Biotic homogenization is a process whereby species assemblages become more similar through time. The standard way of identifying the process of biotic homogenization is to look for decreases in spatial beta–diversity. However, using a single assemblage‐level metric to assess homogenization can mask important changes in the occupancy patterns of individual species.
Here, we analysed changes in the spatial beta–diversity patterns (i.e. biotic heterogenization or homogenization) of British bird assemblages within 30 km × 30 km regions between two periods (1988–1991 and 2008–2011). We partitioned the change in spatial beta–diversity into extirpation and colonization‐resultant change (i.e. change in spatial beta–diversity within each region resulting from both extirpation and colonization). We used measures of abiotic change in combination with Bayesian modelling to disentangle the drivers of biotic heterogenization and homogenization.
We detected both heterogenization and homogenization across the two time periods and three measures of diversity (taxonomic, phylogenetic, and functional). In addition, both extirpation and colonization contributed to the observed changes, with heterogenization mainly driven by extirpation and homogenization by colonization. These assemblage‐level changes were primarily due to shifting occupancy patterns of generalist species.
Compared to habitat generalists, habitat specialists had significantly (i) higher average contributions to colonization‐resultant change (indicating heterogenization within a region due to colonization) and (ii) lower average contributions to extirpation‐resultant change (indicating homogenization from extirpation). Generalists showed the opposite pattern.
Increased extirpation‐resultant homogenization within regions was associated with increased urban land cover and decreased habitat diversity, precipitation, and temperature. Changes in extirpation‐resultant heterogenization and colonization‐resultant heterogenization were associated with differences in elevation between regions and changes in temperature and land cover.
Many of the ‘winners’ (i.e. species that increased in occupancy) were species that had benefitted from conservation action (e.g. buzzard (Buteo buteo)). The ‘losers’ (i.e. those that decreased in occupancy) consisted primarily of previously common species, such as cuckoo (Cuculus canorus).
Our results show that focusing purely on changes in spatial beta–diversity over time may obscure important information about how changes in the occupancy patterns of individual species contribute to homogenization and heterogenization.
