Multiple processes at different spatial scales determine beta diversity patterns in a mountainous semi-arid rangeland of Khorassan-Kopet Dagh floristic province, NE Iran
- 88 Downloads
The study of local and regional mechanisms driving spatial patterns in beta diversity is essential to the understanding of biodiversity. We aimed to predict the roles of multiple mechanisms operating at regional to fine spatial scales in structuring the beta diversity in a mountainous semi-arid rangeland of the Khorassan-Kopet Dagh floristic province located in NE Iran. We evaluated the relative contributions of three main filters, at the regional (stochastic but spatially structured dispersal filter), local (abiotic filter), and fine (biotic filter) spatial scales on beta diversity across communities. We partitioned beta diversity constrained by spatial, environmental, and biotic variables in 23 communities studied here, and used simple RDA and RDA-based variation partitioning to assess the contributions of studied filters on beta diversity. Moreover, spatial autocorrelation analyses were used to test neutral theory predictions. The relative contributions of the studied ecological filters explained 55% of variation in beta diversity. Although differences in the explained variations between unique fractions are low, the abiotic and biotic filters (signifying the niche-based processes) represent stronger effects directly and indirectly (via impact on significantly of other ecological filters) than dispersal (signifying neutral processes) on beta diversity. In addition, 45% of the variation in beta diversity was not explained by the studied ecological filters. In conclusion, independent and shared impacts of processes at different spatial scales determine beta diversity in our plant communities. However, unexplained variation in beta diversity requires further study of other facets of biodiversity and community assembly processes.
KeywordsMultiple processes Spatial scales Beta diversity patterns Biotic filter Abiotic filter Dispersal filter
The authors wish to thank the Ferdowsi University of Mashhad for funding this research under the Grant No.3/41572.
MP performed the project, wrote the manuscript, and analyzed all the data as the Ph.D. student. HE designed the project as the main supervisor. JV collaborated as the co-supervisor of the project. RS considered the whole analysis data and edited the manuscript as the advisor.
This study was funded by Ferdowsi University of Mashhad (Grant Number 3/41572).
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest to disclose.
- Bremner JM (1996) In: Sparks DL, et al. (eds) Nitrogen-Total Methods of soil analysis. Science Society of America Inc, American Society of Agronomy Inc, Madison, pp 1085–1122Google Scholar
- Brooker RW, Maestre FT, Callaway RM, Lortie CL, Cavieres LA, Kunstler G, Liancourt P, Tielbo¨ rger K, Travis JMJ, Anthelme F, Armas C, Coll L, Corcket E, Delzon S, Forey E, Kikvidze Z, Olofsson J, Pugnaire FI, Saccone P, Schiffer K, Seifan M, Touzard B, Michalet R, (2008) Facilitation in plant communities: the past, the present, and the future. J Ecol 96:18–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Callaway RM (2007) Positive interactions and interdependence in plant communities. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Cortina J, Maestre FT (2005) Plant effects on soils in drylands: implications for community dynamics and ecosystem restoration. In: Binkley D, Menyailo O (eds) Tree species effects on soils: implications for global change. NATO Science Series, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 85–118.Google Scholar
- Dray S (2010) SpacemakeR: Spatial modelling. R package version 0.0–5. https://r-forge.r-project.org/sedar. Accessed 2 June 2013
- Farzam M, Ejtehadi H (2016) Effects of drought and canopy facilitation on plant diversity and abundance in a semiarid mountainous rangeland. J Plant Ecol 10(4):626–633Google Scholar
- Gotelli NJ, Graves GR (1996) Null models in Ecology. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
- Jankju M, Delavari A, Ganjali A (2008) Interseeding Bromus kopetdaghensis, in shrublands. Rangeland J Iran Soc Range Manag 2:314–328Google Scholar
- Kraft NJB, Ackerly DD (2014) Assembly of plant communities. In: Monson RK (ed) Ecology and the environment, the plant sciences, vol 8. Springer, New York, NY, pp 67–88Google Scholar
- Legendre P, Legendre L (1998) Numerical Ecology, 2nd edn. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
- Legendre P, Legendre L (2012) Numerical ecology, Third English edition. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
- Lopez RP, Valdivia S, Rivera ML, Rios RS (2013) Co-occurrence patterns along a regional aridity gradient of the subtropical andes do not support stress gradient hypotheses. PLoS ONE 8:1–10Google Scholar
- MAPA (1994) Métodos Oficiales de Análisis. Tomo III. Servicio de Publicaciones del Ministerio de Agricultura. Pescay Alimentación, Madrid, pp. 662. (In French)Google Scholar
- McCune B, Grace J (2002) Multivariate analysis of ecological communities. MjM Software, Gleneden BeachGoogle Scholar
- Oksanen J, Blanchet FG, Kindt R, Legendre P, Minchin PR, O’Hara RB, et al. (2015) Vegan: Community Ecology Package. R package version 2.0–9. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vegan. Accessed 16 Sept 2015
- Soliveres S, Eldridge DJ, Maestre FT, Bowker MA, Tighe M, Escudero A (2011) Microhabitat amelioration and reduced competition among understory plants as drivers of facilitation across environmental gradients: towards a unifying framework. Perspect Plant Ecol Evol Syst 13:247–258CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Vavrek MJ (2015) Fossil package.Google Scholar