Abstract
Species–area relationships (SARs) represent a ubiquitous and useful empirical regularity characterizing biodiversity. The rate of species accumulation, captured by the value of the exponent, z, varies substantially and for many reasons. We hypothesized that one of the major contributors to this variation is heterogeneity and its change with scale. To test this hypothesis, we used an array of natural microcosms for which we had invertebrate species composition and physical properties of habitat. Using GIS and cluster analysis, we organized the species data into four sets: communities grouped by spatial proximity in the field, randomly, by similarity of their physical habitat and by dissimilarity of their physical habitat. These groupings produced varying levels of heterogeneity at different scales. We fitted species–area and species–volume relationships to the four groups of communities, and obtained z-values for each group or a portion of the group if the slope of the relationship varied. As predicted, we recovered a number of properties reported by others. More interestingly, we found that small- and large-scale habitat heterogeneity produced scale-dependent z-values while the random grouping of pool habitats produced z-values more robust across scales but also susceptible to initial values of habitat richness. Habitat area affected rate at which species accumulated much less than the mean degree of inter-habitat differences: increasing area that is heterogeneous at broader scales produces higher z-values than increasing an area that shows heterogeneity at small scale only. Our results, while from a microcosm system, rely on logic transferable to larger scale data sets.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adler, P. B. & W. K. Lauenroth, 2003. The power of time: spatiotemporal scaling of species diversity. Ecology Letters 6: 749–756.
Allen, A. P. & E. P. White, 2003. Effects of range size on species–area relationships. Evolutionary Ecology Research 5: 493–499.
Cam, E., J. D. Nichols, J. E. Hines, J. R. Sauer, R. Alpizar-Jara & C. H. Flather, 2002. Disentangling sampling and ecological explanations underlying species–area relationships. Ecology 83: 1118–1130.
Chust, G., J. L. Pretus, D. Ducrot, A. Bedos & L. Deharveng, 2003. Identification of landscape units from an insect perspective. Ecography 26: 257–268.
Condit, R., S. de Loo, J. V. LaFrankie, R. Sujumar, N. Monokaran, E. G. Leigh, R. P. Foster, P. S. Ashton & S. P. Hubbell, 1996. Species–area and species–individual relationships for tropical trees—a comparison of three 50 ha plots. Ecology 84: 549–562.
Connor, E. F. & E. D. McCoy, 1979. The statistics and biology of the species–area relationship. American Naturalist 113: 791–833.
Drakare, S., J. J. Lennon & H. Hillebrand, 2006. The imprint of the geographical, evolutionary and ecological context on species–area relationships. Ecology Letters 9: 215–227.
Dumbrell, A. J., E. J. Clark, G. A. Frost, T. E. Randell, J. W. Pitchford & J. K. Hill, 2008. Changes in species diversity following habitat disturbance are dependent on spatial scale: theoretical and empirical evidence. Journal of Applied Ecology 45: 1531–1539.
Durrett, R. & S. Levin, 1996. Spatial models for species–area curves. Journal of Theoretical Biology 179: 119–127.
Gentile, G. & R. Argano, 2005. Island biogeography of the Mediterranean Sea: the species–area relationship for terrestrial isopods. Journal of Biogeography 32: 1715–1726.
Gray, J. S., K. I. Ugland & J. Lambshead, 2004a. On species accumulation and species–area curves. Global Ecology and Biogeography 13: 567–568.
Gray, J. S., K. I. Ugland & J. Lambshead, 2004b. Species accumulation and species area curves—a comment on Scheiner (2003). Global Ecology and Biogeography 13: 473–476.
Harte, J., A. Kinzig & J. Green, 1999a. Self-similarity in the distribution and abundance of species. Science 294: 334–336.
Harte, J., S. McCarthy, K. Taylor, A. Kinzig & M. L. Fischer, 1999b. Estimating species–area relationships from plot to landscape scale using species spatial-turnover data. Oikos 86: 45–54.
He, F. & P. Legendre, 2002. Species diversity patterns derived from species–area models. Ecology 83: 1185–1198.
Hortal, J., P. A. V. Borges & C. Gaspar, 2006. Evaluating the performance of species richness estimators: sensitivity to sample grain size. Journal of Animal Ecology 75: 274–287.
Kolasa, J., J. A. Drake, G. R. Huxel & C. L. Hewitt, 1996. Hierarchy underlies patterns of variability in species inhabiting natural microcosms. Oikos 77: 259–266.
Kolasa, J., C. L. Hewitt & J. A. Drake, 1998. The Rapoport’s rule: an explanation or a byproduct of the latitudinal gradient in species richness? Biodiversity and Conservation 7: 1447–1455.
