, Volume 750, Issue 1, pp 5–12 | Cite as

Biodiversity analyses: are aquatic ecologists doing any better and differently than terrestrial ecologists?

  • Tadeu Siqueira
  • Luis Mauricio Bini
  • Sidinei Magela Thomaz
  • Diego FontanetoEmail author


Species richness is a key variable in biodiversity analyses, being often analyzed as either a response or an explanatory variable. We addressed whether biodiversity studies conducted in aquatic habitats (including both freshwater and marine habitats) differed substantially from those conducted in terrestrial habitats. Using a systematic literature search, we show that aquatic and terrestrial ecologists use species richness predominantly as a response variable. However, the number of studies in terrestrial systems was greater than the number of studies in aquatic habitats. The amount of variance in species richness explained by the statistical models was similar—around 59%. The frequency of citation was also similar between terrestrial and aquatic studies. The sample sizes of studies conducted in aquatic habitats were significantly lower than those of studies conducted in terrestrial habitats. Both aquatic and terrestrial ecologists tend to use a large number of explanatory variables to model species richness. We conclude that the differences between the ways aquatic and terrestrial ecologists conduct biodiversity studies were not substantial; their impacts on the scientific community were similar; and there is a need to increase the focus on theory-driven analyses. We recommend that research efforts on the mechanisms underlying species richness variation in aquatic systems should be intensified.


Coefficient of determination Cross-ecosystem analysis Bibliometrics Species richness 



We thank an anonymous referee for his/her constructive comments on an earlier version of this manuscript. The writing of this study was partially funded by grant #2013/50424-1, São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) and by #480933/2012-0, Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq).


