Cited by 161Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesFire effects on ecosystemsEcosystem dynamics and resilience

Disturbance alters beta‐diversity but not the relative importance of community assembly mechanisms

Myers, Jonathan A., Chase, Jonathan M., Crandall, Raelene M., Jiménez, Iván·2015·Journal of Ecology

Abstract

Summary: Ecological disturbances are often hypothesized to alter community assembly processes that influence variation in community composition (β‐diversity). Disturbance can cause convergence in community composition (low β‐diversity) by increasing niche selection of disturbance‐tolerant species. Alternatively, disturbance can cause divergence in community composition (high β‐diversity) by increasing habitat filtering across environmental gradients. However, because disturbance may also influence β‐diversity through random sampling effects owing to changes in the number of individuals in local communities (community size) or abundances in the regional species pool, observed patterns of β‐diversity alone cannot be used to unambiguously discern the relative importance of community assembly mechanisms. We compared β‐diversity of woody plants and inferred assembly mechanisms among unburned forests and forests managed with prescribed fires in the Missouri Ozarks, USA. Using a null‐model approach, we compared how environmental gradients influenced β‐diversity after controlling for differences in local community size and regional species abundances between unburned and burned landscapes. Observed β‐diversity was higher in burned landscapes. However, this pattern disappeared or reversed after controlling for smaller community size in burned landscapes. β‐diversity was higher than expected by chance in both landscapes, indicating an important role for processes that create clumped species distributions. Moreover, fire appeared to decrease clumping of species at broader spatial scales, suggesting homogenization of community composition through niche selection of disturbance‐tolerant species. Environmental variables, however, explained similar amounts of variation in β‐diversity in both landscapes, suggesting that disturbance did not alter the relative importance of habitat filtering. Our results indicate that contingent responses of communities to fire reflect a combination of fire‐induced changes in local community size and scale‐dependent effects of fire on species clumping across landscapes. Synthesis. Although niche‐based mechanisms of community assembly are often invoked to explain changes in community composition following disturbance, our results suggest that these changes also arise through random sampling effects owing to the influence of disturbance on community size. Comparative studies of these processes across disturbed ecosystems will provide important insights into the ecological conditions that determine when disturbance alters the interplay of deterministic and stochastic processes in natural and human‐modified landscapes.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/1365-2745.12436

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • When fire decreases community size, it may increase local extinctions due to demographic stochasticity.

    “For example, when fire decreases the total number of individuals in communities (community size), it may increase local extinctions due to demographic stochasticity, and increase variation in species composition among sites (Myers, Chase, Crandall, & Jimenez, 2015).”

    From Fire as a fundamental ecological process: Research advances and frontiers (2020) · cites this paper as Myers et al., 2015

  • When fire decreases community size, it may increase variation in species composition among sites.

    “For example, when fire decreases the total number of individuals in communities (community size), it may increase local extinctions due to demographic stochasticity, and increase variation in species composition among sites (Myers, Chase, Crandall, & Jimenez, 2015).”

    From Fire as a fundamental ecological process: Research advances and frontiers (2020) · cites this paper as Myers et al., 2015

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Myers, J. A., Chase, J. M., Crandall, R. M., & Jiménez, I.
Affiliations
  • Washington University in St. Louis (US)
  • German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (DE)
  • Missouri Botanical Garden (US)
Corresponding author
Myers, Jonathan A.
Venue
Journal of Ecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-07-02
Volume
103
Issue
5
Pages
1291-1299
ISSN
  • 0022-0477 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2745
OpenAlex
W1616879796
Cited by
158
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 2
FWCI
10.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Ecology (publishedVersion)
  • Open Scholarship Institutional Repository (Washington University in St. Louis) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (DEB 1144084, DEB 1256788)
  • Tyson Research Center
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Fire effects on ecosystems
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Ecosystem dynamics and resilience
Keywords
environmental disturbance, beta diversity, community assembly mechanisms, prescribed burning, fire disturbance, woody plants, community size, niche selection, habitat filtering, null models, deterministic and stochastic processes, Missouri Ozarks

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