Lack, D., 1976. Island Biology: Illustrated by the Land Birds of Jamaica. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Lomolino, M. V., 2000. Ecology’s most general, yet protean pattern: the species–area relationship. Journal of Biogeography 27: 17–26.
MacArthur, R. H. & E. O. Wilson, 1967. The Theory of Island Biogeography. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Manne, L. L., P. H. Williams, G. F. Midgley, W. Thuiller, T. Rebelo & L. Hannah, 2007. Spatial and temporal variation in species–area relationships in the Fynbos biological hotspot. Ecography 30: 852–861.
Pandit, S. N., J. Kolasa & K. Cottenie, 2009. Contrast between habitat generalists and specialists: an empirical extension to the basic metacommunity framework. Ecology 90: 2253–2262.
Passy, S. I. & F. G. Blanchet, 2007. Algal communities in human-impacted stream ecosystems suffer beta-diversity decline. Diversity and Distributions 13: 670–679.
Romanuk, T. N. & J. Kolasa, 2001. Simplifying the complexity of temporal diversity dynamics: a differentiation approach. Ecoscience 8: 259–263.
Romanuk, T. N. & J. Kolasa, 2002. Environmental variability alters the relationship between richness and variability of community abundances in aquatic rock pool microcosms. Ecoscience 9: 55–62.
Scheiner, S. M., 2004. A mélange of curves—further dialogue about species–area relationships. Global Ecology and Biogeography 13: 479–484.
Scheiner, S. M., S. B. Cox, M. Willig, G. G. Mittelbach, C. Osenberg & M. Kaspari, 2000. Species richness, species–area curves and Simpson’s paradox. Evolutionary Ecology Research 2: 791–802.
Schuh, M. & R. Diesel, 1995. Breeding in a rock pool: larvae of the semiterrestrial crab Armases [=Sesarma] miersii (Rathbun) (Decapoda: Grapsidae) develop in a highly variable environment. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 185: 109–129.
Shen, G. C., M. J. Yu, X. S. Hu, X. C. Mi, H. B. Ren, I. F. Sun & K. P. Ma, 2009. Species–area relationships explained by the joint effects of dispersal limitation and habitat heterogeneity. Ecology 90: 3033–3041.
Srivastava, D. S., J. Kolasa, J. Bengtsson, A. Gonzalez, S. P. Lawler, T. E. Miller, P. Munguia, T. Romanuk, D. C. Schneider & M. K. Trzcinski, 2004. Are natural microcosms useful model systems for ecology? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 19: 379–384.
Therriault, T. W. & J. Kolasa, 1999. Physical determinants of richness, diversity, evenness and abundance in natural aquatic microcosms. Hydrobiologia 412: 123–130.
Therriault, T. W. & J. Kolasa, 2000. Explicit links among physical stress, habitat heterogeneity and biodiversity. Oikos 89: 387–391.
Tjørve, E. & K. M. C. Tjørve, 2008. The species–area relationship, self-similarity, and the true meaning of the z-value. Ecology 89: 3528–3533.
Triantis, K. A., M. Mylonas, M. D. Weiser, K. Lika & K. Vardinoyannis, 2005. Species richness, environmental heterogeneity and area: a case study based on land snails in Skyros archipelago (Aegean Sea, Greece). Journal of Biogeography 32: 1727–1735
Triantis, K. A., K. Vardinoyannis, E. P. Tsolaki, I. Botsaris, K. Lika & M. Mylonas, 2006. Re-approaching the small island effect. Journal of Biogeography 33: 914–923.
Turner, K. A. & E. Tjørve, 2005. Scale-dependence in species–area relationships. Ecography 28: 1–10.
White, E. P., 2004. Two-phase species–time relationships in North American land birds. Ecology Letters 7: 329–336.
Acknowledgments
We thank Dr. Ermias Azeria for the constructive comments on the early versions of the manuscript, graduate and undergraduate students who helped collect and prepare data used in this article, Discovery Bay Marine Laboratory, Jamaica, for providing facilities and hospitality. Insightful comments from Kostas Triantis and an anonymous reviewer helped to improve the manuscript. This work was supported by Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada with grants to LLM and JK.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Guest editors: K. E. Kovalenko & S. M. Thomaz / The importance of habitat complexity in waterscapes
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kolasa, J., Manne, L.L. & Pandit, S.N. Species–area relationships arise from interaction of habitat heterogeneity and species pool. Hydrobiologia 685, 135–144 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-011-0846-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-011-0846-6