Local versus regional processes and the control of community structure

Abstract

The contribution of local (e.g., competition) and regional (e.g., dispersal) processes in the structure of communities remains an unresolved issue. In general, a tendency to assume local processes to be deterministic and regional to be stochastic dominates, although it is challenged. Fortunately, it can be cast as a testable proposition: if correct, the degree of determinism in the final community structure might indicate which process is more prominent in the control of community structure. However, recent findings have also suggested that stochastic patterns can arise from local processes and that dispersal can homogenize communities, which would make them appear deterministic irrespective of the mechanism involved. To evaluate these competing expectations we conducted an experiment where the initial communities had the same composition and species abundances. We hypothesized that if local processes dominate, then arrays of communities will show divergence of community structures whether connected by dispersal or not (i.e., being fully isolated). Alternatively, if regional processes dominate, the dispersal connected communities should converge while isolated ones should not. We found, however, that both groups of experimental communities showed similar patterns of change - a decline in similarity and a tendency to diverge. This suggests that biological interactions, demographic stochasticity, or both, exert noticeable control over community structure such that they reduce similarity among replicate communities and diversify their final states. We speculate that these mechanisms enhance potential for species additions, particularly in conjunction with factors such as dispersal and the size of the regional species pool.

References

  1. Altermatt, F., S. Schreiber and M. Holyoak. 2011. Interactive effects of disturbance and dispersal directionality on species richness and composition in meta-communities. Ecology 92:859–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Beisner, B. and T. Romanuk. 2005. Diversity, productivity and invasibility relationships in rock pool food webs. In: P. De Ruiter, W. Wolters and J. Moore (eds.), Dynamic Food Webs: Multispecies Assemblages, Ecosystem Development, and Environmental Change. Elsevier, Amsterdam. pp. 321–333.

