Spatial autocorrelation and dispersal limitation in freshwater organisms

Dispersal can limit the ranges of species and the diversity of communities. Despite its importance, little is known about its role in freshwater habitats and its relation to habitat type (lentic vs. lotic), especially for organisms with cryptic dispersal methods such as plankton. Poor dispersers are expected to show more clumped distributions or greater spatial autocorrelation (SA) in community composition than good dispersers. We examined patterns of SA across freshwater taxa with different dispersal modes (active vs. passive) and their association with habitat type (lake vs. stream) using 18 spatially explicit community composition data sets. We found significant relationships between SA and body size among taxa in lake habitats, but not in streams. However, the increase in SA with body size in lakes was driven entirely by fishes—organisms ranging in size from diatoms to macro-invertebrates showed equivalent levels of SA. These results support the idea that large organisms are less effective dispersers in aquatic environments, resulting in greater SA in community structure over broad scales. Streams may be effectively more connected than lakes as patterns of SA and body size were weaker in lotic habitats. Our data suggest that the critical threshold where greater body size increases dispersal limitation seems to come at the juncture between invertebrates and vertebrates rather than that between unicellular and multicellular organisms as has been previously suggested.

[1]  O. Sarnelle,et al.  Zooplankton recovery after fish removal: Limitations of the egg bank , 2004 .

[2]  B. Finlay.  Global Dispersal of Free-Living Microbial Eukaryote Species , 2002, Science.

[3]  P. Amarasekare,et al.  Allee Effects in Metapopulation Dynamics , 1998, The American Naturalist.

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

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

[6]  J. Magnuson,et al.  Intercontinental Comparison of Small-Lake Fish Assemblages: The Balance between Local and Regional Processes , 1990, The American Naturalist.

[7]  Helmut Hillebrand,et al.  On the Generality of the Latitudinal Diversity Gradient , 2004, The American Naturalist.

[8]  K. J. Clarke,et al.  Ubiquitous dispersal of microbial species , 1999, Nature.

[9]  Steven D. Gaines,et al.  Marine community ecology , 2001 .

[10]  J. Hughes,et al.  A taxa–area relationship for bacteria , 2004, Nature.

[11]  Theophile Niyonsenga,et al.  Spatial and environmental components of freshwater zooplankton structure , 1995 .

[12]  J. Magnuson,et al.  ISOLATION VS. EXTINCTION IN THE ASSEMBLY OF FISHES IN SMALL NORTHERN LAKES , 1998 .

[13]  S. Palumbi.  Genetic Divergence, Reproductive Isolation, and Marine Speciation , 1994 .

[14]  Kalle Ruokolainen,et al.  Dispersal, Environment, and Floristic Variation of Western Amazonian Forests , 2003, Science.

[15]  Stephen R. Carpenter,et al.  Ecological community description using the food web, species abundance, and body size , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[16]  P. White,et al.  The distance decay of similarity in biogeography and ecology , 1999 .

[17]  L. De Meester,et al.  Geographical and genetic distances among zooplankton populations in a set of interconnected ponds: a plea for using GIS modelling of the effective geographical distance , 2001, Molecular ecology.

[18]  H. Hillebrand,et al.  A multivariate analysis of beta diversity across organisms and environments. , 2007, Ecology.

[19]  C. Cáceres,et al.  Blowing in the wind: a field test of overland dispersal and colonization by aquatic invertebrates , 2002, Oecologia.

[20]  Onathan,et al.  Scale-dependence and Mechanisms of Dispersal in Freshwater Zooplankton , 2003 .

[21]  R. Macarthur,et al.  The Theory of Island Biogeography , 1969 .

[22]  S. Hubbell,et al.  The unified neutral theory of biodiversity and biogeography at age ten. , 2011, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[23]  Stephen P. Hubbell,et al.  Beta-Diversity in Tropical Forest Trees , 2002, Science.

[24]  John R. Jones,et al.  ESTIMATING DISPERSAL FROM PATTERNS OF SPREAD: SPATIAL AND LOCAL CONTROL OF LAKE INVASIONS , 2002 .

