Cited by 138Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesFreshwater macroinvertebrate diversity and ecologyMicrobial Community Ecology and Physiology

Effects of dispersal mode on the environmental and spatial correlates of nestedness and species turnover in pond communities

Open access
Hill, Matthew J., Heino, Jani, Thornhill, Ian, Ryves, David B., Wood, Paul J.·2017·Oikos

Abstract

Advances in metacommunity theory have made a significant contribution to understanding the drivers of variation in biological communities. However, there has been limited empirical research exploring the expression of metacommunity theory for two fundamental components of beta diversity: nestedness and species turnover. In this paper, we examine the influence of local environmental and a range of spatial variables (hydrological connectivity, proximity and overall spatial structure) on total beta diversity and the nestedness and turnover components of beta diversity for the entire macroinvertebrate community and active and passively dispersing taxa within pond habitats. High beta diversity almost entirely reflects patterns of species turnover (replacement) rather than nestedness (differences in species richness) in our dataset. Local environmental variables were the main drivers of total beta diversity, nestedness and turnover when the entire community was considered and for both active and passively dispersing taxa. The influence of spatial processes on passively dispersing taxa, total beta diversity and nestedness was significantly greater than for actively dispersing taxa. Our results suggest that species sorting (local environmental variables) operating through niche processes was the primary mechanism driving total beta diversity, nestedness and turnover for the entire community and active and passively dispersing taxa. In contrast, spatial factors (hydrological connectivity, proximity and spatial eigenvectors) only exerted a secondary influence on the nestedness and turnover components of beta diversity.

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/oik.04266

Cites

63 of 64 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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?

  • Some studies have examined pond communities at a national scale, but it is not clear whether similar ecological patterns and processes occur at continental or global scales.

    “Some studies have examined pond communities at a national-scale (Hill et al. 2017), but it is not clear whether similar ecological patterns and processes occur at continental or global scales.”

    From Pond ecology and conservation: research priorities and knowledge gaps (2021) · cites this paper as Hill et al. 2017

    The Study area section says the paper examined 95 ponds in Leicestershire, UK, within a region of about 280 km². That is a regional study, not a national-scale examination of pond communities. The citation is attached to the national-scale characterization; the sentence's uncertainty about continental or global scales is not attributed to this source. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Legendre, P. and Birks, H. J. B. 2012. From classical to canonical conservation. -In: Birks, H. J. B. et al. (eds), Tracking environmental change using lake sediments, Vol. 5. Data handling and numerical techniques. Springer, pp. 201-248.
  2. Legendre, P. and Legendre, L. 2012. Numerical ecology, 3rd English edn. -Elsevier.
  3. Biggs, J. et al. 1998. A guide to the methods of the National Pond Survey. -Pond Action, Oxford, UK.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hill, M. J., Heino, J., Thornhill, I., Ryves, D. B., & Wood, P. J.
Affiliations
  • University of Worcester (GB)
  • Finnish Environment Institute (FI)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • Loughborough University (GB)
Corresponding author
Hill, Matthew J.
Venue
Oikos
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2017-05-26
Volume
126
Issue
11
Pages
1575-1585
ISSN
  • 0030-1299 (ISSN-L)
  • 1600-0706
OpenAlex
W2606363673
Cited by
138
References
63
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 2
FWCI
13.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Oikos (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research Space (submittedVersion)
  • Worcester Research and Publications (University of Worcester) (submittedVersion)
  • Loughborough University Institutional Repository (Loughborough University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Loughborough University Research Repository (Loughborough University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Loughborough University
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Freshwater macroinvertebrate diversity and ecology
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Microbial Community Ecology and Physiology
Keywords
dispersal mode, nestedness, species turnover, beta diversity, metacommunity theory, hydrological connectivity, spatial proximity, species sorting, niche processes

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