Metacommunity Dynamics of Riparian Ecosystems

  • Jere A. BoudellEmail author
Reference work entry


A metacommunity is defined as a network of communities populated by potentially interacting species that are linked across landscapes through dispersal. Metacommunity theory unifies landscape or regional processes, namely dispersal, with local processes such as niche dynamics. This unification of ecological theories can provide wetland and riparian ecologists with a framework to understand how community structure and dynamics are impacted by both regional and local processes. Understanding how processes occurring at different scales structure wetland communities can help wetland ecologists predict how landscape fragmentation impacts biodiversity and ecosystem functioning.


Mass effects model Metacommunity Neutral model Patch dynamics model Species-sorting model 


  1. Amarasekare P, Hoopes PM, Mouquet N, Holyoak M. Mechanisms of coexistence in competitive metacommunities. Am Nat. 2004;164:310–26.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Auerbach DA, Poff LN. Spatiotemporal controls of simulated metacommunity dynamics in dendritic networks. J N Am Benthol Soc. 2011;30:235–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boudell JA, Stromberg JC. Flood pulsing and metacommunity dynamics in a desert riparian ecosystem. J Veg Sci. 2008;19:373–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown BL, Swan CM. Dendritic network structure constrains metacommunity properties in riverine ecosystems. J Anim Ecol. 2010;79:571–80.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown BL, Swan CM, Auerbach DA, et al. Metacommunity theory as a multispecies, multiscale framework for studying the influence of river network structure on riverine communities and ecosystems. J N Am Benthol Soc. 2011;30:310–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chase JM, Amarasekare P, Cottenie K, et al. Competing theories for competitive metacommunities. In: Holyoak M, Leibold MA, Holt RH, editors. Metacommunities: spatial dynamics and ecological communities. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press; 2005. p. 335–54.Google Scholar
  7. Cottenie K. Integrating environmental and spatial processes in ecological community dynamics. Eco Let. 2005;8:1175–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Driscoll DA, Lindenmayer DB. Empirical tests of metacommunity theory using an isolation gradient. Ecol Monogr. 2009;79:485–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fagan WF. Connectivity, fragmentation, and extinction risk in dendritic metapopulations. Ecology. 2002;83:3243–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hanski I, Gilpin M. Metapopulation dynamics: Brief history and conceptual domain. Biol J Linn Soc. 1991;42:3–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Holyoak M, Leibold MA, Holt RD. Metacommunities: spatial dynamics and ecological communities. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press; 2005.Google Scholar
  12. Hubbell SP. The unified neutral theory of biodiversity and biogeography. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2001.Google Scholar
  13. Hubbell SP. Neutral theory in community ecology and the hypothesis of functional equivalence. Funct Ecol. 2005;19:166–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Leibold MA, Holyoak M, Mouquet N, et al. The metacommunity concept: a framework for multi-scale community ecology. Ecol Lett. 2004;7:601–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Logue JB, Mouquet N, Peter H, Hillebrand H, The Metacommunity Working Group. Empirical approaches to metacommunities: a review and comparison with theory. Trends Ecol Evol. 2011;26:482–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Middleton BA. Flood pulsing in the regeneration and maintenance of species in riverine forested wetlands of the Southeastern United States. In: Middleton BA, editor. Flood pulsing in wetlands: restoring the hydrological balance. New York: Wiley; 2002. p. 223–94.Google Scholar
  17. Morgan Ernest SK, Brown JH, Thibault KM, White EP, Goheen JR. Zero sum, the niche, and metacommunities: long-term dynamics of community assembly. Am Nat. 2008;172:E257–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mouquet N, Loreau M. Community patterns in source-sink metacommunities. Am Nat. 2003;162:544–57.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Muneepeerakul R, Bertuzzo E, Rinaldo A, Rodriguez-Iturbe I. Patterns of vegetation biodiversity: the roles of dispersal directionality and river network structure. J Theor Biol. 2008;252:221–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Naiman RJ, Décamps H, Pollock M. The role of riparian corridors in maintaining regional biodiversity. Ecol Appl. 1993;3:209–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Naiman RJ, Décamps H, McClain ME. Riparia: ecology, conservation and management of streamside communities. San Diego: Elsevier; 2005.Google Scholar
  22. Pillai P, Gonzalez A, Loreau M. Metacommunity theory explains the emergence of food web complexity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2011;108:19293–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. Swan CM, Brown BL. Advancing theory of community assembly in spatially structured environments: local vs regional processes in river networks. J N Am Benthol Soc. 2011;30:232–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Urban MC, Skelly DK. Evolving metacommunities: toward an evolutionary perspective on metacommunities. Ecology. 2006;87:1616–26.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Wilson DS. Complex interactions in metacommunities, with implications for biodiversity and higher levels of selection. Ecology. 1992;73:1984–2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BiologyClayton State UniversityMorrowUSA

Personalised recommendations