  1. Balian, E. V., H. Segers, C. Lévèque & K. Martens, 2008a. The Freshwater Animal Diversity Assessment: an overview of the results. Hydrobiologia 595: 627–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Balian, E., H. Segers, C. Lévèque & K. Martens, 2008b. An introduction to the Freshwater Animal Diversity Assessment (FADA) project. Hydrobiologia 595: 3–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bini, L. M., J. A. F. Diniz-Filho, T. F. L. V. B. Rangel, R. P. Bastos & M. P. Pinto, 2006. Challenging Wallacean and Linnean shortfalls: knowledge gradients and conservation planning in a biodiversity hotspot. Diversity and Distributions 12: 475–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bini, L. M., J. A. F. Diniz-Filho, T. F. L. V. B. Rangel, T. S. B. Akre, R. G. Albaladejo, F. S. Albuquerque, A. Aparicio, M. B. Araújo, A. Baselga, J. Beck, M. Isabel Bellocq, K. Böhning-Gaese, P. A. V. Borges, I. Castro-Parga, V. Khen Chey, S. L. Chown, J. Paulo De Marco, D. S. Dobkin, D. Ferrer-Castán, R. Field, J. Filloy, E. Fleishman, J. F. Gómez, J. Hortal, J. B. Iverson, J. T. Kerr, W. Daniel Kissling, I. J. Kitching, J. L. León-Cortés, J. M. Lobo, D. Montoya, I. Morales-Castilla, J. C. Moreno, T. Oberdorff, M. Á. Olalla-Tárraga, J. G. Pausas, H. Qian, C. Rahbek, M. Á. Rodríguez, M. Rueda, A. Ruggiero, P. Sackmann, N. J. Sanders, L. Carina Terribile, O. R. Vetaas & B. A. Hawkins, 2009. Coefficient shifts in geographical ecology: an empirical evaluation of spatial and non-spatial regression. Ecography 32: 193–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boggero A., A. Basset, M. Austoni, E. Barbone, L. Bartolozzi, I. Bertani, A. Campanaro, A. Cattaneo, F. Cianferoni, G. Corriero, A. M. Dörr, A. C. Elia, G. F. Ficetola, L. Kamburska, G. La Porta, R. Lauceri, A. Ludovisi, E. Gaino, E. Goretti, M. Lorenzoni, M. Manca, A. Marchetto, G. Morabito, F. Nonnis Marzano, A. Oggioni, C. Pierri, N. Riccardi, G. Rossetti, N. Ungaro, P. Volta, S. Zaupa & D. Fontaneto, 2014a. Weak effects of habitat type on susceptibility to invasive freshwater species: an Italian case study. Aquatic Conservation. doi: 10.1002/aqc.2454.
  6. Boggero, A., D. Fontaneto, G. Morabito & P. Volta, 2014b. Limnology in the 21st century: the importance of freshwater ecosystems as models systems in ecology and evolution. Journal of Limnology 73(s1): 1–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burkepile, D. E., 2013. Comparing aquatic and terrestrial grazing ecosystems: is the grass really greener? Oikos 122: 306–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burnham, K. P. & D. Anderson, 2002. Model Selection and Multi-model Inference. Springer, New York.Google Scholar
  9. Caliman, A., A. F. Pires, F. A. Esteves, R. Bozelli & V. F. Farjalla, 2010. The prominence of and biases in biodiversity and ecosystem functioning research. Biodiversity Conservation 9: 651–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cardinale, B. J., J. E. Duffy, A. Gonzalez, D. U. Hooper, C. Perrings, P. Venail, A. Narwani, G. M. Mace, D. Tilman, D. A. Wardle, A. P. Kinzig, G. C. Daily, M. Loreau, J. B. Grace, A. Larigauderie, D. S. Srivastava & S. Naeem, 2012. Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature 486: 59–67.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Carpenter, S. R., J. F. Kitchell & J. R. Hodgson, 1985. Cascading trophic interactions and lake productivity. BioScience 35: 634–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Colwell, R. K. & J. A. Coddington, 1994. Estimating terrestrial biodiversity through extrapolation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B Biological Sciences 345: 101–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Crawley, M. J., 2007. The R Book. Wiley, Chichester, West Sussex.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cribari-Neto, F. & A. Zeileis, 2010. Beta regression in R. Journal of Statistical Software 34: 1–24.Google Scholar