  3. Belyea, L.R. and J. Lancaster. 1999. Assembly rules within a contingent ecology. Oikos 86:402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Borrvall, C. and B. Ebenman. 2006. Early onset of secondary extinctions in ecological communities following the loss of top predators. Ecol. Lett. 9:435–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Brown, J.H., D.A. Kelt and B.J. Fox. 2002. Assembly rules and competition in desert rodents. Amer. Nat. 160:815–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Cadotte, M.W. 2006. Dispersal and species diversity: a meta-analysis. Amer. Nat. 168:913–924.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Chase, J.M. 2003. Community assembly: when should history matter? Oecologia 136:489–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Chase, J.M. 2005. Towards a really unified theory for metacommunities. Funct. Ecol. 19:182–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Cottenie, K. and L. De Meester. 2003. Connectivity and cladoceran species richness in a metacommunity of shallow lakes. Freshwater Biol. 48:823–832.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Cottenie, K. and L. De Meester. 2004. Metacommunity structure: synergy of biotic interactions as selective agents and dispersal as fuel. Ecology 85:114–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Cottenie, K., E. Michels and N. Nuytten. 2003. Zooplankton meta-community structure: regional vs. local processes in highly interconnected ponds. Ecology 84:991–1000.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Drake, J. 1990. Communities as assembled structures: do rules govern pattern? Trends Ecol. Evol. 5:159–164.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Drake, J.A., T. Flum, and G.R. Huxel. 1994. On defining assembly space: a reply to Grover and Lawton. J. Animal Ecol. 63:488–489.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Fox, B.J. 1987. Species assembly and the evolution of community structure. Evol. Ecol. 1:201–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Gilpin, M.E. and J.M. Diamond. 1982. Factors contributing to non-randomness in species co-occurrences on islands. Oecologia 52:75–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Havel, J.E., and J.B. Shurin. 2004. Mechanisms, effects, and scales of dispersal in freshwater zooplankton. Limnol. Oceanogr. 49:1229–1238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Houlahan, J., D. Currie, K. Cottenie, G. Cumming, S.K.M. Ernest, C. Findlay, S. Fuhlendorf, U. Gaedke, P. Legendre, J. Magnuson, et al.. 2007. Compensatory dynamics are rare in natural ecological communities. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 104:3273.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Hu, X.-S., F. He and S.P Hubbell. 2007. Species diversity in local neutral communities. Amer. Nat. 170:844–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Hubbell, S.P. 2005. Neutral theory in community ecology and the hypothesis of functional equivalence. Funct. Ecol. 19:166–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hubbell, S.P. 2006. Neutral theory and the evolution of ecological equivalence. Ecology 87:1387–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Law, R. and R.D. Morton. 1993. Alternative permanent states of ecological communities. Ecology 74:1347–1361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Marquez, J. C. 2011. Assembly rules determinism vs. randomness in the formation of communities. McMaster University, Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Marquez, J.C. and J. Kolasa. 2013. Local and regional processes in community assembly. PloS one 8:e54580.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Michels, E., K. Cottenie, L. Neys and L. De Meester. 2001. Zooplankton on the move: first results on the quantification of dispersal of zooplankton in a set of interconnected ponds. Hydrobiologia 442:117–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Morton, R.D., R. Law, S.L. Pimm and J.A. Drake. 1996. On models for assembling ecological communities. Oikos 75:493–499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Mouquet, N. and M. Loreau. 2002. Coexistence in metacommunities: the regional similarity hypothesis. Amer. Nat. 159:420–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Mouquet, N, P. Munguia, J. Kneitel and T.E. Miller. 2003. Community assembly time and the relationship between local and regional species richness. Oikos 103:618–626.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Mutshinda, CM., R.B. O’Hara, and I.P Woiwod. 2009. What drives community dynamics? Proc. Royal Soc. B. 276:2923–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Powell, C.R. and R.P Boland. 2009. The effects of stochastic population dynamics on food web structure. J. Theoret. Biol. 257:170–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Ricciardi, A. 2001. Facilitative interactions among aquatic invaders: is an “invasional meltdown” occurring in the Great Lakes? Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 58:2513–2525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Ricklefs, R.E. 2008. Disintegration of the ecological community. Amer. Nat. 172:741–750.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Romanuk, T.N. and J. Kolasa. 2005. Resource limitation, biodiversity, and competitive effects interact to determine the invasibility of rock pool microcosms. Biol. Invasions 7:711–722.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Schröder, A., L. Persson, and A.M. De Roos. 2005. Direct experimental evidence for alternative stable states: a review. Oikos 110:3–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Scotti, M., F.Ciocchetta and F. Jordan. 2013. Social and landscape effects on food webs: a multi-level network simulation model. J. Complex Networks 1:160–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Shurin, J.B. 2000. Dispersal limitation, invasion resistance, and the structure of pond zooplankton communities. Ecology 81:3074–3086.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Shurin, J.B., P. Amarasekare, J.M. Chase, R.D. Holt, M. Hoopes and M.A. Leibold. 2004. Alternative stable states and regional community structure. J. Theoret. Biol. 227:359–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Shurin, J.B., J.E. Havel, M.A. Leibold and B. Pinel-Alloul. 2000. Local and regional zooplankton species richness: a scale-independent test for saturation. Ecology 81:3062–3073.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Therriault, T. and J. Kolasa. 2000. Patterns of community variability depend on habitat variability and habitat generalists in natural aquatic microcosms. Community Ecol. 1:196–203.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Therriault, T. and J. Kolasa. 2001. Desiccation frequency reduces species diversity and predictability of community structure in coastal rock pools. Israel J. Zool. 47:477–489.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Verdy, A. and P. Amarasekare. 2010. Alternative stable states in communities with intraguild predation. J. Theoret. Biol. 262:116–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. Márquez.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Márquez, J., Kolasa, J. & Sciullo, L. Local versus regional processes and the control of community structure. COMMUNITY ECOLOGY 17, 1–7 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1556/168.2016.17.1.1

Download citation

Keywords

  • Determinism
  • Dispersal
  • Local processes
  • Regional processes
  • Stochasticity