4.4 Article

Dispersal Limitation and Environmental Structure Interact to Restrict the Occupation of Optimal Habitat

期刊

AMERICAN NATURALIST
卷 175, 期 6, 页码 675-686

出版社

UNIV CHICAGO PRESS
DOI: 10.1086/652467

关键词

dispersal limitation; environmental specialization; niche theory; neutral theory; species distribution; plant rarity

资金

  1. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
  2. World Wildlife Fund Canada
  3. Mountain Equipment Co-op
  4. Nature Conservancy of Canada

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Whether plant distributions are governed more by neutral-based distance effects or niche-based environmental responses remains elusive. A lack of habitat matching, where species distributions do not correspond to environmental variability, suggests neutrality but can also be explained by niche models through the interactions of dispersal limitation, spatial autocorrelation of the environment, species interactions, and spatial scale. We untangle these effects in a field study with multiscale statistical analyses. We demonstrate that despite significant niche-based environmental responses by a savanna plant, we still see weak habitat matching, with the mechanisms responsible differing by spatial scale. At the coarse scale (100-200 m), dispersal limitation restricted the occupation of optimal habitat. At the fine scale (<30 m), dispersal was not limiting, but a lack of autocorrelation of environmental variables prevented the aggregation of reproductively active plants in optimal microsites. Species associations were largely unimportant at all scales. Extending our analysis to the entire community revealed similar scale-dependent limitations of distance and the environment, indicating weak habitat matching for all species. This work supports predictions that environmental specializations do not necessarily produce deterministic distributions in plant communities. It also provides a mechanistic explanation for why co-occurring plant species can have largely undifferentiated 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

4.4
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