Empirical Evidence for the Scale Dependence of Biotic Interactions

Aim Although it is recognized that ecological patterns are scale dependent, the exact scales over which specific ecological processes operate are still a matter of controversy. In particular, understanding the scales over which biotic interactions operate is critical for predicting changes in species distributions in the face of the ongoing biodiversity crisis. It has been hypothesized that biotic interactions operate predominately at fine grains, yet this conjecture has received relatively little empirical scrutiny. We use US woodpeckers as a model system to assess the relative importance of biotic interactions, environmental suitability and geographic proximity to other intraspecific occurrence sites, across scales. Location Conterminous United States. Methods We combined species occurrence data from the North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) with a large pair-wise interaction matrix describing known interactions among woodpeckers and other bird species. Using a logistic mixed modelling framework we then established the relative importance of biotic interactions as predictors of woodpecker occurrences in relation to environment and geographic proximity to intraspecific occurrence sites. Results We found that geographic proximity becomes a stronger predictor of woodpecker occurrence as grain becomes coarser, while environment is graininvariant. As opposed to environment and geographic proximity, we found that when the focal species experienced positive biotic interactions, the importance of interactions decreased with increased grain. However, positive interactions remained important up to a grain size of entire BBS routes (c. 40 km), which is much coarser than the grain size used by most species distribution models. In contrast, when the focal species experienced negative interactions we did not find clear grain dependence. Main conclusions Biotic interactions (both positive and negative) are important predictors of species occurrences. While these interactions are strongest at fine grains, they can remain important even at coarse grains, and are thus critical for predicting distributional changes in the face of the ongoing biodiversity crisis.

[1]  M. Luoto,et al.  Biotic interactions improve prediction of boreal bird distributions at macro‐scales , 2007 .

[2]  M. Araújo,et al.  The importance of biotic interactions for modelling species distributions under climate change , 2007 .

[3]  J. Elith,et al.  Species Distribution Models: Ecological Explanation and Prediction Across Space and Time , 2009 .

[4]  A. Viña,et al.  Climate-change impacts on understorey bamboo species and giant pandas in China’s Qinling Mountains , 2013 .

[5]  M. Fortin,et al.  Measuring ecological niche overlap from occurrence and spatial environmental data , 2012 .

[6]  Alejandro F. Rozenfeld,et al.  The geographic scaling of biotic interactions , 2013 .

[7]  A. Ellison,et al.  Should species distribution models account for spatial autocorrelation? A test of model projections across eight millennia of climate change , 2013 .

[8]  Mark L. Taper,et al.  Connecting geographical distributions with population processes , 2002 .

[9]  A. Shmida,et al.  Biological determinants of species diversity , 1985 .

[10]  J. Tobias,et al.  Species interactions constrain geographic range expansion over evolutionary time. , 2013, Ecology letters.

[11]  W. Jetz,et al.  A 40‐year, continent‐wide, multispecies assessment of relevant climate predictors for species distribution modelling , 2014 .

[12]  W. Godsoe,et al.  How do species interactions affect species distribution models , 2012 .

[13]  M. Visser,et al.  Predicting species distribution and abundance responses to climate change: why it is essential to include biotic interactions across trophic levels , 2010, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[14]  Jennifer A. Miller.  Species Distribution Modeling , 2010 .

[15]  W. Thuiller,et al.  Predicting species distribution: offering more than simple habitat models. , 2005, Ecology letters.

[16]  David K. Skelly,et al.  Biotic Multipliers of Climate Change , 2012, Science.

[17]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .

[18]  James A. Westfall,et al.  NACP Aboveground Biomass and Carbon Baseline Data, V.2 (NBCD 2000), U.S.A., 2000 , 2013 .

[19]  J. Cavender-Bares,et al.  The merging of community ecology and phylogenetic biology. , 2009, Ecology letters.

[20]  W. Daniel Kissling,et al.  Multispecies interactions across trophic levels at macroscales: retrospective and future directions , 2015 .

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

[22]  Shinichi Nakagawa,et al.  A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixed‐effects models , 2013 .

[23]  Timothy D. Meehan,et al.  Bird communities in future bioenergy landscapes of the Upper Midwest , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[24]  Gary R. Graves,et al.  Macroecological signals of species interactions in the Danish avifauna , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[25]  G. C. Costa,et al.  The importance of biotic interactions in species distribution models: a test of the Eltonian noise hypothesis using parrots , 2014 .

[26]  P. Brussard,et al.  Matters of scale. , 1993, Science.

[27]  D. Schneider.  The Rise of the Concept of Scale in Ecology , 2001 .

[28]  R. Whittaker,et al.  Scale and species richness: towards a general, hierarchical theory of species diversity , 2001 .

[29]  J. Chave.  The problem of pattern and scale in ecology: what have we learned in 20 years? , 2013, Ecology letters.

[30]  W. D. Kissling,et al.  The role of biotic interactions in shaping distributions and realised assemblages of species: implications for species distribution modelling , 2012, Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society.

[31]  T. Webb,,et al.  The role of blue jays (Cyanocitta cristata L.) in the postglacial dispersal of fagaceous trees in eastern North America , 1989 .

[32]  K. Martin,et al.  Nest webs: A community-wide approach to the management and conservation of cavity-nesting forest birds , 1999 .

[33]  J. Elith,et al.  Sensitivity of predictive species distribution models to change in grain size , 2007 .

[34]  Walter Jetz,et al.  Cross-scale variation in species richness–environment associations , 2011 .

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

[36]  Susan I. Stewart,et al.  Conservation of Forest Birds: Evidence of a Shifting Baseline in Community Structure , 2010, PloS one.

[37]  Carsten F. Dormann,et al.  Towards novel approaches to modelling biotic interactions in multispecies assemblages at large spatial extents , 2012 .

[38]  K. Martin,et al.  The importance of excavators in hole-nesting communities: availability and use of natural tree holes in old mixed forests of western Canada , 2007, Journal of Ornithology.

[39]  M. Rejmánek,et al.  Dispersal modes affect tropical forest assembly across trophic levels , 2013 .

[40]  Brian J. McGill,et al.  Can niche-based distribution models outperform spatial interpolation? , 2007 .

[41]  M. Zappa,et al.  Climate change and plant distribution: local models predict high‐elevation persistence , 2009 .

[42]  Christopher A. Barnes,et al.  Completion of the 2006 National Land Cover Database for the conterminous United States. , 2011 .

[43]  A. Prasad,et al.  Changes in potential habitat of 147 North American breeding bird species in response to redistribution of trees and climate following predicted climate change , 2011 .

[44]  Michelle E. Afkhami,et al.  Mutualist-mediated effects on species' range limits across large geographic scales. , 2014, Ecology letters.