Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 360

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 41 of the 41 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Distance decay of similarity in freshwater communities: do macro‐ and microorganisms follow the same rules?

Astorga, Anna, Oksanen, Jari, Luoto, Miska, Soininen, Janne, Virtanen, Risto, Muotka, Timo·2012·Global Ecology and Biogeography

Abstract

Aim An intensively debated issue in macroecology is whether unicellular organisms show biogeographic patterns different from those of macroorganisms. One aspect of this debate addresses beta diversity, that is, do microbial organisms exhibit distance‐decay patterns similar to those of macroorganisms? And if so, is the decay of community similarity caused by spatially limited dispersal or by niche‐related factors? We studied the community similarity of stream diatoms, macroinvertebrates and bryophytes across the same set of sites in relation to environmental and geographic distance. Location A geographical gradient of c . 1100 km in Finland. Methods We first identified the subset of environmental variables that produced the highest correlation with community similarities for each taxonomic group. Based on these variables, we used partial Mantel tests to separate the independent influences of environmental and geographical distance for distance decay of community similarity, separately for diatoms, bryophytes and macroinvertebrates. Finally, macroinvertebrates were divided into three groups based on their different dispersal categories and a partial Mantel test was used to assess whether each of these groups were differently affected by environmental versus geographic distance, i.e. is dispersal a key factor in tests of niche versus neutral models. Results The level of environmental control was by far the strongest for diatoms; however, all groups were controlled more by environmental factors than by limited dispersal. Macroinvertebrate species with low dispersal ability were significantly related to geographic distance, while more effective dispersers showed no relationship to geography but were instead strongly related to environmental distance. Main conclusions Our results suggest that patterns between macro‐ and microorganisms are not fundamentally different, but the level of environmental control varies according to dispersal ability. The relative importance of niche versus dispersal processes is not simply a function of organism size but other traits (e.g. life‐history type, dispersal capacity) may obscure this relationship.

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 · 10.1111/j.1466-8238.2011.00681.x

Cites

41 of 41 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

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

Show all 41 references

Metadata

Authors
Astorga, A., Oksanen, J., Luoto, M., Soininen, J., Virtanen, R., & Muotka, T.
Venue
Global Ecology and Biogeography
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2011-06-14
Volume
21
Issue
3
Pages
365-375
ISSN
  • 1466-822X (ISSN-L)
  • 1466-8238
OpenAlex
W1843813665
Cited by
360
References
41
FWCI
11.73
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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Distance decay of similarity in freshwater communities: do macro‐ and microorganisms follow the same rules? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1466-8238.2011.00681.x
The paper
Astorga, A., Oksanen, J., Luoto, M., Soininen, J., Virtanen, R., & Muotka, T. (2012). Distance decay of similarity in freshwater communities: do macro‐ and microorganisms follow the same rules? Global Ecology and Biogeography. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-8238.2011.00681.x

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.