4.7 Article

Species size and distribution jointly and differentially determine diatom densities in US streams

期刊

ECOLOGY
卷 89, 期 2, 页码 475-484

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1890/07-0405.1

关键词

abundance-distribution; allometric scaling laws; density-body size; diatoms; macroecology; NAWQA

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Among the most studied relationships in ecology are those of population density with (1) body size and (2) species distribution. The first relationship, in conjunction with metabolic rate, determines the energy flows through species communities, whereas the second relationship shows how local communities are influenced by the species history of dispersal and establishment. Traditionally, these two relationships have been examined separately. Here, I explored how diatom density was affected by cell size (biovolume) and species distribution in benthic and planktonic stream habitats all the way from individual localities and hydrologic systems (regions) to the entire United States. At all scales, density was predominantly a negative function of biovolume and a positive function of distribution. Biovolume was more strongly related to density in the benthos than in the phytoplankton. Partial regressions revealed that biovolume, by itself, explained a substantially higher percentage of the variance in density at local than at regional and continental scales. Conversely, species distribution was a much more important descriptor of density at larger scales and a slightly better predictor than biovolume at local scales. At large scales density was explained primarily by distribution and, to a lesser extent and only in the benthos, by the covariance of distribution and biovolume, whereas biovolume was a marginal predictor in all habitats. This discovery suggests that the strong relationships between density and body size, reported for populations ranging from unicellular algae to mammals, may be less direct than previously thought but mediated by large-scale species distributions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据