Oecologia

, Volume 151, Issue 2, pp 313–321 | Cite as

Stream insect occupancy-frequency patterns and metapopulation structure

  • T. Heatherly
  • M. R. Whiles
  • D. J. Gibson
  • S. L. Collins
  • A. D. Huryn
  • J. K. Jackson
  • M. A. Palmer
Community Ecology

Abstract

An understanding of the distribution patterns of organisms and the underlying factors is a fundamental goal of ecology. One commonly applied approach to visualize these is the analysis of occupancy-frequency patterns. We used data sets describing stream insect distributions from different regions of North America to analyze occupancy-frequency patterns and assess the effects of spatial scale, sampling intensity, and taxonomic resolution on these patterns. Distributions were dominated by satellite taxa (those occurring in ≤10% of sites), whereas the occurrence of core taxa (occurring in ≥90% of sites) determined the overall modality of occupancy-frequency patterns. The proportions of satellite taxa increased with spatial scale and showed positive relationships with sampling intensity (r 2=0.74–0.96). Furthermore, analyses of data sets from New York (USA) showed that generic-level assessments underestimated the satellite class and occasionally shifted occupancy-frequency distributions from unimodal to bimodal. Our results indicate that, regardless of species- or generic-level taxonomy, stream insect communities are characterized by satellite species and that the proportion of satellite species increases with spatial scale and sampling intensity. Thus, niche-based models of occupancy-frequency patterns better characterize stream insect communities than metapopulation models such as the core-satellite species hypothesis.

Keywords

Aquatic insect Core-satellite Distribution Sampling intensity Spatial scale 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Support for this research was provided by the National Science Foundation LTER Network Office. Tokeshi’s tests were performed using spreadsheets kindly provided by B. Bossuyt. Stream invertebrate sampling in Maryland was supported by an EPA STAR grant ®-82801201). The New York data set was collected as part of a Safe Drinking Water project funded by New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and the United States Environmental Protection Agency. The comments of Suzanne Stapleton and two anonymous reviewers greatly improved the quality of the manuscript.

