The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The metacommunity concept: a framework for multi‐scale community ecology
Abstract
The metacommunity concept is an important way to think about linkages between different spatial scales in ecology. Here we review current understanding about this concept. We first investigate issues related to its definition as a set of local communities that are linked by dispersal of multiple potentially interacting species. We then identify four paradigms for metacommunities: the patch‐dynamic view, the species‐sorting view, the mass effects view and the neutral view, that each emphasizes different processes of potential importance in metacommunities. These have somewhat distinct intellectual histories and we discuss elements related to their potential future synthesis. We then use this framework to discuss why the concept is useful in modifying existing ecological thinking and illustrate this with a number of both theoretical and empirical examples. As ecologists strive to understand increasingly complex mechanisms and strive to work across multiple scales of spatio‐temporal organization, concepts like the metacommunity can provide important insights that frequently contrast with those that would be obtained with more conventional approaches based on local communities alone.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
WHAT IS THE OBSERVED RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SPECIES RICHNESS AND PRODUCTIVITY?
Mittelbach, G. G., Steiner, C. F., Scheiner, S. M., Gross, K. L., Reynolds, H. L., Waide, R. B., Willig, M. R., Dodson, S. I., & Gough, L. (2001) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/0012-9658(2001)082[2381:witorb]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 1,650
Cited by
Synchronization in complex networks
Arenas, A., Díaz-Guilera, A., Kurths, J., Moreno, Y., & Zhou, C. (2008) · Physics Reports · doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2008.09.002 · Cited by 3,713
Landscape moderation of biodiversity patterns and processes ‐ eight hypotheses
Tscharntke, T., Tylianakis, J. M., Rand, T. A., Didham, R. K., Fahrig, L., Batáry, P., Bengtsson, J., Clough, Y., Crist, T. O., Dormann, C. F., et al. (2012) · Biological Reviews · doi:10.1111/j.1469-185x.2011.00216.x · Cited by 2,134
Self-citationThe Application of Ecological Theory Toward an Understanding of the Human Microbiome
Costello, E. K., Stagaman, K., Dethlefsen, L., Bohannan, B. J. M., & Relman, D. A. (2012) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1224203 · Cited by 1,437
Environmental factors influencing the development and spread of antibiotic resistance
Bengtsson-Palme, J., Kristiansson, E., & Larsson, D. G. J. (2018) · FEMS Microbiology Reviews · doi:10.1093/femsre/fux053 · Cited by 1,167
The ecology and biogeochemistry of stream biofilms
Battin, T. J., Besemer, K., Bengtsson, M. M., Romani, A. M., & Packmann, A. I. (2016) · Nature Reviews Microbiology · doi:10.1038/nrmicro.2016.15 · Cited by 1,163
Metadata
- Authors
- Leibold, M. A., Holyoak, M., Mouquet, N., Amarasekare, P., Chase, J. M., Hoopes, M. F., Holt, R. D., Shurin, J. B., Law, R., Tilman, D., Loreau, M., & Gonzalez, A.
- Venue
- Ecology Letters
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2004-06-04
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 601-613
- ISSN
- 1461-023X (ISSN-L)
- 1461-0248
- OpenAlex
- W2129163149
- Cited by
- 5,391
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 69.16
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.