, Volume 138, Issue 3, pp 360–370 | Cite as

Density-range size relationships in French riverine fishes

Population Ecology


We examined the relation between the local density of species and the size of the geographic range for French riverine fishes. As for most other taxonomic groups, a positive interspecific relationship is found for this group. This relationship is robust to the confounding effects of phylogeny and is not a priori a product of other potential mechanistic artefacts. We formally tested two of the principal biological mechanisms already proposed (i.e. the niche breadth hypothesis and the resource availability hypothesis). We found no support for the niche breadth hypothesis. In contrast, we found consistent support for the closely related resource availability hypothesis. Species utilising resources (habitats) that are marginal tend to appear at low density and to have narrow distribution whereas species utilising widespread habitats tend to be more abundant and more widely distributed. Using data on body size and reproductive traits we explored the potential influence of these variables in explaining significant variation around the density-range size relationship. Only body size explains significant variation around the relationship, being negatively correlated with local density and positively correlated with range size.


Abundance Distribution Mechanisms Riverine fishes French rivers 



Our thanks to Bernard Hugueny and two anonymous referees for comments and to Gordon Copp who helped to bring the paper to its final form. We thank the French Ministry of the Environment for financial support through the GICC-AQUABIO program.


  1. Banarescu P (1990) Zoogeography of freshwaters, vol 1. General distribution and dispersal of freshwater animals. Aula, WiesbadenGoogle Scholar
  2. Billen G, Décamps H, Garnier J, Boët P, Meybeck M, Servais P (1995) Atlantic river systems of Europe. In: Cushing CE, Cummins KW, Minshall GW (eds) River and stream ecosystems. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 389–418Google Scholar
  3. Blackburn TM, Gaston KJ, Gregory RD (1997) Abundance-range size relationships in British birds: is unexplained variation a product of life history? Ecography 20:466–474Google Scholar
  4. Bock CE, Ricklefs RE (1983) Range size and local abundance of some North American songbirds: a positive correlation. Am Nat 122:295–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown JH (1981) Two decades of homage to Santa Rosalia: toward a general theory of diversity. Am Zool 21:877–888Google Scholar
  6. Brown JH (1984) On the relationship between abundance and distribution of species. Am Nat 124:255–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown JH, Maurer BA (1987) Evolution of species assemblages: effects of energetic constraints and species dynamics on the diversification of the North American avifauna. Am Nat 130:1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brown JH, Maurer BA (1989) Macroecology: the division of food and space among species on continent. Science 243:1145–1150Google Scholar
  9. Carle FL, Strub MR (1978) A new method for estimating population size from removal data. Biometrics 34:621–630Google Scholar
  10. Cowley MJR, Thomas CD, Wilson RJ, Leon-Cortés JL, Gutiérrez D, Bulman CR (2001) Density-distribution relationships in British butterflies. II. An assessment of mechanisms. J Anim Ecol 70:426–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dolédec S, Chessel D, Gimaret-Carpentier C (2000) Niche separation in communities analysis: a new method. Ecology 81:2914–2927Google Scholar
  12. Garland T, Harvey PH, Ives AR (1992) Procedures for the analysis of comparative data using phylogenetically independant contrasts. Syst Biol 41:18–32Google Scholar
  13. Gaston KJ (1990) Patterns in the geographical ranges of species. Biol Rev 65:105–129Google Scholar
  14. Gaston KJ (1996) The multiple forms of the interspecific abundance-distribution relationship. Oikos 76:211–220Google Scholar
  15. Gaston KJ, Blackburn TM (1996) Range size-body size relationships: evidence of scale dependence. Oikos 75:479–485Google Scholar
  16. Gaston KJ, Blackburn TM (2000) Pattern and process in macroecology. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  17. Gaston KJ, Lawton JH (1990) The population ecology of rare species. J Fish Biol 37:97–104Google Scholar
