scholarly journals Disentangling effects of abiotic factors and biotic interactions on cross-taxon congruence in species turnover patterns of plants, moths and beetles

2016 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Meichun Duan ◽  
Yunhui Liu ◽  
Zhenrong Yu ◽  
Jacques Baudry ◽  
Liangtao Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Species Turnover ◽  
Abiotic Factors ◽  
Biotic Interactions

scholarly journals Biotic interactions are the dominant drivers of phylogenetic and functional structure in bird communities along a tropical elevational gradient

The Auk ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 136 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Andy J Boyce ◽  
Subir Shakya ◽  
Frederick H Sheldon ◽  
Robert G Moyle ◽  
Thomas E Martin
Keyword(s):  
Community Structure ◽  
Interspecific Competition ◽  
Species Turnover ◽  
Abiotic Factors ◽  
Biotic Interactions ◽  
Relative Strength ◽  
Resource Acquisition ◽  
Similar Species ◽  
Cold Temperatures ◽  
Tropical Mountains

Abstract Understanding how biotic and abiotic interactions influence community assembly and composition is a fundamental goal in community ecology. Addressing this issue is particularly tractable along elevational gradients in tropical mountains that feature substantial abiotic gradients and rates of species turnover. We examined elevational patterns of avian community structure on 2 mountains in Malaysian Borneo to assess changes in the relative strength of biotic interactions and abiotic constraints. In particular, we used metrics based on (1) phylogenetic relatedness and (2) functional traits associated with both resource acquisition and tolerance of abiotic challenges to identify patterns and causes of elevational differences in community structure. High elevation communities were composed of more phylogenetically and functionally similar species than would be expected by chance. Resource acquisition traits, in particular, were clustered at high elevations, suggesting low resource and habitat diversity were important drivers of those communities. Traits typically associated with tolerance of cold temperatures and low atmospheric pressure showed no elevational patterns. All traits were neutral or overdispersed at low elevations suggesting an absence of strong abiotic filters or an increased influence of interspecific competition. However, relative bill size, which is important for thermoregulation, was larger in low elevation communities, suggesting abiotic factors were also influential there. Regardless of metric, clustered and neutral communities were more frequent than overdispersed communities overall, implying that interspecific competition among close relatives may not be a pervasive driver of elevational distribution and community structure of tropical birds. Overall, our analyses reveal that a diverse set of predominantly biotic factors underlie elevational variation in community structure on tropical mountains.

scholarly journals Identifying appropriate sampling and modelling approaches for analysing distributional patterns of Antarctic terrestrial arthropods along the Victoria Land latitudinal gradient

2010 ◽  
Vol 22 (6) ◽  
pp. 742-748 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tancredi Caruso ◽  
Ian D. Hogg ◽  
Roberto Bargagli
Keyword(s):  
Abiotic Factors ◽  
Relevant Literature ◽  
Biotic Interactions ◽  
Terrestrial Ecosystems ◽  
Climatic Conditions ◽  
Trophic Levels ◽  
Terrestrial Arthropods ◽  
Victoria Land ◽  
Dispersal Capability ◽  
Modelling Techniques

AbstractBiotic communities in Antarctic terrestrial ecosystems are relatively simple and often lack higher trophic levels (e.g. predators); thus, it is often assumed that species’ distributions are mainly affected by abiotic factors such as climatic conditions, which change with increasing latitude, altitude and/or distance from the coast. However, it is becoming increasingly apparent that factors other than geographical gradients affect the distribution of organisms with low dispersal capability such as the terrestrial arthropods. In Victoria Land (East Antarctica) the distribution of springtail (Collembola) and mite (Acari) species vary at scales that range from a few square centimetres to regional and continental. Different species show different scales of variation that relate to factors such as local geological and glaciological history, and biotic interactions, but only weakly with latitudinal/altitudinal gradients. Here, we review the relevant literature and outline more appropriate sampling designs as well as suitable modelling techniques (e.g. linear mixed models and eigenvector mapping), that will more adequately address and identify the range of factors responsible for the distribution of terrestrial arthropods in Antarctica.

