CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 87

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Flow directionality, mountain barriers and functional traits determine diatom metacommunity structuring of high mountain streams

Dong, Xiaoyu, Li, Bin, He, Fengzhi, Gu, Yuan, Sun, Meiqin, Zhang, Haomiao, Tan, Lu, Xiao, Wen, Liu, Shuoran, Cai, Qinghua·2016·Scientific Reports
DOI 10.1038/srep24711PMC PMC4835781
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Stream metacommunities are structured by a combination of local (environmental filtering) and regional (dispersal) processes. The unique characters of high mountain streams could potentially determine metacommunity structuring, which is currently poorly understood. Aiming at understanding how these characters influenced metacommunity structuring, we explored the relative importance of local environmental conditions and various dispersal processes, including through geographical (overland), topographical (across mountain barriers) and network (along flow direction) pathways in shaping benthic diatom communities. From a trait perspective, diatoms were categorized into high-profile, low-profile and motile guild to examine the roles of functional traits. Our results indicated that both environmental filtering and dispersal processes influenced metacommunity structuring, with dispersal contributing more than environmental processes. Among the three pathways, stream corridors were primary pathway. Deconstructive analysis suggested different responses to environmental and spatial factors for each of three ecological guilds. However, regardless of traits, dispersal among streams was limited by mountain barriers, while dispersal along stream was promoted by rushing flow in high mountain stream. Our results highlighted that directional processes had prevailing effects on metacommunity structuring in high mountain streams. Flow directionality, mountain barriers and ecological guilds contributed to a better understanding of the roles that mountains played in structuring metacommunity.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/srep24711

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 59

  1. Clobert, J., Baguette, M., Benton, T. G. & Bullock, J. M. Dispersal Ecology and Evolution. 1–496 (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2012). · DOI
  2. Kendrick, G. A. et al. The central role of dispersal in the maintenance and persistence of seagrass populations. Bio Science 62, 56–65 (2012).
  3. Shurin, J. B., Cottenie, K. & Hillebrand, H. Spatial autocorrelation and dispersal limitation in freshwater organisms. Oecologia 159, 151–159 (2009). · DOI
  4. Lowe, W. H. & McPeek, M. A. Is dispersal neutral? Trends Ecol. Evol. 29, 444–450 (2014). · DOI
  5. Thompson, R. & Townsend, C. A truce with neutral theory: local deterministic factors, species traits and dispersal limitation together determine patterns of diversity in stream invertebrates. J. Anim. Ecol. 75, 476–484 (2006). · DOI · Paper page
  6. Flinn, K. M., Gouhier, T. C., Lechowicz, M. J. & Waterway, M. J. The role of dispersal in shaping plant community composition of wetlands within an old-growth forest. J. Ecol. 98, 1292–1299 (2010). · DOI
  7. Cadotte, M. W. Competition-colonization trade-offs and disturbance effects at multiple scales. Ecology 88, 823–829 (2007). · DOI
  8. Lindström, E. S. & Östman, Ö. The importance of dispersal for bacterial community composition and functioning. Plos One 6, e25883 (2011). · DOI
  9. Holyoak, M. & Loreau, M. Reconciling empirical ecology with neutral community models. Ecology 87, 1370–1377 (2006). · DOI
  10. Warren, B. H. et al. Islands as model systems in ecology and evolution: prospects fifty years after MacArthur-Wilson. Ecol. Lett. 18, 200–217 (2015). · DOI
  11. Heino, J. et al. Metacommunity organisation, spatial extent and dispersal in aquatic systems: patterns, processes and prospects. Freshwater Biol. 60, 845–869 (2015). · DOI
  12. Brown, B. & Swan, C. Dendritic network structure constrains metacommunity properties in riverine ecosystems. J. Anim. Ecol. 79, 571–580 (2010). · DOI
  13. Kerby, J. L., Riley, S. P., Kats, L. B. & Wilson, P. Barriers and flow as limiting factors in the spread of an invasive crayfish (Procambarus clarkii) in southern California streams. Biol. Conserv. 126, 402–409 (2005). · DOI
  14. Cañedo-Argüelles, M. et al. Dispersal strength determines meta-community structure in a dendritic riverine network. J. Biogeogr. 42, 778–790 (2015). · DOI
  15. Kärnä, O. M. et al. Inferring the effects of potential dispersal routes on the metacommunity structure of stream insects: as the crow flies, as the fish swims or as the fox runs? J. Anim. Ecol. 84, 1342–1353 (2015). · DOI
  16. Algarte, V. M., Rodrigues, L., Landeiro, V. L., Siqueira, T. & Bini, L. M. Variance partitioning of deconstructed periphyton communities: does the use of biological traits matter? Hydrobiologia 722, 279–290 (2014). · DOI
  17. Leibold, M. A. et al. The metacommunity concept: a framework for multi-scale community ecology. Ecol. Lett. 7, 601–613 (2004). · DOI
  18. Logue, J. B., Mouquet, N., Peter, H., Hillebrand, H. & Group, M. W. Empirical approaches to metacommunities: a review and comparison with theory. Trends Ecol. Evol. 26, 482–491 (2011). · DOI
  19. Wilson, D. S. Complex interactions in metacommunities, with implications for biodiversity and higher levels of selection. Ecology 73, 1984–2000 (1992). · DOI
  20. Holyoak, M., Leibold, M. A., Mouquet, N., Holt, R. D. & Hoopes, M. F. In Metacommunities: Spatial Dynamics And Ecological Communities (eds Holyoak, M., Leibold, M. A. & Holt, R. D. ) Ch. 1, 1–31 (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 2005).
