Submit a preprint


Community size affects the signals of ecological drift and selection on biodiversityuse asterix (*) to get italics
Tadeu Siqueira, Victor S. Saito, Luis M. Bini, Adriano S. Melo, Danielle K. Petsch, Victor L. Landeiro, Kimmo T. Tolonen, Jenny Jyrkänkallio-Mikkola, Janne Soininen, Jani HeinoPlease use the format "First name initials family name" as in "Marie S. Curie, Niels H. D. Bohr, Albert Einstein, John R. R. Tolkien, Donna T. Strickland"
<p>Ecological drift can override the effects of deterministic niche selection on small populations and drive the assembly of small communities. We tested the hypothesis that smaller local communities are more dissimilar among each other because of ecological drift than larger communities, which are mainly structured by niche selection. We used a unique, comprehensive dataset on insect communities sampled identically in a total of 200 streams in climatically different regions (Brazil and Finland) that differ in community size by fivefold. Null models allowed us to estimate the magnitude to which beta diversity deviates from the expectation under a random assembly process while taking differences in species richness and relative abundance into account, i.e., beta deviation. Beta diversity of small communities was consistently higher but closer to null expectations than β-diversity of large communities. However, although β-deviation and community size were strongly related in both regions, the direction of the relationship varied according to β-diversity metrics. While incidence-based beta diversity was lower than expected (communities were less dissimilar than null expectations) and negatively related to community size only in Brazil, abundance-based β-diversity was higher than expected (communities were more dissimilar that null expectations) and positively related to community size in both regions. We suggest that ecological drift drives variation in small communities by increasing the chances of species with low abundance and narrow distribution to occur within the metacommunity. Also, while weak niche selection and high dispersal rates likely reduced variation in community structure among large tropical streams, niche selection was likely sufficient to cause non-random variations in the relative abundances of genera among large communities in both regions. Habitat destruction, overexploitation, pollution, and reductions in connectivity have been reducing the size of biological communities. These environmental pressures will make smaller communities more vulnerable to novel conditions and render community dynamics more unpredictable, as random demographic processes should prevail under these conditions. Incorporation of community size into ecological models should provide conceptual, empirical and applied insights into a better understanding of the processes driving changes in biodiversity.</p> should fill this box only if you chose 'All or part of the results presented in this preprint are based on data'. URL must start with http:// or https://
You should fill this box only if you chose 'Scripts were used to obtain or analyze the results'. URL must start with http:// or https:// should fill this box only if you chose 'Codes have been used in this study'. URL must start with http:// or https://
aquatic insects; beta diversity deviation; community assembly; demographic stochasticity; dispersal; metacommunities; null models
NonePlease indicate the methods that may require specialised expertise during the peer review process (use a comma to separate various required expertises).
Biodiversity, Coexistence, Community ecology, Competition, Conservation biology, Dispersal & Migration, Freshwater ecology, Spatial ecology, Metacommunities & Metapopulations
No need for them to be recommenders of PCIEcology. Please do not suggest reviewers for whom there might be a conflict of interest. Reviewers are not allowed to review preprints written by close colleagues (with whom they have published in the last four years, with whom they have received joint funding in the last four years, or with whom they are currently writing a manuscript, or submitting a grant proposal), or by family members, friends, or anyone for whom bias might affect the nature of the review - see the code of conduct
e.g. John Doe []
2019-01-09 19:06:21
Eric Harvey