  18. Gaston KJ, Blackburn TM, Lawton JH (1997) Interspecific abundance-range size relationships: an appraisal of mechanisms. J Anim Ecol 66:579–601Google Scholar
  19. Gauch HG (1982) Multivariate analysis in community ecology. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  20. Gilles A, Lecointre G, Faure E, Chappaz R, Brun G (1998) Mitochondrial phylogeny of the European Cyprinids: implications for their systematics, reticulate evolution and colonization time. Mol Phyl Evol 10:132–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gonzalez A, Lawton JH, Gilbert FS, Blackburn TM, Evans-Freke I (1998) Metapopulation dynamics, abundance and distribution in a microecosystem. Science 281:2045–2047CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Gregory RD, Gaston KJ (2000) Explanations of commonness and rarity in British breeding birds: separating resource use and resource availability. Oikos 88:515–526Google Scholar
  23. Grossman GD, Ratajczak RE, Crawford M, Freeman MC (1998) Assemblage organization in stream fishes: effects of environmental variation and interspecific interactions. Ecol Monogr 68:395–420Google Scholar
  24. Hanski I (1994) A practical model of metapopulation dynamics. J Anim Ecol 63:151–162Google Scholar
  25. Hanski I, Kouki J, Halkka A (1993) Three explanations of the positive relationship between distribution and abundance of species. In: Ricklefs RE, Schluter D (eds) Species diversity in ecological communities: historical and geographical perspectives. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Ill., pp 108–116Google Scholar
  26. Hartley S (1998) A positive relationship between local abundance and regional occupancy is almost inevitable (but not all positive relationships are the same). J Anim Ecol 67:992–994CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Harvey PH, Pagel MD (1991) The comparative method in evolutionary biology. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  28. Holt RD, Lawton JH, Gaston KJ (1997) On the relationship between range size and local abundance: back to basics. Oikos 78:183–190Google Scholar
  29. Horwitz RJ (1978) Temporal variability patterns and the distributional patterns of stream fishes. Ecol Monogr 48:307–321Google Scholar
  30. Hugueny B (1989) West African rivers as biogeographic islands. Oecologia 79:235–243Google Scholar
  31. Hugueny B, Paugy D (1995) Unsaturated fish communities in African rivers. Am Nat 146:162–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hugueny B, Cornell HV (2000) Predicting the relationship between local and regional species richness from a patch occupancy dynamics model. J Anim Ecol 69:194–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. James FC, McCulloch CE (1990) Multivariate analysis in ecology and systematics: panacea or Pandora’s box. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 21:129–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Keith P (1998) Évolution des peuplements ichtyologiques de France et stratégie de conservation. PhD thesis. Rennes I University, RennesGoogle Scholar
  35. Keith P, Allardi J (2001) Atlas des poissons d’eau douce de France. Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, ParisGoogle Scholar
  36. Lawton JH (2000) Community ecology in a changing world. Ecology Institute, Oldendorf/Luhe, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  37. Matthews WJ, Zimmerman EG (1990) Potential effects of global warming on native fishes of the southern Great Plains and the southwest. Fisheries 15:26–31Google Scholar
  38. McAllister D, Platania SP, Schueler F, Baldwin ME, Lee DS (1986) Ichtyofaunal patterns on a geographical grid. In: Hocutt CH, Wiley EO (eds) Zoogeography of Freshwater fishes of North America. Wiley, New York, pp 17–51Google Scholar
  39. Mérigoux S, Hugueny B, Ponton D, Statzner B, Vauchel P (1999) Predicting diversity of juvenile neotropical fish communities: patch dynamics versus habitat state in floodplain creeks. Oecologia 118:503–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Moyle PB, Herbold B (1987) life-history patterns and community structure in stream fishes of western North America: comparisons with eastern North America and Europe. In: Matthews WJ, Heins DC (eds) Community and evolutionary ecology of North American stream fishes. University of Oklahoma Press, Okla., pp 25–32Google Scholar
