Community Ecology

, Volume 17, Issue 1, pp 1–7 | Cite as

Local versus regional processes and the control of community structure

  • J. MárquezEmail author
  • J. Kolasa
  • L. Sciullo
Open Access


The contribution of local (e.g., competition) and regional (e.g., dispersal) processes in the structure of communities remains an unresolved issue. In general, a tendency to assume local processes to be deterministic and regional to be stochastic dominates, although it is challenged. Fortunately, it can be cast as a testable proposition: if correct, the degree of determinism in the final community structure might indicate which process is more prominent in the control of community structure. However, recent findings have also suggested that stochastic patterns can arise from local processes and that dispersal can homogenize communities, which would make them appear deterministic irrespective of the mechanism involved. To evaluate these competing expectations we conducted an experiment where the initial communities had the same composition and species abundances. We hypothesized that if local processes dominate, then arrays of communities will show divergence of community structures whether connected by dispersal or not (i.e., being fully isolated). Alternatively, if regional processes dominate, the dispersal connected communities should converge while isolated ones should not. We found, however, that both groups of experimental communities showed similar patterns of change - a decline in similarity and a tendency to diverge. This suggests that biological interactions, demographic stochasticity, or both, exert noticeable control over community structure such that they reduce similarity among replicate communities and diversify their final states. We speculate that these mechanisms enhance potential for species additions, particularly in conjunction with factors such as dispersal and the size of the regional species pool.


Determinism Dispersal Local processes Regional processes Stochasticity 

Supplementary material

42974_2016_1701001_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (258 kb)
Supplementary material, approximately 264 KB.