Environmental–biomechanical reciprocity and the evolution of plant material properties

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karl J Niklas ◽  
Frank W Telewski
Keyword(s):  
Physical Environment ◽  
Structural Changes ◽  
Abiotic Factors ◽  
Biotic Interactions ◽  
Cellular Solids ◽  
Form And Function ◽  
Evolutionary Innovation ◽  
Plant Form ◽  
And Function ◽  
Abiotic Environmental Factors

Abstract Abiotic–biotic interactions have shaped organic evolution since life first began. Abiotic factors influence growth, survival, and reproductive success, whereas biotic responses to abiotic factors have changed the physical environment (and indeed created new environments). This reciprocity is well illustrated by land plants who begin and end their existence in the same location while growing in size over the course of years or even millennia, during which environment factors change over many orders of magnitude. A biomechanical, ecological, and evolutionary perspective reveals that plants are (i) composed of materials (cells and tissues) that function as cellular solids (i.e. materials composed of one or more solid and fluid phases); (ii) that have evolved greater rigidity (as a consequence of chemical and structural changes in their solid phases); (iii) allowing for increases in body size and (iv) permitting acclimation to more physiologically and ecologically diverse and challenging habitats; which (v) have profoundly altered biotic as well as abiotic environmental factors (e.g. the creation of soils, carbon sequestration, and water cycles). A critical component of this evolutionary innovation is the extent to which mechanical perturbations have shaped plant form and function and how form and function have shaped ecological dynamics over the course of evolution.

scholarly journals Effects of Abiotic Factors on HIPV-Mediated Interactions between Plants and Parasitoids

2015 ◽  
Vol 2015 ◽  
pp. 1-18 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christine Becker ◽  
Nicolas Desneux ◽  
Lucie Monticelli ◽  
Xavier Fernandez ◽  
Thomas Michel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Plant Volatiles ◽  
Global Climate ◽  
Abiotic Factors ◽  
Biotic Interactions ◽  
Green Leaf Volatiles ◽  
Limited Attention ◽  
Emission Rates ◽  
Leaf Volatiles ◽  
Parasitic Hymenoptera ◽  
Growing Conditions

In contrast to constitutively emitted plant volatiles (PV), herbivore-induced plant volatiles (HIPV) are specifically emitted by plants when afflicted with herbivores. HIPV can be perceived by parasitoids and predators which parasitize or prey on the respective herbivores, including parasitic hymenoptera. HIPV act as signals and facilitate host/prey detection. They comprise a blend of compounds: main constituents are terpenoids and “green leaf volatiles.” Constitutive emission of PV is well known to be influenced by abiotic factors like temperature, light intensity, water, and nutrient availability. HIPV share biosynthetic pathways with constitutively emitted PV and might therefore likewise be affected by abiotic conditions. However, the effects of abiotic factors on HIPV-mediated biotic interactions have received only limited attention to date. HIPV being influenced by the plant’s growing conditions could have major implications for pest management. Quantitative and qualitative changes in HIPV blends may improve or impair biocontrol. Enhanced emission of HIPV may attract a larger number of natural enemies. Reduced emission rates or altered compositions, however, may render blends imperceptible to parasitoides and predators. Predicting the outcome of these changes is highly important for food production and for ecosystems affected by global climate change.

Effects of Environmental Stress on Primate Populations

2018 ◽  
Vol 47 (1) ◽  
pp. 417-434 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason M. Kamilar ◽  
Lydia Beaudrot
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Stress ◽  
Life History Traits ◽  
Abiotic Factors ◽  
Scale Up ◽  
Biotic Interactions ◽  
Camera Traps ◽  
Ranging Behavior ◽  
Temperature And Precipitation ◽  
Macro Scale ◽  
Physiological Demands

Environmental stress on primate populations can take many forms. Abiotic factors, such as temperature and precipitation, may directly influence the behavior of primates owing to physiological demands of thermoregulation or through indirect influences on vegetation that primates rely on for food. These effects can also scale up to the macro scale, impacting primate distributions and evolution. Primates also encounter stress during interactions within and between species (i.e., biotic interactions). For example, selective pressure from male-perpetrated infanticide can drive the development of female counterstrategies and can impact life-history traits. Predation on primates can modify group size, ranging behavior, and habitat use. Finally, humans have influenced primate populations for millennia. More recently, hunting, habitat disturbance, disease, and climate change have increased in frequency and severity with detrimental impacts on primate populations worldwide. These effects and recent evidence from camera traps emphasize the importance of maintaining protected areas for conserving primate populations.

