Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Spatial extent, regional specificity and metacommunity structuring in lake macrophytes
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Spatial extent, regional specificity and metacommunity structuring in lake macrophytes
Do you wish to request the book?
Spatial extent, regional specificity and metacommunity structuring in lake macrophytes
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Spatial extent, regional specificity and metacommunity structuring in lake macrophytes
2013
Overview
Aim: Spatial extent is inherently related to the potential roles of the main mechanisms structuring metacommunities. We examined the effects of varying spatial extent (ecological province, region and subregion) on the environmental and spatial components of variation in lake macrophyte communities. We also studied these effects separately for three macrophyte functional groups. Location: The US state of Minnesota. Methods: We examined average and heterogeneity differences in macrophyte community composition and environmental variation among the subregions of Minnesota using canonical analysis of principal coordinates (CAP) and homogeneity of multivariate dispersion (PERMDISP), respectively. We further used partial redundancy analysis (pRDA) to decompose variation in macrophyte community composition between environmental variables and spatial location at each spatial extent and geographical region. Spatial variables were derived using principal coordinates of neighbour matrices (PCNM) analysis. Results: CAP and PERMDISP analyses showed that the subregions differed both in average community composition and in the heterogeneity of community composition for all macrophyte taxa, for emergent and submerged macrophytes, but not for non-rooted macrophytes. We did not, however, find significant differences in overall environmental heterogeneity among the subregions. Variation partitioning using pRDAs showed that species sorting is more important than spatial processes for macrophytes, although these patterns were relatively weak. There was, however, much regional specificity, with the environmental and spatial fractions of community composition varying widely at different spatial extents, among different geographical regions and among functional groups. Contrary to our initial expectations, we did not find increasing spatial structuring and decreasing environmental control with increasing spatial extent. Main conclusions: Our findings indicate that, in macrophyte metacommunities, the relative contribution of spatial processes and environmental control varies rather unpredictably with spatial extent and geographical region. Our findings are thus of importance in advancing metacommunity ecology by showing that drawing wide-ranging conclusions based on a single spatial extent or a single geographical region may be unwise.
Publisher
Blackwell Publishing Ltd,Blackwell Publishing,Blackwell,Wiley Subscription Services, Inc
