Biotic interactions hold the key to understanding metacommunity organisation. Issue 8 (19th May 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: García‐Girón, Jorge; Heino, Jani; García‐Criado, Francisco; Fernández‐Aláez, Camino; Alahuhta, Janne
• Is Part Of: Ecography. Volume 43:Issue 8(2020)
• Page Start: 1180
• Page End: 1190
• Publication Date: 2020-05-19
• Subjects: beta diversity -- environmental filtering -- metacommunity ecology -- network analysis -- species sorting -- trophic guild; Ecology -- Periodicals; Biodiversity -- Periodicals; 574.5
• DOI: 10.1111/ecog.05032
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0906-7590

Abstract

Abstract : Biotic interactions are fundamental drivers governing biodiversity locally, yet their effects on geographical variation in community composition (i.e. incidence‐based) and community structure (i.e. abundance‐based) at regional scales remain controversial. Ecologists have only recently started to integrate different types of biotic interactions into community assembly in a spatial context, a theme that merits further empirical quantification. Here, we applied partial correlation networks to infer the strength of spatial dependencies between pairs of organismal groups and mapped the imprints of biotic interactions on the assembly of pond metacommunities. To do this, we used a comprehensive empirical dataset from Mediterranean landscapes and adopted the perspective that community assembly is best represented as a network of interacting organismal groups. Our results revealed that the co‐variation among the beta diversities of multiple organismal groups is primarily driven by biotic interactions and, to a lesser extent, by the abiotic environment. These results suggest that ignoring biotic interactions may undermine our understanding of assembly mechanisms in spatially extensive areas and decrease the accuracy and performance of predictive models. We further found strong spatial dependencies in our analyses which can be interpreted as functional relationships among several pairs of organismal groups (e.g. macrophytes–macroinvertebrates, fish–zooplankton). Perhaps more importantly, our results support the notion that biotic interactions make crucial contributions to the species sorting paradigm of metacommunity theory and raise the question of whether these biologically‐driven signals have been equally underappreciated in other aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Although more research is still required to empirically capture the importance of biotic interactions across ecosystems and at different spatial resolutions and extents, our findings may allow decision makers to better foresee the main consequences of human‐driven impacts on inland waters, particularly those associated with the addition or removal of key species.