Supplementary material

442_2006_596_MOESM1_ESM.doc (93 kb)
Supplementary material

References

  1. Bock CE, Ricklefs RE (1983) Range size and local abundance of some North American songbirds: a positive correlation. Am Nat 122:295–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bossuyt B, Honnay O, Hermy M (2004) Scale-dependent frequency distributions of plant species in dune slacks: dispersal and niche limitation. J Veg Sci 15:323–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown JH (1984) On the relationship between abundance and distribution in species. Am Nat 124:255–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cardinale BJ, Hillebrand H, Charles DF (2006) Geographic patterns of diversity in streams are predicted by a multivariate model of disturbance and productivity. J Ecol 94:609–618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Collins SL, Glenn SM (1991) Importance of spatial and temporal dynamics in species regional abundance and distribution. Ecology 72:654–664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Collins SL, Glenn SM (1997) Effects of organismal and distance scaling on analysis of species distribution and abundance. Ecol Appl 7:543–551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Connell JH (1978) Diversity in tropical rain forests and coral reefs. Science 199:1302–1310CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Dodds WK, Gido K, Whiles M, Fritz K, Mathews W (2004) Life on the edge: ecology of Great Plains prairie streams. Bioscience 54:207–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gaston KJ, Blackburn TM (2000) Pattern and process in macroecology. Blackwell, LondonGoogle Scholar
  10. Gaston KJ, Lawton JH (1989) Insect herbivores on bracken do not support the core-satellite species hypothesis. Am Nat 134:761–777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gibson DJ, Ely JS, Collins SL (1999) The core-satellite species hypothesis provides a theoretical basis for Grime’s classification of dominant, subordinate, and transient species. J Ecol 87:1064–1067CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gibson DJ, Middleton BA, Foster K, Honu YAK, Hoyer EW, Mathis M (2005) Species frequency dynamics in an old-field succession: effects of disturbance, fertilizer, and scale. J Veg Sci 16:415–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gotelli NJ (1991) Metapopulation models: the rescue effect, the propagule rain and the core-satellite hypothesis. Am Nat 138:768–776CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gotelli NJ, Simberloff D (1987) The distribution and abundance of tallgrass prairie plants: a test of the Core-Satellite Species hypothesis. Am Nat 130:18–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hanski I (1982) Dynamics of regional distribution: the core and satellite species hypothesis. Oikos 38:210–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hanski I (1994) A practical model of metapopulation dynamics. J Anim Ecol 63:151–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hanski I, Gyllenberg M (1993) Two general metapopulation models and the core-satellite species hypothesis. Am Nat 142:17–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Heino J (2005) Positive relationship between regional distribution and local abundance in stream insects: a consequence of niche breadth or niche position? Ecography 28:345–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Huston M (1979) A general hypothesis of species diversity. Am Nat 113:81–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Huryn AD, Slavik KA, Lowe RL, Parker SM, Anderson DS, Peterson BJ (2005) Landscape heterogeneity and the biodiversity of Arctic stream communities: a habitat template analysis. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 62:1905–1919CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Levins R (1969) Some demographic and genetic consequences of environmental heterogeneity for biological control. Bull Entomol Soc Am 15:237–240Google Scholar
  22. Malmqvist B, Zhang, Alder PH (1999) Diversity, distribution and larval habitats of North Swedish blackflies (Diptera: Simuliidae). Freshw Biol 42:301–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McGeoch MA, Gaston KJ (2002) Occupancy-frequency distributions: patterns, artefacts, and mechanisms. Biol Rev 77:311–331PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McNaughton SJ, Wolf LL (1970) Dominance and the niche in ecological systems. Science 167:131–139PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mehranvar L, Jackson DA (2001) History and taxonomy: their roles in the core-satellite species hypothesis. Oecologia 127:131–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Moglen G, Nelson K, Palmer MA, Pizzuto JE, Rogers CE, Hejazi MI (2004) Hydro-ecological responses to land use in small urbanizing watersheds within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. In: DeFries R, Asner G, Houghton R (eds) Ecosystems and land use change interactions. Geophysical Monograph Series, vol. 153, pp 41–60. American Geophysical Union, Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  27. Moore AM, Palmer MA (2005) Agricultural watersheds in urbanizing landscapes: implications for conservation of biodiversity of stream invertebrates. Ecol Appl 15:1169–1177Google Scholar
  28. Nee S, Gregory RD, May RM (1991) Core and satellite species: theory and artefacts. Oikos 62:83–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Novotny V, Drozd P (2001) Sampling error can cause false rejection of the core-satellite species hypothesis. Oecologia 126:360–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Perelman SB, León RJ, Oesterheld M (2001) Cross-scale vegetation patterns of Flooding Pampa grasslands. J Ecol 89:562–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Raunkiaer C (1918) Recherches statistiques sur les formations végétales. Det Kgl Danske Vidensk. Selsk Biol Medd 1:3–80Google Scholar
  32. Raunkiaer C (1934) The life-forms of plants and statistical plant geography. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 632Google Scholar
  33. Reice SR, Wissmar RC, Naiman RJ (1990) Disturbance regimes, resilience, and recovery of animal communities and habitats in lotic ecosystems. Environ Manage 14:647–659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Resh VH, Brown AV, Covich AP, Gurtz ME, Li HW, Minshall W, Reice SR, Sheldon AL, Wallace JB, Wissmar RC (1988) The role of disturbance in stream ecology. J North Am Benthol Soc 7:433–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sale PF (1988) Perception, pattern, chance and the structure of reef fish communities. Environ Biol Fish 21:3–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sherry TW, Holmes RT (1988) Habitat selection by breeding American Redstarts in response to a dominant competitor, the Least Flycatcher. Auk 105:789–799Google Scholar
  37. Storch D, Šizling AL (2002) Patterns of commonness and rarity in central European birds: reliability of the core-satellite hypothesis within a large scale. Ecography 25:405–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tokeshi M (1992) Dynamics of distribution in animal communities: theory and analysis. Res Popul Ecol 34:249–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Townsend CR, Scarsbrook MR, Doledec S (1997) The intermediate disturbance hypothesis, refugia, and biodiversity in streams. Limnol Oceanogr 42:938–949CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ulrich W, Zalewski M (2006) Abundance and co-occurrence patterns of core and satellite species of ground beetles on small lake islands. Oikos 114: 338-348Google Scholar
  41. van Rensburg BJ, McGeoch MA, Matthews W, Chown SL, van Jaarsveld AS (2000) Testing generalities in the shape of patch occupancy frequency distributions. Ecology 81:3163–3177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wallace JB (1990) Recovery of lotic macroinvertebrate communities from disturbance. Environ Manage 14:605–620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Whittaker RH, Niering WA (1965) Vegetation of the Santa Catalina mountains, Arizona: a gradient analysis of the south slope. Ecology 46:429–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Williams CB (1964) Patterns in the balance of nature. Academic, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • T. Heatherly
    • 1
  • M. R. Whiles
    • 1
  • D. J. Gibson
    • 2
  • S. L. Collins
    • 3
  • A. D. Huryn
    • 4
  • J. K. Jackson
    • 5
  • M. A. Palmer
    • 6
  1. 1.Department of Zoology and Center for EcologySouthern Illinois UniversityCarbondaleUSA
  2. 2.Department of Plant Biology and Center for EcologySouthern Illinois UniversityCarbondaleUSA
  3. 3.Department of BiologyUniversity of New MexicoAlbuquerqueUSA
  4. 4.Aquatic Biology Program, Department of Biological SciencesUniversity of AlabamaTuscaloosaUSA
  5. 5.Stroud Water Research CenterAvondaleUSA
  6. 6.Department of EntomologyUniversity of MarylandCollege ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations