Community Patterns in Source‐Sink Metacommunities

We present a model of a source‐sink competitive metacommunity, defined as a regional set of communities in which local diversity is maintained by dispersal. Although the conditions of local and regional coexistence have been well defined in such systems, no study has attempted to provide clear predictions of classical community‐wide patterns. Here we provide predictions for species richness, species relative abundances, and community‐level functional properties (productivity and space occupation) at the local and regional scales as functions of the proportion of dispersal between communities. Local (α) diversity is maximal at an intermediate level of dispersal, whereas between‐community (β) and regional (γ) diversity decline as dispersal increases because of increased homogenization of the metacommunity. The relationships between local and regional species richness and the species rank abundance distributions are strongly affected by the level of dispersal. Local productivity and space occupation tend to decline as dispersal increases, resulting in either a hump‐shaped or a positive relationship between species richness and productivity, depending on the scale considered (local or regional). These effects of dispersal are buffered by decreasing species dispersal success. Our results provide a niche‐based alternative to the recent neutral‐metacommunity model and have important implications for conservation biology and landscape management.

[1]  James H. Brown,et al.  Turnover Rates in Insular Biogeography: Effect of Immigration on Extinction , 1977 .

[2]  M. Leibold.  Similarity and local co-existence of species in regional biotas , 2004, Evolutionary Ecology.

[3]  P. Chesson,et al.  Environmental Variability Promotes Coexistence in Lottery Competitive Systems , 1981, The American Naturalist.

[4]  S. Levin.  THE PROBLEM OF PATTERN AND SCALE IN ECOLOGY , 1992 .

[5]  S. Pacala,et al.  Models Suggesting Field Experiments to Test Two Hypotheses Explaining Successional Diversity , 1998, The American Naturalist.

[6]  Robert D. Holt,et al.  On the evolutionary stability of sink populations , 1997, Evolutionary Ecology.

[7]  R. O'Neill,et al.  Landscape Ecology Explained@@@Landscape Ecology in Theory and Practice: Pattern and Process , 2001 .

[8]  Jonathan M. Chase,et al.  Spatial scale dictates the productivity–biodiversity relationship , 2002, Nature.

[9]  R. G. Hughes.  Theories and Models of Species Abundance , 1986, The American Naturalist.

[10]  Martin T. Sykes,et al.  Small-scale plant species turnover in a limestone grassland: the carousel model and some comments on the niche concept. , 1993 .

[11]  S. Levin.  Dispersion and Population Interactions , 1974, The American Naturalist.

[12]  Michael A. Huston,et al.  Local processes and regional patterns : appropriate scales for understanding variation in the diversity of plants and animals , 1999 .

[13]  Peter Chesson,et al.  Coexistence of Competitors in Spatially and Temporally Varying Environments: A Look at the Combined Effects of Different Sorts of Variability , 1985 .

[14]  M. Palmer,et al.  Linking species diversity to the functioning of ecosystems: on the importance of environmental context , 2000 .

[15]  J. Simon,et al.  Extinction rates. , 1996, Science.

[16]  A. Hastings.  Disturbance, coexistence, history, and competition for space , 1980 .

[17]  Priyanga Amarasekare,et al.  Spatial Heterogeneity, Source‐Sink Dynamics, and the Local Coexistence of Competing Species , 2001, The American Naturalist.

[18]  M Slatkin,et al.  Gene flow and the geographic structure of natural populations. , 1987, Science.

[19]  H. Pulliam,et al.  Sources, Sinks, and Population Regulation , 1988, The American Naturalist.

[20]  R. Whittaker.  Evolution and measurement of species diversity , 1972 .

[21]  T. Miller,et al.  Community assembly time and the relationship between local and regional species richness , 2003 .

[22]  S. Wright.  THE GENETICAL THEORY OF NATURAL SELECTIONA Review , 1930 .

[23]  Jonathan M. Chase,et al.  Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning at local and regional spatial scales , 2002 .

[24]  Michel Loreau,et al.  Coexistence in Metacommunities: The Regional Similarity Hypothesis , 2002, The American Naturalist.

[25]  D. Srivastava.  Using local–regional richness plots to test for species saturation: pitfalls and potentials , 1999 .

[26]  L. Meester,et al.  ZOOPLANKTON METACOMMUNITY STRUCTURE: REGIONAL VS. LOCAL PROCESSES IN HIGHLY INTERCONNECTED PONDS , 2003 .

[27]  D. Tilman,et al.  Plant diversity and ecosystem productivity: theoretical considerations. , 1997, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[28]  M. Loreau,et al.  Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: a mechanistic model. , 1998, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[29]  Nicholas J. Gotelli,et al.  Metapopulation Models: The Rescue Effect, the Propagule Rain, and the Core-Satellite Hypothesis , 1991, The American Naturalist.

[30]  J. Terborgh,et al.  Saturation of Bird Communities in the West Indies , 1980, The American Naturalist.

[31]  R. Macarthur,et al.  Competition among Fugitive Species in a Harlequin Environment , 1972 .

[32]  P. Sale.  Stock-Recruit Relationships and Regional Coexistence in a Lottery Competitive System: A Simulation Study , 1982, The American Naturalist.

[33]  Y. Iwasa,et al.  Species coexistence by permanent spatial heterogeneity in a lottery model. , 2000, Theoretical population biology.

[34]  Jonathan M. Chase,et al.  The role of habitat connectivity and landscape geometry in experimental zooplankton metacommunities , 2002 .

[35]  Alan Hastings,et al.  Habitat Loss, Fragmentation, and Restoration , 1999 .

[36]  S Pacala,et al.  Limiting Similarity, Species Packing, and System Stability for Hierarchical Competition‐Colonization Models , 1999, The American Naturalist.

[37]  D. Tilman.  Competition and Biodiversity in Spatially Structured Habitats , 1994 .

[38]  S. Levin.  The problem of pattern and scale in ecology , 1992 .

[39]  R. Ricklefs,et al.  Community Diversity: Relative Roles of Local and Regional Processes , 1987, Science.

[40]  Stephen J. Wright,et al.  Light-Gap disturbances, recruitment limitation, and tree diversity in a neotropical forest , 1999, Science.

[41]  Mats Gyllenberg,et al.  Two General Metapopulation Models and the Core-Satellite Species Hypothesis , 1993, The American Naturalist.

[42]  R. Levins.  Some Demographic and Genetic Consequences of Environmental Heterogeneity for Biological Control , 1969 .

[43]  J. Thompson,et al.  Specific Hypotheses on the Geographic Mosaic of Coevolution , 1999, The American Naturalist.

[44]  David Sloan Wilson,et al.  Complex Interactions in Metacommunities, with Implications for Biodiversity and Higher Levels of Selection , 1992 .

[45]  R. May.  Patterns of species abundance and diversity , 1975 .

[46]  S. Ellner,et al.  Coexistence of plant species with similar niches , 1984, Vegetatio.

[47]  Michel Loreau,et al.  Immigration and the Maintenance of Local Species Diversity , 1999, The American Naturalist.

[48]  D. Doak.  Source‐Sink Models and the Problem of Habitat Degradation: General Models and Applications to the Yellowstone Grizzly , 1995 .

[49]  M. Loreau.  Are communities saturated? On the relationship between α, β and γ diversity , 2000 .

[50]  M. Loreau,et al.  Plant species richness and community productivity: why the mechanism that promotes coexistence matters , 2002 .

[51]  Yoh Iwasa,et al.  Interspecific competition among metapopulations with space-limited subpopulations , 1986 .

[52]  R. Lande.  Statistics and partitioning of species diversity, and similarity among multiple communities , 1996 .

[53]  M. Leibold,et al.  LOCAL AND REGIONAL ZOOPLANKTON SPECIES RICHNESS: A SCALE‐INDEPENDENT TEST FOR SATURATION , 2000 .

[54]  M. Loreau.  Species abundance patterns and the structure of ground-beetle communities , 1991 .

[55]  R. Levins,et al.  Regional Coexistence of Species and Competition between Rare Species. , 1971, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[56]  M. Zobel,et al.  The relative of species pools in determining plant species richness: an alternative explanation of species coexistence? , 1997, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[57]  A. Magurran.  Ecological Diversity and Its Measurement , 1988, Springer Netherlands.

[58]  M. Loreau,et al.  Biodiversity as spatial insurance in heterogeneous landscapes , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[59]  H. Pulliam.  On the relationship between niche and distribution , 2000 .

[60]  Stephen P. Ellner,et al.  Coexistence of plant species with similar niches , 1984, Vegetatio.

[61]  S. Fomin.  [Some mathematical problems of biology]. , 1970, Biofizika.

[62]  S. Levin,et al.  Comparing Classical Community Models: Theoretical Consequences for Patterns of Diversity , 2002, The American Naturalist.