Integrating phylogeny,environment and space to explore variation in macroecological traits of Viperidae and Elapidae (Squamata: Serpentes)

We used eigenvector mapping in space and phylogeny to investigate the relationships among space, phylogeny and environment on body size and range size variation across two groups of venomous snakes – Viperidae and Elapidae – from the New World. Data on species geographic range sizes, maximum body sizes and phylogenetic relationships were compiled from the available literature. The distributional data were also used to calculate the latitudinal and longitudinal midpoint and the environmental centroids for each species. The eigenvectors extracted from the pair wise spatial and phylogenetic distance matrices were integrated with environmental variables into a method of variation partitioning where the variation in each trait was quantitatively attributed to ‘pure’ and/or shared effects of phylogeny, environment and space. Our results showed that variation in body size was predominantly determined by phylogeny in both groups of snakes. For Viperidae, we found that pure ‘effects’ of phylogeny were the strongest, indicating that most of the body size evolution that was phylogenetically determined in this group occurred independently of environment and geographical proximity. Regarding range sizes, pure phylogenetic influences were very low in both groups, whereas the largest single fraction of explained variation corresponded to overlapped influences of the three sets of predictors, especially for Elapidae. Along with this, we found evidence that niche conservatism is an important processes underlying variation in body size and range size in both groups of snakes.     

Do developmental mode and dispersal shape abundance-occupancy relationships in marine macroinvertebrates?

1. Dispersal is a crucial process in maintaining population structures in many organisms, and is hypothesized as a process underlying the interspecific relationship between abundance and distribution. Here we examined whether there was a link between the dispersal and developmental modes of marine macroinvertebrates and the slopes and elevations of interspecific abundance-occupancy relationships. We predicted that if within-site retention of larvae ranks in the order brooders > lecithotrophs > planktotrophs, for any given level of mean abundance, occupancy should increase in the order brooders < lecithotrophs < planktotrophs. We also predicted that propensity to form metapopulations should be greater for planktonic dispersers (i.e. lecithotrophs and planktotrophs combined) than for non-planktonic (i.e. brooders), resulting in steeper abundance-occupancy relationships for the former. 2. Predictions were tested using a data set for 362 subtidal marine macroinvertebrates occurring across 446 1-km(2) grid squares around the British Isles; analyses were performed on the data set as a whole and for separate phyla. 3. The total data set had a Z-transformed effect size of 0.79, within the confidence intervals described by Blackburn et al. (2006; Journal of Animal Ecology, 75, 1426-1439), and was consistently present with relatively homogeneous effect size in separate analyses of polychaetes, crustaceans, molluscs and echinoderms. 4. In all cases, planktonic dispersing organisms showed an abundance-occupancy relationship with greater elevation than that for non-planktonic organisms; in polychaetes the elevation of slopes was in the rank order planktotrophs > lecithotrophs > brooders. No differences between the slopes of the abundance-occupancy relationship were apparent for different dispersal modes either within, or across phyla. 5. We conclude that dispersal capacity may play an important part in determining the elevation of the abundance-occupancy relationship, the corollary of low dispersal in the marine realm being greater local retention of larvae and greater local population abundance at low extents of geographical distribution.     

Abundance–occupancy relationships

1.  The abundance and distribution of species tend to be linked, such that species declining in abundance often tend also to show declines in the number of sites they occupy, while species increasing in abundance tend also to be increasing in occupancy. Therefore, intraspecific abundance–occupancy relationships are commonly positive.
2.  The intraspecific pattern is mirrored by more general positive interspecific abundance–occupancy relationships: widespread species tend to be abundant, and narrowly distributed species rare.
3.  Here, we review recent research on these patterns based on the flora and fauna of the British Isles. We assess their generality, describe what is currently known about their structure, and summarize the results of tests of the several hypotheses proposed to explain their existence.
4.  The positive form generally exhibited by abundance–occupancy relationships, intraspecific or interspecific, has consequences for several areas of applied ecology, including conservation, harvesting, biological invasions and biodiversity inventorying. These implications are discussed briefly.     

