Spatial scale dictates the productivity–biodiversity relationship

Chase, Jonathan M.; Leibold, Mathew A.

doi:10.1038/416427a

Cited by 694 publications

(785 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

716

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The shape of the relationship depends on the scale of investigations (Chase and Leibold, 2002), and on whether plants or animals are studied (Mittelbach et al, 2001). In this study we used four metrics, which represented diversity at a wide scale, from emphasising the importance of rare taxa (logarithm of the number of species, and Shannon), to giving higher weight to dominant taxa (Simpson, and Berger-Parker indices).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Diversity is frequently studied as a function of productivity in the case of plants, animals or microbes (Adler et al, 2011;Grime, 2001;Chase and Leibold, 2002;Borics et al, 2012;Fridley et al, 2012;Skácelová and Lepš, 2013). Besides its theoretical importance, the shape of this relationship provides useful information on the practical use of diversity metrics as state indicators.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The role of phytoplankton diversity metrics in shallow lake and river quality assessment

Borics

Görgényi

Grigorszky

et al. 2014

Ecological Indicators

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ecological water quality problems are frequently connected to increment of phytoplankton productivity and overdominance of some phytoplankton species. Metrics that show monotonously increasing or decreasing tendencies along stressor gradients is recommended for ecological state assessment. Diversity metrics are influenced by various physical disturbances and show high within-year variability; thus, there is no agreement on the usefulness of these metrics as state indicators.To test the usefulness of phytoplankton diversity in ecological state assessment we investigated the productivity-diversity relationships for lakes and rivers in the Carpathian Basin (Hungary). We demonstrated that the shape of productivity-diversity relationship depends on the investigated water body type. Regarding lakes, hump-shaped relationship was found for all computed metrics. Parallel with the increase in phytoplankton productivity values, diversity metrics showed monotonously increasing tendencies in rhithral and decreasing tendencies in large potamal rivers. We found no systematic relationship in the case of small lowland rivers. Changes of diversity metrics calculated for species and functional groups showed similar tendencies within the types, only the slopes of regression lines differ each other. The use of diversity metrics as ecological state indicators should be restricted to water body types where diversity decreases or increases monotonously with phytoplankton biomass. Regarding the lakes the use of diversity metrics is not recommended for ecological state assessment. In rhithral and large potamal river assessment, application of diversity metrics should be strongly considered. We demonstrated that diversity metrics can be useful components of multimetric indices proposed to use by the Water Framework Directive.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of phytoplankton diversity metrics in shallow lake and river quality assessment

Borics

Görgényi

Grigorszky

et al. 2014

Ecological Indicators

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…At the macro-scale (large plots, typically comprising hundreds of km 2 , spread throughout an entire geographical region) monotonically increasing species-energy relationships become more frequent and most authors conclude that they predominate (e.g. Currie, 1991 ;Wright, Currie & Maurer, 1993 ;Guegan, Lek & Oberdorff, 1998 ;Kerr, Vincent & Currie, 1998 ;Kerr & Packer, 1999 ;Waide et al, 1999;Gaston, 2000;Chase & Leibold, 2002;Astorga et al, 2003 ;Francis & Currie, 2003 ;Kaspari, Yuan & Alonso, 2003 ;Whittaker et al, 2003; but see Balmford et al, 2001;Mittelbach et al, 2001;Hawkins et al 2003).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Species–energy relationships at the macroecological scale: a review of the mechanisms

2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Correlations between the amount of energy received by an assemblage and the number of species that it contains are very general, and at the macro-scale such species-energy relationships typically follow a monotonically increasing curve. Whilst the ecological literature contains frequent reports of such relationships, debate on their causal mechanisms is limited and typically focuses on the role of energy availability in controlling the number of individuals in an assemblage. Assemblages from high-energy areas may contain more individuals enabling species to maintain larger, more viable populations, whose lower extinction risk elevates species richness. Other mechanisms have, however, also been suggested. Here we identify and clarify nine principal mechanisms that may generate positive species-energy relationships at the macro-scale. We critically assess their assumptions and applicability over a range of spatial scales, derive predictions for each and assess the evidence that supports or refutes them. Our synthesis demonstrates that all mechanisms share at least one of their predictions with an alternative mechanism. Some previous studies of species-energy relationships appear not to have recognised the extent of shared predictions, and this may detract from their contribution to the debate on causal mechanisms. The combination of predictions and assumptions made by each mechanism is, however, unique, suggesting that, in principle, conclusive tests are possible. Sufficient testing of all mechanisms has yet to be conducted, and no single mechanism currently has unequivocal support. Each may contribute to species-energy relationships in some circumstances, but some mechanisms are unlikely to act simultaneously. Moreover, a limited number appear particularly likely to contribute frequently to species-energy relationships at the macro-scale. The increased population size, niche position and diversification rate mechanisms are particularly noteworthy in this context.

show abstract

“…Productivity has been defined as the rate at which energy flows in an ecosystem (Rosenzweig 1995). The forms of richness-productivity relationships (for reviews see Waide et al 1999;Mittelbach et al 2001) vary considerably among habitats (Waide et al 1999;Mittelbach et al 2001) and with the scale of observation (Weiher 1999;Chase and Leibold 2002) and the directness of the productivity estimate (Groner and Novoplansky 2003). Although richness often shows strong relationships to productivity (Abrams 1995;Rosenzweig 1971Rosenzweig ,1995Waide et al 1999), empirical evidence for or against different mechanisms causing a particular relationship is limited (Srivastava and Lawton 1998;Hurlbert 2004).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Abundance matters: a field experiment testing the more individuals hypothesis for richness–productivity relationships

Yee

Juliano

2007

Oecologia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The more individuals hypothesis (MIH) postulates that productivity increases species richness by increasing mean equilibrium population size, thereby reducing the probability of local extinction. We tested the MIH for invertebrates colonizing microcosms that simulated tree holes by manipulating productivity through additions of leaf or animal detritus and subsequently determining the relationships among richness, total abundance, abundance per species, and measures of productivity. We quantified productivity as the rate of microorganism protein synthesis, microorganism metabolic rate, nutrient ion concentration, and type and amount of detritus. Microcosms with animal detritus attracted more species, more individuals per species, and more total individuals than did microcosms with similar amounts of leaf detritus. Relationships between richness or abundance and productivity varied with date. Richness in June increased as a linear function of productivity, whereas the power function predicted by the MIH fit best in July. Abundance in June and July was best described by a power function of productivity, but the linear function predicted by the MIH fit best in September. Abundance per species was best described by a power function of productivity in June and July. Path analysis showed that the indirect effect of productivity through abundance on richness that is predicted by MIH was important in all months, and that direct links between productivity and richness were unnecessary. Our results support many of the predictions of the MIH, but they also suggest that the effects of abundance on richness may be more complex than expected.

show abstract

Spatial scale dictates the productivity–biodiversity relationship

Cited by 694 publications

References 18 publications

The role of phytoplankton diversity metrics in shallow lake and river quality assessment

The role of phytoplankton diversity metrics in shallow lake and river quality assessment

Species–energy relationships at the macroecological scale: a review of the mechanisms

Abundance matters: a field experiment testing the more individuals hypothesis for richness–productivity relationships

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About