity, nutrient concentrations, and total amount of precipitation/evaporation, hydroperiod length, macrophyte species richness and cover). This wide spectrum of heterogeneity further contributes to the very high levels of biodiversity observed in these ecosystems (e.g., [498,499]).…”

Landscape configuration affects probability of apex predator presence and community structure in experimental metacommunities

“…In conclusion, whilst the number of habitat patches (Bolgovics et al, 2019), heterogeneity of patch size (Schippers et al, 2009), corridor (Schuler et al, 2017), and matrix dispersal (Åström & Pärt, 2013) are all known to influence biodiversity, their interactive effects are rarely considered, especially in relation to more than one conservation goal (but see Pedruski and Arnott, 2011;Altermatt and Holyoak, 2012). Here, by simultaneously examining the effects of the number of patches, patch-size heterogeneity, local, and matrix dispersal, we are able to -for the first time -disentangle the relative importance of these factors on various measures of biodiversity.…”

“…The design of reserves is a key and long-running debate in ecology, formalised in the classic question of whether a single large or several small reserve patches (the SLOSS debate; Diamond, 1975) are better for biodiversity. Several small reserves are optimal when there is little overlap of species between different patches, meaning more species are supported overall (Bolgovics et al, 2019;McNeill & Fairweather, 1993;Peintinger et al, 2003). In addition, a several-small strategy may be best for biodiversity when several small patches support greater habitat diversity than a single large one (Honnay et al, 1999;MacDonald et al, 2018).…”

Freshwater phytoplankton diversity: models, drivers and implications for ecosystem properties

“…if weak selection couples with high number of new invaders. Small water bodies with low local alpha diversity but with unique microflora can have high conservation value (Bolgovics et al, 2019). Preservation of large phytoplankton species diversity at the landscape or higher geographic level needs to maintain high beta diversity by the protection of unique habitats (Noss, 1983).…”