  21. Hubbell, S. P. In The Unified Neutral Theory Of Biodiversity And Biogeography (eds Hubbell, S. P. ) Ch. 5, 113–151 (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2001).
  22. Soininen, J. A quantitative analysis of species sorting across organisms and ecosystems. Ecology 95, 3284–3292 (2014). · DOI
  23. Ng, I. S., Carr, C. M. & Cottenie, K. Hierarchical zooplankton metacommunities: distinguishing between high and limiting dispersal mechanisms. Hydrobiologia 619, 133–143 (2009). · DOI
  24. Winegardner, A. K., Jones, B. K., Ng, I. S., Siqueira, T. & Cottenie, K. The terminology of metacommunity ecology. Trends Ecol. Evol. 27, 253–254 (2012). · DOI
  25. Göthe, E., Angeler, D. G. & Sandin, L. Metacommunity structure in a small boreal stream network. J. Anim. Ecol. 82, 449–458 (2013). · DOI
  26. Moritz, C. et al. Disentangling the role of connectivity, environmental filtering and spatial structure on metacommunity dynamics. Oikos 122, 1401–1410 (2013). · DOI
  27. Sancha, N. U., Higgins, C., Presley, S. J. & Strauss, R. E. Metacommunity structure in a highly fragmented forest: has deforestation in the Atlantic Forest altered historic biogeographic patterns? Divers. Distrib. 20, 1058–1070 (2014). · DOI
  28. Finn, D. S. & Poff, N. L. Examining spatial concordance of genetic and species diversity patterns to evaluate the role of dispersal limitation in structuring headwater metacommunities. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 30, 273–283 (2011). · DOI
  29. Landeiro, V. L., Magnusson, W. E., Melo, A. S., Espírito-Santo, H. M. V. & Bini, L. M. Spatial eigenfunction analyses in stream networks: do watercourse and overland distances produce different results? Freshwater Biol. 56, 1184–1192 (2011). · DOI
  30. Heino, J. et al. Geographical patterns of micro-organismal community structure: are diatoms ubiquitously distributed across boreal streams? Oikos 119, 129–137 (2010). · DOI
  31. Sabando, M., Vila, I., Penaloza, R. & Veliz, D. Contrasting population genetic structure of two widespread aquatic insects in the Chilean high-slope rivers. Mar. Freshwater Res. 62, 1–10 (2011). · DOI
  32. Finn, D. S., Theobald, D. M., Black, W. C. & Poff, N. L. Spatial population genetic structure and limited dispersal in a Rocky Mountain alpine stream insect. Mol. Ecol. 15, 3553–3566 (2006). · DOI
  33. Šlechtová, V., Bohlen, J., Freyhof, J., Persat, H. & Delmastro, G. B. The Alps as barrier to dispersal in cold-adapted freshwater fishes? Phylogeographic history and taxonomic status of the bullhead in the Adriatic freshwater drainage. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 33, 225–239 (2004). · DOI
  34. Adams, S. B., Frissell, C. A. & Rieman, B. E. Movements of nonnative brook trout in relation to stream channel slope. T. Am. Fish. Soc. 129, 623–638 (2000). · DOI
  35. Lowe, W. H., Likens, G. E., McPeek, M. A. & Buso, D. C. Linking direct and indirect data on dispersal: isolation by slope in a headwater stream salamander. Ecology 87, 334–339 (2006). · DOI
  36. Heino, J. et al. Environmental heterogeneity and β diversity of stream macroinvertebrate communities at intermediate spatial scales. Freshw. Sci. 32, 142–154 (2013). · DOI
  37. Heino, J., Melo, A. S. & Bini, L. M. Reconceptualising the beta diversity-environmental heterogeneity relationship in running water systems. Freshwater Biol. 60, 223–235 (2015). · DOI
  38. Sundqvist, M. K., Sanders, N. J. & Wardle, D. A. Community and ecosystem responses to elevational gradients: processes, mechanisms and insights for global change. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. S. 44, 261–280 (2013). · DOI
  39. Soininen, J. Environmental and spatial control of freshwater diatoms—a review. Diatom Res. 22, 473–490 (2007). · DOI
