Abstract
Species richness has been shown to be affected by primary productivity at various spatial scales. However, the mechanisms behind this effect are still poorly understood. Under the assumption that primary productivity is directly related to energy availability for an animal assemblage, the hypotheses are that (i) primary productivity will affect the number of ways different food resources can be combined into species specific niches and (ii) it will also determine the number of specialist species that can be supported. These hypotheses were tested on the herbivorous mammalian fauna of Australia. Productivity only had a weak effect on the number of food resource combinations in this case. Specialization was most common at low and high productivity. In addition there were significant differences in where different types of specialization was the most common. This study seeks an energetic mechanism to explain an energetic relationship and though no clear effect was found for resource use it identified a possible link between productivity and species richness.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abramsky Z and Rosenzweig ML (1984) Tilman's predicted productivity-diversity relationship shown by desert rodents. Nature 309: 150–151
Bazilevich NI (1994) Global Primary Productivity: Phytomass, Net Primary Production and Mortmass. Digital Raster Data on a 10-Minute Geographic (lat/long) 1080 × 2160 Grid. NOAA National Geographic Data Center, Boulder, Colorado
Belyea LR and Lancaster J (1999) Assembly rules within a contingent ecology. Oikos 86: 402–416
Brown JH, Fox BJ and Kelt DA (2000) Assembly rules: desert rodent communities are structured at scales from local to continental. American Naturalist 156(3): 314–321
Chown SL, Gaston KJ and Williams PH (1998) Global patterns in species richness of pelagic seabirds: the Procellariiformes. Ecography 21: 342–350
Cornell HV (1999) Unsaturation and regional influences on species richness in ecological communities: a review of the evidence. Ecoscience 6(3): 303–315
Cornell HV and Lawton JH (1992) Species interactions, local and regional processes, and limits to the richness of ecological communities: a theoretical perspective. Journal of Animal Ecology 61: 1–12
Cronin L (1991) Key Guide to Australian Mammals. Reed Books PTY, Sydney
Currie DJ (1991) Energy and large-scale patterns of animal-and plant-species richness. American Naturalist 137(1): 27–49
Currie DJ and Paquin V (1987) Large-scale biogeographical patterns of species richness of trees. Nature 329: 326–327
Diamond JM (1975) Assembly of species communities. In: Cody ML and Diamond JM (eds) Ecology and Evolution of Communities, pp 342–444. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts
Eggleton P, Williams PH and Gaston KJ (1994) Explaining global termite diversity: productivity or history? Biodiversity and Conservation 3: 318–330
Eisenberg JF (1981) The Mammalian Radiations. An Analysis of Trends in Evolution, Adaptation, and Behaviour. The Athlone Press, London
Eisenberg JF and Redford KH (1981) Comparative niche structure and evolution of mammals of the nearctic and southern South America. In: Mares MA and Genoways HH (eds) Mammalian Biology in South America (30 December 1982) Pymatuning Laboratory of Ecology University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Fox BJ (1985) Small mammal communities in Australian temperate heathlands and forests. Journal of Mammalogy 8: 153–158
Fox BJ (1987) Species assembly and the evolution of community structure. Evolutionary Ecology 1: 201–213
Fox BJ and Brown JH (1993) Assembly rules for functional groups in North American desert rodent communities. Oikos 67: 358–370
Fox BJ, Read DG, Jefferys E and Luo J (1994) Diet of the Hastings River Mouse (Pseudomys oralis). Wildlife Research 21(5): 491–505
Haxeltine A and Prentice IC (1996) BIOME3: an equlibrium terrestrial biosphere model based on ecophysiological constraints, resource availability, and competition among plant functional types. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 10(4): 693–709
Haxeltine A, Prentice IC and Creswell ID (1996) A coupled carbon and water flux model to predict vegetation structure. Journal of Vegetation Science 7: 651–666
Henry SR, Lee AK and Smith AP (1989) The trophic structure and species richness of assemblages of arboreal mammals in Australian forests. In: Morris JA, Abramsky Z, Fox BJ and Willig MR( eds) Patterns in the Structure ofMammalian Communities, pp 229–240. Texas Tech University Press, Lubbock, Texas
Kerr JT and Packer L (1997) Habitat heterogeneity as a determinant of mammal species richness in highenergy regions. Nature 385: 252–254
Latham RE and Ricklefs RE (1993) Global patterns of tree species richness in moist forests: energy diversity theory does not account for variation in species richness. Oikos 67: 325–333
MacArthur R (1970) Species packing and competitive equilibrium for many species. Theoretical Population Biology 1: 1–11
Murray BR, Dickman CR, Watts CHS and Morton SR (1999) The dietary ecology of Australian desert rodents. Wildlife Research 26(4): 421–437
Owen JG (1988) On productivity as a predictor of rodent and carnivore diversity. Ecology 69(4): 1161–1165
Read OG (1984) Diet and habitat preference of Leggadina forresti inWestern New SouthWales. Australian Mammalogy 7: 215–217
Rosenzweig ML (1995) Species Diversity in Space and Time. Cambridge University Press, New York
Rosenzweig ML and Abramsky Z (1993) How are diversity and productivity related? In: Ricklefs RE and Schluter D (eds) Species Diversity in Ecological Communities. Historical and Geographical Perspectives, pp 52–65. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Seino H and Uchijima Z (1992) Global distribution of net primary productivity of terrestrial vegetation. Journal of Agricultural Meteorology 48(1): 39–48
Strahan R (1995) The Mammals of Australia; The National Photographic Index of Australian Wildlife. 2nd Edn., Reed Books, Singapore
Tokeshi M (1986) Resource utilization, overlap and temporal community dynamics: a null model analysis of an epiphytic chironomid community. Journal of Animal Ecology 55: 491–506
Turner JR, Gatehouse CM and Corey CA (1987) Does solar energy control organic diversity? Butterflies, moths and British climate. Oikos 48: 195–205
Uchijima Z and Seino H (1985) Agroclimatic evaluation of net primary productivity of natural vegetations. (1) Chikugo model for evaluating net primary productivity. Journal of Agriculture and Meterology 40(4): 343–352
Waide RB, Willig MR, Steiner CF, Mittelbach G, Gough L, Dodson SI, Juday GP and Parmenter R (1999) The relationship between productivity and species richness. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 30: 257–300
Wright DH, Currie DJ and Maurer BA (1993) Energy supply and patterns of species richness on local and regional scales. In: Ricklefs RE and Schluter D (eds) Species Diversity in Ecological Communities. Historical and Geographical Perspectives, pp 66–76. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Aava, B. Can resource use be the link between productivity and species richness in mammals?. Biodiversity and Conservation 10, 2011–2022 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013155819542
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013155819542