  15. Diniz-Filho, J. A. F., R. D. Loyola, P. Raia, A. O. Mooers & L. M. Bini, 2013. Darwinian shortfalls in biodiversity conservation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 28: 689–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dodson, S. I., S. E. Arnott & K. L. Cottingham, 2000. The relationship in lake communities between primary productivity and species richness. Ecology 81: 2662–2679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Duarte, C. M., 2002. The future of seagrass meadows. Environmental Conservation 29: 192–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dudgeon, D., A. H. Arthington, M. O. Gessner, Z.-I. Kawabata, D. J. Knowler, C. Lévêque, R. J. Naiman, A.-H. Prieur-Richard, D. Soto, M. L. J. Stiassny & C. A. Sullivan, 2006. Freshwater biodiversity: importance, threats, status and conservation challenges. Biological Reviews 81: 163–182.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Engelhardt, K. A. M. & M. E. Ritchie, 2002. The effect of aquatic plant species richness on wetland ecosystem processes. Ecology 83: 2911–2924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Estes, J. A., J. Terborgh, J. S. Brashares, M. E. Power, J. Berger, W. J. Bond, S. R. Carpenter, T. E. Essington, R. D. Holt, J. B. C. Jackson, R. J. Marquis, L. Oksanen, T. Oksanen, R. T. Paine, E. K. Pikitch, W. J. Ripple, S. A. Sandin, M. Scheffer, T. W. Schoener, J. B. Shurin, A. R. E. Sinclair, M. E. Soulé, R. Virtanen & D. A. Wardle, 2011. Trophic Downgrading of Planet Earth. Science 333: 301–306.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Ferrari, S. & F. Cribari-Neto, 2004. Beta regression for modelling rates and proportions. Journal of Applied Statistics 31: 799–815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Freckleton, R. P., P. H. Harvey & M. Pagel, 2002. Phylogenetic analysis and comparative data: a test and review of evidence. The American Naturalist 160: 712–726.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Gotelli, N. J., & R. K. Colwell, 2001. Quantifying biodiversity: procedures and pitfalls in the measurement and comparison of species richness. Ecology letters 4: 379–391.Google Scholar
  24. Gurevitch, J., L. L. Morrow, A. Wallace & J. S. Walsh, 1992. A Meta-Analysis of Competition in Field Experiments. The American Naturalist 140: 539–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hagen, M., W. D. Kissling, C. Rasmussen, M. A. M. De Aguiar, L. E. Brown, D. W. Carstensen, I. Alves-Dos-Santos, Y. L. Dupont, F. K. Edwards, J. Genini, P. R. Guimarães, G. B. Jenkins, P. Jordano, C. N. Kaiser-Bunbury, M. E. Ledger, K. P. Maia, F. M. D. Marquitti, Ó. Mclaughlin, L. P. C. Morellato, E. J. O’Gorman, K. Trøjelsgaard, J. M. Tylianakis, M. M. Vidal, G. Woodward & J. M. Olesen, 2012. Biodiversity, Species Interactions and Ecological Networks in a Fragmented World Advances in Ecological Research. Elsevier, New York: 89–210.Google Scholar
  26. Hillebrand, H., 2004. On the generality of the latitudinal diversity gradient. The American Naturalist 163: 192–211.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Hoeinghaus, D. J., A. A. Agostinho, L. C. Gomes, F. M. Pelicice, E. K. Okada, J. D. Latini, Ea L Kashiwaqui & K. O. Winemiller, 2009. Effects of river impoundment on ecosystem services of large tropical rivers: embodied energy and market value of artisanal fisheries. Conservation Biology 23: 1222–1231.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Hortal, J., J. C. Nabout, J. Calatayud, F. M. Carneiro, A. Padial, A. M. C. Santos, T. Siqueira, F. Bokma, L. M. Bini & M. Ventura, 2014. Perspectives on the use of lakes and ponds as model systems for macroecological research. Journal of Limnology 73(s1): 46–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jenkins, D. G., 2014. Lakes and rivers as microcosms, version 2.0. Journal of Limnology 73(s1): 20–32.Google Scholar
  30. Jumars, P. A., 1990. W(h)ither limnology ? Limnology and oceanography 35: 1216–1218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kinlan, B. P. & S. D. Gaines, 2003. Propagule dispersal in marine and terrestrial environments: a community perspective. Ecology 84: 2007–2020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Logue, J. B., N. Mouquet, H. Peter & H. Hillebrand, 2011. Empirical approaches to metacommunities: a review and comparison with theory. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 26: 482–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Loreau, M., S. Naeem, P. Inchausti, J. Bengtsson, J. P. Grime, A. Hector, D. U. Hooper, M. A. Huston, D. Raffaelli, B. Schmid, D. Tilman & D. A. Wardle, 2001. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: current knowledge and future challenges. Science 294: 804–808.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Low-Décarie, E., C. Chivers & M. Granados, 2014. Rising complexity and falling explanatory power in ecology. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 12: 412–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. MacArthur, R. H., 1967. The Theory of Island Biogeography. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  36. Meredith, R. W., J. E. Janečka, J. Gatesy, O. A. Ryder, C. A. Fisher, E. C. Teeling, A. Goodbla, E. Eizirik, T. L. L. Simão, T. Stadler, D. L. Rabosky, R. L. Honeycutt, J. J. Flynn, C. M. Ingram, C. Steiner, T. L. Williams, T. J. Robinson, A. Burk-Herrick, M. Westerman, N. A. Ayoub, M. S. Springer & W. J. Murphy, 2011. Impacts of the cretaceous terrestrial revolution and KPg extinction on mammal diversification. Science 334: 521–524.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Møller, A. & M. D. Jennions, 2002. How much variance can be explained by ecologists and evolutionary biologists? Oecologia 132: 492–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Naeem, S., 2002. Ecosystem consequences of biodiversity loss: the evolution of a paradigma. Ecology 83: 1537–1552.Google Scholar
  39. Noss, R. F., 1990. Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: a hierarchical approach. Conservation Biology 4: 355–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Nowlin, W. H., M. J. Vanni & L. H. Yang, 2008. Comparing resource pulses in aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Ecology 89: 647–659.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Pennisi, E., 2005. What determines species diversity? Science 309: 90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Rahbek, C., 1995. The elevational gradient of species richness: a uniform pattern? Ecography 18: 200–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Reynolds, C. S., 1998. The state of freshwater ecology. Freshwater Biology 39: 741–753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ricklefs, R. E., 2008. Disintegration of the Ecological Community. The American Naturalist 172: 741–750.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Rigler, F. H., & R. H. Peters, 1995. Science and limnology. Ecology Institute. Germany.Google Scholar
  46. Rohde, K., 1992. Latitudinal gradients in species diversity: the search for the primary cause. Oikos 65: 514–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rotjan, R. D. & J. Idjadi, 2013. Surf and Turf: toward better synthesis by cross-system understanding. Oikos 122: 285–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sala, O. E., F. S. Chapin, J. J. Armesto, E. Berlow, J. Bloomfield, R. Dirzo, E. Huber-Sanwald, L. F. Huenneke, R. B. Jackson, A. Kinzig, R. Leemans, D. M. Lodge, H. A. Mooney, M. Oesterheld, N. L. Poff, M. T. Sykes, B. H. Walker, M. Walker & D. H. Wall, 2000. Global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100. Science 287: 1770–1774.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Shurin, J. B., D. S. Gruner & H. Hillebrand, 2006. All wet or dried up? Real differences between aquatic and terrestrial food webs. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 273: 1–9.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Shurin, J. B., E. T. Borer, E. W. Seabloom, K. Anderson, C. A. Blanchette, B. Broitman, S. D. Cooper & B. S. Halpern, 2002. A cross-ecosystem comparison of the strength of trophic cascades. Ecology letters 5: 785–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Stevens, P.F., 2001 (onwards). Angiosperm Phylogeny Website. Version 12, July 2012 [and more or less continuously updated since].
  52. Treplin, M. & M. Zimmer, 2012. Drowned or dry: a cross-habitat comparison of detrital breakdown processes. Ecosystems 15: 477–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Vamosi, S. M., 2014. Phylogenetic community ecology as an approach for studying old ideas on competition in the plankton: opportunities and challenges. Journal of Limnology 73(s1): 186–192.Google Scholar
  54. Webb, T. J., 2012. Marine and terrestrial ecology: unifying concepts, revealing differences. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 27: 535–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wilson, E. O., 1986. Biophilia. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  56. Yvon-Durocher, G., J. Reiss, J. Blanchard, B. Ebenman, D. M. Perkins, D. C. Reuman, A. Thierry, G. Woodward & O. L. Petchey, 2011. Across ecosystem comparisons of size structure: methods, approaches and prospects. Oikos 120: 550–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tadeu Siqueira
    • 1
  • Luis Mauricio Bini
    • 2
  • Sidinei Magela Thomaz
    • 3
  • Diego Fontaneto
    • 4
    Email author
  1. 1.Departamento de Ecologia, Instituto de BiociênciasUNESP - Universidade Estadual PaulistaRio ClaroBrazil
  2. 2.Laboratório de Ecologia Teórica e SínteseUniversidade Federal de GoiásGoiâniaBrazil
  3. 3.NupeliaUniversidade Estadual de Maringá, PEA-UEMMaringáBrazil
  4. 4.CNR Institute of Ecosystem Study (ISE)VerbaniaItaly

Personalised recommendations