[25]  D. Jenkins,et al.  Ecological and evolutionary significance of dispersal by freshwater invertebrates , 2003 .

[26]  Montgomery Slatkin,et al.  ISOLATION BY DISTANCE IN EQUILIBRIUM AND NON‐EQUILIBRIUM POPULATIONS , 1993, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[27]  Peter Kareiva,et al.  Population dynamics in spatial habitats , 1997 .

[28]  M. Palmer,et al.  Dispersal as a regional process affecting the local dynamics of marine and stream benthic invertebrates. , 1996, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[29]  L. Meester,et al.  The Monopolization Hypothesis and the dispersal–gene flow paradox in aquatic organisms , 2002 .

[30]  T. Fenchel,et al.  The Ubiquity of Small Species: Patterns of Local and Global Diversity , 2004 .

[31]  P. Legendre.  Spatial Autocorrelation: Trouble or New Paradigm? , 1993 .

[32]  Karl Cottenie,et al.  Integrating environmental and spatial processes in ecological community dynamics. , 2005, Ecology letters.

[33]  H. Hillebrand,et al.  Regional and local impact on species diversity – from pattern to processes , 2002, Oecologia.

[34]  H. Hillebrand,et al.  Diversity-stability relationship varies with latitude in zooplankton. , 2007, Ecology letters.

[35]  M. Allen.  Measuring and modeling dispersal of adult zooplankton , 2007, Oecologia.

[36]  R. Busing,et al.  The Unified Neutral Theory of Biodiversity and Biogeography , 2002 .

[37]  Melvin L. Warren,et al.  DYNAMICS IN SPECIES COMPOSITION OF STREAM FISH ASSEMBLAGES: ENVIRONMENTAL VARIABILITY AND NESTED SUBSETS , 2001 .

[38]  J. Shurin.  DISPERSAL LIMITATION, INVASION RESISTANCE, AND THE STRUCTURE OF POND ZOOPLANKTON COMMUNITIES , 2000 .

[39]  S. Maberly,et al.  Hypothesis: the rate and scale of dispersal of freshwater diatom species is a function of their global abundance. , 2002, Protist.

[40]  M. Westoby,et al.  Spatial scaling of microbial eukaryote diversity , 2004, Nature.

[41]  Donald A. Jackson,et al.  What controls who is where in freshwater fish communities the roles of biotic, abiotic, and spatial factors , 2001 .

[42]  A. L. Buikema,et al.  Do similar communities develop in similar sites? A test with zooplankton structure and function , 1998 .

[43]  Jonathan M. Chase,et al.  The metacommunity concept: a framework for multi-scale community ecology , 2004 .

[44]  L. Meester,et al.  METACOMMUNITY STRUCTURE: SYNERGY OF BIOTIC INTERACTIONS AS SELECTIVE AGENTS AND DISPERSAL AS FUEL , 2004 .

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

[46]  Robert I. McDonald,et al.  The distance decay of similarity in ecological communities , 2007 .

[47]  J. Freeland,et al.  Dispersal in freshwater invertebrates , 2001 .

[48]  R. Holt,et al.  A Survey and Overview of Habitat Fragmentation Experiments , 2000 .

[49]  M. Leibold.  Biodiversity and nutrient enrichment in pond plankton communities , 1999 .

[50]  Benjamin Gilbert,et al.  Neutrality, niches, and dispersal in a temperate forest understory. , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[51]  R. Grosberg,et al.  Genetic Structure in the Sea From Populations to Communities , 2001 .

[52]  J. Shurin,et al.  Mechanisms, effects, and scales of dispersal in freshwater zooplankton , 2004 .

[53]  M. Gilpin,et al.  Metapopulation Biology: Ecology, Genetics, and Evolution , 1997 .

[54]  B. Bolker,et al.  Spatial Moment Equations for Plant Competition: Understanding Spatial Strategies and the Advantages of Short Dispersal , 1999, The American Naturalist.