  1. Altermatt, F., S. Schreiber and M. Holyoak. 2011. Interactive effects of disturbance and dispersal directionality on species richness and composition in meta-communities. Ecology 92:859–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beisner, B. and T. Romanuk. 2005. Diversity, productivity and invasibility relationships in rock pool food webs. In: P. De Ruiter, W. Wolters and J. Moore (eds.), Dynamic Food Webs: Multispecies Assemblages, Ecosystem Development, and Environmental Change. Elsevier, Amsterdam. pp. 321–333.Google Scholar
  3. Belyea, L.R. and J. Lancaster. 1999. Assembly rules within a contingent ecology. Oikos 86:402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Borrvall, C. and B. Ebenman. 2006. Early onset of secondary extinctions in ecological communities following the loss of top predators. Ecol. Lett. 9:435–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown, J.H., D.A. Kelt and B.J. Fox. 2002. Assembly rules and competition in desert rodents. Amer. Nat. 160:815–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cadotte, M.W. 2006. Dispersal and species diversity: a meta-analysis. Amer. Nat. 168:913–924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chase, J.M. 2003. Community assembly: when should history matter? Oecologia 136:489–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chase, J.M. 2005. Towards a really unified theory for metacommunities. Funct. Ecol. 19:182–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cottenie, K. and L. De Meester. 2003. Connectivity and cladoceran species richness in a metacommunity of shallow lakes. Freshwater Biol. 48:823–832.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cottenie, K. and L. De Meester. 2004. Metacommunity structure: synergy of biotic interactions as selective agents and dispersal as fuel. Ecology 85:114–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cottenie, K., E. Michels and N. Nuytten. 2003. Zooplankton meta-community structure: regional vs. local processes in highly interconnected ponds. Ecology 84:991–1000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Drake, J. 1990. Communities as assembled structures: do rules govern pattern? Trends Ecol. Evol. 5:159–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Drake, J.A., T. Flum, and G.R. Huxel. 1994. On defining assembly space: a reply to Grover and Lawton. J. Animal Ecol. 63:488–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fox, B.J. 1987. Species assembly and the evolution of community structure. Evol. Ecol. 1:201–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gilpin, M.E. and J.M. Diamond. 1982. Factors contributing to non-randomness in species co-occurrences on islands. Oecologia 52:75–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Havel, J.E., and J.B. Shurin. 2004. Mechanisms, effects, and scales of dispersal in freshwater zooplankton. Limnol. Oceanogr. 49:1229–1238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Houlahan, J., D. Currie, K. Cottenie, G. Cumming, S.K.M. Ernest, C. Findlay, S. Fuhlendorf, U. Gaedke, P. Legendre, J. Magnuson, et al.. 2007. Compensatory dynamics are rare in natural ecological communities. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 104:3273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hu, X.-S., F. He and S.P Hubbell. 2007. Species diversity in local neutral communities. Amer. Nat. 170:844–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hubbell, S.P. 2005. Neutral theory in community ecology and the hypothesis of functional equivalence. Funct. Ecol. 19:166–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hubbell, S.P. 2006. Neutral theory and the evolution of ecological equivalence. Ecology 87:1387–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Law, R. and R.D. Morton. 1993. Alternative permanent states of ecological communities. Ecology 74:1347–1361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Marquez, J. C. 2011. Assembly rules determinism vs. randomness in the formation of communities. McMaster University, Canada.Google Scholar
  23. Marquez, J.C. and J. Kolasa. 2013. Local and regional processes in community assembly. PloS one 8:e54580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Michels, E., K. Cottenie, L. Neys and L. De Meester. 2001. Zooplankton on the move: first results on the quantification of dispersal of zooplankton in a set of interconnected ponds. Hydrobiologia 442:117–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Morton, R.D., R. Law, S.L. Pimm and J.A. Drake. 1996. On models for assembling ecological communities. Oikos 75:493–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mouquet, N. and M. Loreau. 2002. Coexistence in metacommunities: the regional similarity hypothesis. Amer. Nat. 159:420–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mouquet, N, P. Munguia, J. Kneitel and T.E. Miller. 2003. Community assembly time and the relationship between local and regional species richness. Oikos 103:618–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mutshinda, CM., R.B. O’Hara, and I.P Woiwod. 2009. What drives community dynamics? Proc. Royal Soc. B. 276:2923–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Powell, C.R. and R.P Boland. 2009. The effects of stochastic population dynamics on food web structure. J. Theoret. Biol. 257:170–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ricciardi, A. 2001. Facilitative interactions among aquatic invaders: is an “invasional meltdown” occurring in the Great Lakes? Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 58:2513–2525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ricklefs, R.E. 2008. Disintegration of the ecological community. Amer. Nat. 172:741–750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Romanuk, T.N. and J. Kolasa. 2005. Resource limitation, biodiversity, and competitive effects interact to determine the invasibility of rock pool microcosms. Biol. Invasions 7:711–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schröder, A., L. Persson, and A.M. De Roos. 2005. Direct experimental evidence for alternative stable states: a review. Oikos 110:3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Scotti, M., F.Ciocchetta and F. Jordan. 2013. Social and landscape effects on food webs: a multi-level network simulation model. J. Complex Networks 1:160–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Shurin, J.B. 2000. Dispersal limitation, invasion resistance, and the structure of pond zooplankton communities. Ecology 81:3074–3086.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Shurin, J.B., P. Amarasekare, J.M. Chase, R.D. Holt, M. Hoopes and M.A. Leibold. 2004. Alternative stable states and regional community structure. J. Theoret. Biol. 227:359–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Shurin, J.B., J.E. Havel, M.A. Leibold and B. Pinel-Alloul. 2000. Local and regional zooplankton species richness: a scale-independent test for saturation. Ecology 81:3062–3073.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Therriault, T. and J. Kolasa. 2000. Patterns of community variability depend on habitat variability and habitat generalists in natural aquatic microcosms. Community Ecol. 1:196–203.Google Scholar
  39. Therriault, T. and J. Kolasa. 2001. Desiccation frequency reduces species diversity and predictability of community structure in coastal rock pools. Israel J. Zool. 47:477–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Verdy, A. and P. Amarasekare. 2010. Alternative stable states in communities with intraguild predation. J. Theoret. Biol. 262:116–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest 2016

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BiologyMcMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada

Personalised recommendations