4.8 Article

Ambient and substrate energy influence decomposer diversity differentially across trophic levels

Journal

ECOLOGY LETTERS
Volume 26, Issue 7, Pages 1157-1173

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ele.14227

Keywords

biodiversity; coleoptera; deadwood; Europe; saproxylic; species-energy hypothesis; trophic guild

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study analyzed data from 332,557 deadwood-inhabiting beetles of 901 species reared from wood of 49 tree species across Europe. The results showed that the relative importance of ambient energy and substrate energy changes with increasing trophic levels. Zoophagous and mycetophagous beetles are determined by ambient energy, while xylophagous beetles are determined by non-structural carbohydrate content.
The species-energy hypothesis predicts increasing biodiversity with increasing energy in ecosystems. Proxies for energy availability are often grouped into ambient energy (i.e., solar radiation) and substrate energy (i.e., non-structural carbohydrates or nutritional content). The relative importance of substrate energy is thought to decrease with increasing trophic level from primary consumers to predators, with reciprocal effects of ambient energy. Yet, empirical tests are lacking. We compiled data on 332,557 deadwood-inhabiting beetles of 901 species reared from wood of 49 tree species across Europe. Using host-phylogeny-controlled models, we show that the relative importance of substrate energy versus ambient energy decreases with increasing trophic levels: the diversity of zoophagous and mycetophagous beetles was determined by ambient energy, while non-structural carbohydrate content in woody tissues determined that of xylophagous beetles. Our study thus overall supports the species-energy hypothesis and specifies that the relative importance of ambient temperature increases with increasing trophic level with opposite effects for substrate energy.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available