Variations on a theme: sources of heterogeneity in the form of the interspecific relationship between abundance and distribution

1. A positive interspecific relationship between abundance and distribution is widely considered to be one of the most general patterns in ecology. However, the relationship appears to vary considerably across assemblages, from significant positive to significant negative correlations and all shades in between. 2. This variation has led to the suggestion that the abundance-distribution relationship has multiple forms, with the corollary that different patterns may inform about, or have different, causes. However, this variation has never been formally quantified, nor has it been determined whether the observed variation is indicative of sampling error in estimating a single effect or of real heterogeneity in such relationships. Here, we use the meta-analytical approach to assess variation in abundance-distribution relationships, and to test different hypotheses for it. 3. Analysis of 279 relationships found a mean effect size of 0.655, which was both highly significantly different from zero and indicative of a strong positive association between abundance and distribution. However, effect sizes were highly heterogeneous, supporting the contention that this relationship does indeed have multiple forms. 4. Most notably, relationships vary significantly in strength across realms, with the strongest in the marine and intertidal, intermediate relationships for terrestrial and parasitic assemblages, and the weakest relationships in freshwater systems. Effect sizes in all of the aquatic realms are homogeneous, suggesting that realm is an important source of the heterogeneity observed across all studies. We posit that this may be because the different spatial structure of the environment in each realm affects the opportunity for the dispersal of individuals between sites. 5. Some of the remaining heterogeneity in effect sizes for terrestrial assemblages could be explained by partitioning assemblages by habitat, scale, biogeographical region and taxon, but considerable heterogeneity in effect sizes for terrestrial and parasitic assemblages remained unexplained.     

High proportion of smaller ranged hummingbird species coincides with ecological specialization across the Americas

Ecological communities that experience stable climate conditions have been speculated to preserve more specialized interspecific associations and have higher proportions of smaller ranged species (SRS). Thus, areas with disproportionally large numbers of SRS are expected to coincide geographically with a high degree of community-level ecological specialization, but this suggestion remains poorly supported with empirical evidence. Here, we analysed data for hummingbird resource specialization, range size, contemporary climate, and Late Quaternary climate stability for 46 hummingbird–plant mutualistic networks distributed across the Americas, representing 130 hummingbird species (ca 40% of all hummingbird species). We demonstrate a positive relationship between the proportion of SRS of hummingbirds and community-level specialization, i.e. the division of the floral niche among coexisting hummingbird species. This relationship remained strong even when accounting for climate, furthermore, the effect of SRS on specialization was far stronger than the effect of specialization on SRS, suggesting that climate largely influences specialization through species'' range-size dynamics. Irrespective of the exact mechanism involved, our results indicate that communities consisting of higher proportions of SRS may be vulnerable to disturbance not only because of their small geographical ranges, but also because of their high degree of specialization.     

The anatomy of the interspecific abundance–range size relationship for the British avifauna: I. Spatial patterns

Data from the British Trust for Ornithology Common Birds Census and two atlases of breeding birds were used to examine the form of the interspecific abundance–range size relationship for the British avifauna. The relationship is positive for both farmland and woodland habitats and over two different periods, with some evidence of curvilinearity, using either proportion of occupied sites or numbers of occupied 10 × 10 km squares as measures of range size, and mean density at occupied sites as a measure of abundance. A log-linear plot gives the highest correlation. The relationship is stronger if based on maximum local densities than if based on average densities, but there is no relationship using minimum local densities. Relationships based on abundances at individual sites are uniformly positive for all sites, although the relationships for many sites also show evidence of curvilinearity, especially when range size is measured as the proportion of occupied sites. Species show significant concordance in their rank abundances across sites. We discuss some implications of these results.     

The anatomy of the interspecific abundance–range size relationship for the British avifauna: II. Temporal dynamics

In a companion paper, we started an examination of the anatomy of the interspecific relationship between local abundance and geographical range size in the British avifauna by analysing its spatial dynamics. Here, we use the same data to extend this study to a consideration of the temporal dynamics of the relationship. Most species of British breeding bird show a positive intraspecific abundance–range size relationship through time: i.e. in years when a species is locally more abundant it also occupies a higher proportion of census sites. However, the majority of such relationships are not statistically significant, and other relationships that are statistically significant are negative. Therefore, intraspecific abundance–range size relationships do not simply mirror the relationship across species. Where they do arise, positive relationships are more likely to be associated with positive intraspecific relationships between range size and maximum rather than minimum abundance. The interspecific abundance–range size relationship is remarkably consistent across years, and is always significantly positive. The relationships for woodland and farmland census sites show correlated variation, so that in years when the linear regression slope and coefficient of determination are high across species on farmland plots, they also tend to be high across species on woodland plots. Common species tend to be common on both farmland and woodland plots, and tend to be common in all years. Likewise, rare species tend to be rare in all habitats and years. This concordance means that the positive interspecific abundance–range size relationship can be viewed as occurring largely independently of intraspecific relationships. It follows from the above that developing an understanding of intraspecific abundance–range size relationships may be of only limited value in ascertaining the determinants of positive interspecific abundance–range size relationships. We conclude that for interspecific relationships, it will be important to know why some species are consistently common and others rare, whereas for intraspecific relationships it will be important to understand the dynamic links between local abundances across sites.