  40. Göthe, E., Angeler, D. G., Gottschalk, S., Löfgren, S. & Sandin, L. The influence of environmental, biotic and spatial factors on diatom metacommunity structure in Swedish headwater streams. Plos One 8, e72237 (2013). · DOI
  41. Liu, J., Soininen, J., Han, B. P. & Declerck, S. A. Effects of connectivity, dispersal directionality and functional traits on the metacommunity structure of river benthic diatoms. J. Biogeogr. 40, 2238–2248 (2013). · DOI
  42. Finlay, B. J. Global dispersal of free-living microbial eukaryote species. Science 296, 1061–1063 (2002). · DOI
  43. Wu, N., Cai, Q. & Fohrer, N. Contribution of microspatial factors to benthic diatom communities. Hydrobiologia 732, 49–60 (2014). · DOI
  44. Passy, S. I. Diatom ecological guilds display distinct and predictable behavior along nutrient and disturbance gradients in running waters. Aquat. Bot. 86, 171–178 (2007). · DOI
  45. Cottenie, K. Integrating environmental and spatial processes in ecological community dynamics. Ecol. Lett. 8, 1175–1182 (2005). · DOI
  46. Meynard, C. N. et al. Disentangling the drivers of metacommunity structure across spatial scales. J. Biogeogr. 40, 1560–1571 (2013). · DOI
  47. Potapova, M. G. & Charles, D. F. Benthic diatoms in USA rivers: distributions along spatial and environmental gradients. J. Biogeogr. 29, 167–187 (2002). · DOI
  48. Kristiansen, J. 16. Dispersal of freshwater algae—a review. Hydrobiologia 336, 151–157 (1996). · DOI
  49. Wang, J. et al. Patterns of elevational beta diversity in micro-and macroorganisms. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 21, 743–750 (2012). · DOI
  50. Altermatt, F., Schreiber, S. & Holyoak, M. Interactive effects of disturbance and dispersal directionality on species richness and composition in metacommunities. Ecology 92, 859–870 (2011). · DOI
  51. Bertolo, A. et al. Inferring processes from spatial patterns: the role of directional and non–directional forces in shaping fish larvae distribution in a freshwater lake system. Plos One 7, e50239 (2012). · DOI
  52. Li, F. In Scientific Investigation Of The Plant On Cangshan Mountain (eds Duan, C. ) 28–137 (Yunnan Science and Technology Press, Kunming, 1995).
  53. Krammer, K. & Lange-Bertalot, H. Bacillariophyceae. Süßwasserflora von Mitteleuropa, Vol. 2 (1–4). (Gustav Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart, 1986–1991).
  54. Qi, Y., Li, J. & Shi, Z. Flora Algarum Sinicarum Aquae Dulcis (Tomus IV, X, XII, XIV, XVI). (Science Press, Beijing, 1995–2013).
  55. Phillipsen, I. C. & Lytle, D. A. Aquatic insects in a sea of desert: population genetic structure is shaped by limited dispersal in a naturally fragmented landscape. Ecography 36, 731–743 (2013). · DOI
  56. Dray, S., Legendre, P. & Peres-Neto, P. R. Spatial modelling: a comprehensive framework for principal coordinate analysis of neighbour matrices (PCNM). Ecol. Model. 196, 483–493 (2006). · DOI
  57. Blanchet, F. G., Legendre, P., Maranger, R., Monti, D. & Pepin, P. Modelling the effect of directional spatial ecological processes at different scales. Oecologia 166, 357–368 (2011). · DOI
  58. Borcard, D., Gillet, F. & Legendre, P. In Numerical Ecology With R (eds Borcard, D., Gillet, F. & Legendre, P. ) Ch. 7, 227–292 (Springer, New York, 2011). · DOI
  59. Blanchet, F. G., Legendre, P. & Borcard, D. Forward selection of explanatory variables. Ecology 89, 2623–2632 (2008). · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Dong, X., Li, B., He, F., Gu, Y., Sun, M., Zhang, H., Tan, L., Xiao, W., Liu, S., & Cai, Q.
Venue
Scientific Reports
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2016-04-19
Volume
6
Issue
1
ISSN
2045-2322
DOI
10.1038/srep24711
PMC
PMC4835781
Cited by
87
References
1
Language
en
Licence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review