scholarly journals Environmental factors influencing fine-scale distribution of Antarctica’s only endemic insect

Oecologia ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 194 (4) ◽  
pp. 529-539
Author(s):  
Leslie J. Potts ◽  
J. D. Gantz ◽  
Yuta Kawarasaki ◽  
Benjamin N. Philip ◽  
David J. Gonthier ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Antarctic Peninsula ◽  
Spatial Scales ◽  
Abiotic Factors ◽  
Ecological Factors ◽  
Biotic Interactions ◽  
Species Distributions ◽  
Biotic Factors ◽  
Belgica Antarctica ◽  
Abiotic And Biotic Factors ◽  
The Antarctic

AbstractSpecies distributions are dependent on interactions with abiotic and biotic factors in the environment. Abiotic factors like temperature, moisture, and soil nutrients, along with biotic interactions within and between species, can all have strong influences on spatial distributions of plants and animals. Terrestrial Antarctic habitats are relatively simple and thus good systems to study ecological factors that drive species distributions and abundance. However, these environments are also sensitive to perturbation, and thus understanding the ecological drivers of species distribution is critical for predicting responses to environmental change. The Antarctic midge, Belgica antarctica, is the only endemic insect on the continent and has a patchy distribution along the Antarctic Peninsula. While its life history and physiology are well studied, factors that underlie variation in population density within its range are unknown. Previous work on Antarctic microfauna indicates that distribution over broad scales is primarily regulated by soil moisture, nitrogen content, and the presence of suitable plant life, but whether these patterns are true over smaller spatial scales has not been investigated. Here we sampled midges across five islands on the Antarctic Peninsula and tested a series of hypotheses to determine the relative influences of abiotic and biotic factors on midge abundance. While historical literature suggests that Antarctic organisms are limited by the abiotic environment, our best-supported hypothesis indicated that abundance is predicted by a combination of abiotic and biotic conditions. Our results are consistent with a growing body of literature that biotic interactions are more important in Antarctic ecosystems than historically appreciated.

The direct and indirect effects of temperature on a predator–prey relationship

2001 ◽  
Vol 79 (10) ◽  
pp. 1834-1841 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael T Anderson ◽  
Joseph M Kiesecker ◽  
Douglas P Chivers ◽  
Andrew R Blaustein
Keyword(s):  
Indirect Effects ◽  
Prey Capture ◽  
Prey Size ◽  
Abiotic Factors ◽  
Biotic Interactions ◽  
Predator Prey ◽  
Prey Mass ◽  
Effects Of Temperature ◽  
Logistic Regression Equation ◽  
Probability Of Capture

Abiotic factors may directly influence community structure by influencing biotic interactions. In aquatic systems, where gape-limited predators are common, abiotic factors that influence organisms' growth rates potentially mediate predator–prey interactions indirectly through effects on prey size. We tested the hypothesis that temperature influences interactions between aquatic size-limited insect predators (Notonecta kirbyi) and their larval anuran prey (Hyla regilla) beyond its indirect effect on prey size. Notonecta kirbyi and H. regilla were raised and tested in predator–prey trials at one of three experimentally maintained temperatures, 9.9, 20.7, or 25.7°C. Temperature strongly influenced anuran growth and predator success; mean tadpole mass over time was positively related to temperature, while the number of prey caught was negatively related. At higher temperatures tadpoles attained greater mass more quickly, allowing them to avoid capture by notonectids. However, the probability of capture is a function of both mass and temperature; temperature was a significant explanatory variable in a logistic regression equation predicting prey capture. For a given prey mass, tadpoles raised in warmer water experienced a higher probability of capture by notonectids. Thus, rather than being static, prey size refugia are influenced directly by abiotic factors, in this case temperature. This suggests that temperature exerts differential effects on notonectid and larval anurans, leading to differences in the probability of prey capture for a given prey mass. Therefore, temperature can influence predator–prey interactions via indirect effects on prey size and direct effects on prey.