  41. Myers GS (1951) Freshwater fishes and East Indian zoogeography. Stanford Ichthyol Bull 4:11–21Google Scholar
  42. O’Connor RJ (1987) Organization of avian assemblages—the influence of intraspecific habitat dynamics. In: Gee JHR, Giller PS (eds) Organization of communities: past and present. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 163–183Google Scholar
  43. Oberdorff T, Guégan JF, Hugueny B (1995) Global scale patterns of fish species richness in rivers. Ecography 18:345–352Google Scholar
  44. Oberdorff T, Hugueny B, Guégan JF (1997) Is there an influence of historical events on contemporary fish species richness in rivers? Comparisons between Western Europe and North America. J Biogeogr 24:461–467Google Scholar
  45. Oberdorff T, Hugueny B, Compin A, Belkessam D (1998) Non-interactive fish communities in the coastal streams of north-western France. J Anim Ecol 67:472–484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Oberdorff T, Pont D, Hugueny B, Chessel D (2001a) A probabilistic model characterizing fish assemblages of French rivers: a framework for environmental assessment. Freshwater Biol 46:399–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Oberdorff T, Hugueny B, Vigneron T (2001b) Is assemblage variability related to environmental variability? An answer for riverine fish. Oikos 93:419–428Google Scholar
  48. Osborne LL, Wiley MJ (1992) Influence of tributary position on the structure of warmwater fish communities. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 49:671–681Google Scholar
  49. Pont D, Merona B de, Boët P (1994) Signification des échelles spatio-temporelles dans la variabilité des peuplements piscicoles des grands cours d’eau. Programme Interdisciplinaire de Recherche sur l’Environnement, CNRS, ParisGoogle Scholar
  50. Pont D, Allardi J, Belliard J, Boët P, Carrel G, Changeux T., Oberdorff T, Olivier JM, Persat H, Poizat G (1995) Stratégies démographiques des poissons des rivières françaises: premiers résultats. Bull Fr Peche Piscic 337/338/339:113–119Google Scholar
  51. Purvis A, Rambaut A (1995) Comparative analysis by independent contrasts (CAIC): an Apple Macintosh application for analysing comparative data. Cabios 11:247–251PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Pyron M (1999) Relationships between geographical range size, body size, local abundance, and habitat breadth in North American suckers and sunfishes. J Biogeogr 26:549–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rosenzweig ML (1991) Habitat selection and population interaction: the search for mechanism. Am Nat 137 [Suppl]:S5–S28Google Scholar
  54. Sagarin RD, Gaines SD (2002) The “abundant centre” distribution: to what extent is it a biogeographical rule? Ecol Lett 5:137–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sheldon AL (1968) Species diversity and longitudinal succession in stream fishes. Ecology 49:193–198Google Scholar
  56. Systat (1999) Version 9 for Windows. SPSS, Chicago, Ill.Google Scholar
  57. Taylor CM, Gotelli NJ (1994) The macroecology of Cyprinella: correlates of phylogeny, body size and geographical range. Am Nat 144:549–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Taylor CM, Warren ML (2001) Dynamics in species composition of stream fish assemblages: environmental variability and nested subsets. Ecology 82:2320–2330Google Scholar
  59. Venier LA, Fahrig L (1996) Habitat availability causes the species abundance-distribution relationship. Oikos 76:564–570Google Scholar
  60. Wootton RJ (1991) Ecology of Teleost fishes. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  61. Wright DH (1991) Correlations between incidence and abundance are expected by chance. J Biogeogr 18:463–466Google Scholar
  62. Zaragüeta-Bagils, Lavoué S, Tillier A, Bonillo C, Lecointre G (2002) Assessment of otocephalan and protacanthopterygian concepts in the light of multiple molecular phylogenies. C R Biol 325:1191–1207PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Evelyne Tales
    • 1
    • 2
  • Philippe Keith
    • 1
  • Thierry Oberdorff
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Laboratoire d’IchtyologieMuséum national d’histoire naturelleParis Cedex 05France
  2. 2.CEMAGREF.URE Qualité et Fonctionnement Hydrologique des Systèmes AquatiquesAntonyFrance
  3. 3.ULRAUniversidad Mayor de San SimonCochabambaBolivia

Personalised recommendations