4.8 Article

When should species richness be energy limited, and how would we know?

Journal

ECOLOGY LETTERS
Volume 17, Issue 4, Pages 401-413

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ele.12240

Keywords

niche conservatism; latitudinal gradient; zero sum; Diversification; species-energy theory; simulation; phylogenetic structure; evolution; species richness

Categories

Funding

  1. Linus Pauling Distinguished Postdoctoral Fellowship at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
  2. DOE by Battelle [AC06-76RLO 1830]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Energetic constraints are fundamental to ecology and evolution, and empirical relationships between species richness and estimates of available energy (i.e. resources) have led some to suggest that richness is energetically constrained. However, the mechanism linking energy with richness is rarely specified and predictions of secondary patterns consistent with energy-constrained richness are lacking. Here, we lay out the necessary and sufficient assumptions of a causal relationship linking energy gradients to richness gradients. We then describe an eco-evolutionary simulation model that combines spatially explicit diversification with trait evolution, resource availability and assemblage-level carrying capacities. Our model identified patterns in richness and phylogenetic structure expected when a spatial gradient in energy availability determines the number of individuals supported in a given area. A comparison to patterns under alternative scenarios, in which fundamental assumptions behind energetic explanations were violated, revealed patterns that are useful for evaluating the importance of energetic constraints in empirical systems. We use a data set on rockfish (genus Sebastes) from the northeastern Pacific to show how empirical data can be coupled with model predictions to evaluate the role of energetic constraints in generating observed richness gradients.

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