Dietary Variation in a Freshwater Fish Species: Relative Contributions of Biotic Interactions, Abiotic Factors, and Spatial Structure

1994 ◽  
Vol 51 (12) ◽  
pp. 2856-2865 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pierre Magnan ◽  
Marco A. Rodríguez ◽  
Pierre Legendre ◽  
Sylvain Lacasse
Keyword(s):  
Spatial Structure ◽  
Freshwater Fish ◽  
Fish Species ◽  
Environmental Variables ◽  
Brook Trout ◽  
Diet Composition ◽  
Abiotic Factors ◽  
Biotic Interactions ◽  
Relative Contribution ◽  
Dietary Variation

We used multivariate analyses to examine which variables among the environmental and spatial components can best account for dietary variation in a freshwater fish, brook trout, Salvelinus fontinalis. The diet composition of brook trout was quantified in 37 lakes of the Laurentian Shield, Québec, Canada. Among the 25 measured environmental variables, fish species composition, sampling date, macrophyte abundance, and trout body length were the best predictors of diet composition. The total variation in diet composition was partitioned into four components: pure environmental 21.6%, pure spatial 23.2%, shared 19.9%, and unexplained 35.3%. A significant spatial trend in diet composition existed even after accounting for the main effects measured by the environmental variables. The two sets of spatial variables, when combined with the environmental descriptors, extracted different components of the dietary variation. The study allowed us to (1) highlight the role of spatial structure in diet variation of brook trout, (2) determine the relative contribution of both environmental and spatial components, and (3) generate testable hypotheses concerning mechanisms underlying the observed structure. Dependent variables other than diet composition, such as the density of different species at different sampling sites, can be used within the same statistical framework in studies of community ecology.

scholarly journals Biotic interactions are more important at species’ warm vs. cool range-edges: a synthesis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexandra Paquette ◽  
Anna L. Hargreaves
Keyword(s):  
Abiotic Factors ◽  
Empirical Support ◽  
Ecological Factors ◽  
Biotic Interactions ◽  
High Elevation ◽  
Range Limits ◽  
Low Latitude ◽  
Comprehensive Literature Review ◽  
Mixed Support ◽  
Species Being

ABSTRACTPredicting which ecological factors constrain species distributions is a fundamental question in ecology and critical to forecasting geographic responses to global change. Darwin hypothesized that abiotic factors generally impose species’ high-latitude and high-elevation (typically cool) range limits, whereas biotic interactions more often impose species’ low-latitude/low-elevation (typically warm) limits, but empirical support has been mixed. Here, we clarify three predictions arising from Darwin’s hypothesis, and show that previously mixed support is partially due to researchers testing different predictions. Using a comprehensive literature review (886 range limits), we find that biotic interactions, including competition, predation, and parasitism, influenced species’ warm limits more often than species’ cool limits. At cool limits, abiotic factors were consistently more important than biotic interactions, but temperature contributed strongly to cool and warm limits. Our results suggest that most range limits will be sensitive to climate warming, but warm limit responses will depend strongly on biotic interactions. “When we travel southward and see a species decreasing in numbers, we may feel sure that the cause lies quite as much in other species being favored, as in this one being hurt. (Whereas)… the number of species, and therefore of competitors, deceases northwards; hence in going northward or in ascending a mountain, we far oftener meet with stunted forms, due to the directly injurious action of climate” –Darwin 1859

scholarly journals Antagonistic effects of intraspecific cooperation and interspecific competition on thermal performance

eLife ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hsiang-Yu Tsai ◽  
Dustin R Rubenstein ◽  
Bo-Fei Chen ◽  
Mark Liu ◽  
Shih-Fan Chan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Thermal Performance ◽  
Abiotic Factors ◽  
Biotic Interactions ◽  
Niche Width ◽  
Burying Beetle ◽  
Thermal Niche ◽  
Thermal Performance Curve ◽  
Performance Curves ◽  
Species Specific ◽  
The Relationship

Understanding how climate-mediated biotic interactions shape thermal niche width is critical in an era of global change. Yet, most previous work on thermal niches has ignored detailed mechanistic information about the relationship between temperature and organismal performance, which can be described by a thermal performance curve. Here, we develop a model that predicts the width of thermal performance curves will be narrower in the presence of interspecific competitors, causing a species’ optimal breeding temperature to diverge from that of its competitor. We test this prediction in the Asian burying beetle Nicrophorus nepalensis, confirming that the divergence in actual and optimal breeding temperatures is the result of competition with their primary competitor, blowflies. However, we further show that intraspecific cooperation enables beetles to outcompete blowflies by recovering their optimal breeding temperature. Ultimately, linking abiotic factors and biotic interactions on niche width will be critical for understanding species-specific responses to climate change.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document