Asset Details
MbrlCatalogueTitleDetail
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Checkerboard metacommunity structure
by
Willig, Michael R.
, Mello, José Henrique Fortes
, Presley, Steven J.
in
biodiversity
/ biogeography
/ Biological competition
/ Biomedical and Life Sciences
/ Coherence
/ community structure
/ Competition
/ Concepts
/ CONCEPTS, REVIEWS AND SYNTHESES
/ Detection
/ Ecology
/ Herbivores
/ Hydrology/Water Resources
/ Interactions
/ Interspecific relationships
/ Life Sciences
/ Plant Sciences
/ Rare species
/ Reviews and Syntheses
2019
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.
You are currently in the queue to collect this book. You will be notified once it is your turn to collect the book.
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?
Checkerboard metacommunity structure
by
Willig, Michael R.
, Mello, José Henrique Fortes
, Presley, Steven J.
in
biodiversity
/ biogeography
/ Biological competition
/ Biomedical and Life Sciences
/ Coherence
/ community structure
/ Competition
/ Concepts
/ CONCEPTS, REVIEWS AND SYNTHESES
/ Detection
/ Ecology
/ Herbivores
/ Hydrology/Water Resources
/ Interactions
/ Interspecific relationships
/ Life Sciences
/ Plant Sciences
/ Rare species
/ Reviews and Syntheses
2019
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to remove the title from your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Do you wish to request the book?
Checkerboard metacommunity structure
by
Willig, Michael R.
, Mello, José Henrique Fortes
, Presley, Steven J.
in
biodiversity
/ biogeography
/ Biological competition
/ Biomedical and Life Sciences
/ Coherence
/ community structure
/ Competition
/ Concepts
/ CONCEPTS, REVIEWS AND SYNTHESES
/ Detection
/ Ecology
/ Herbivores
/ Hydrology/Water Resources
/ Interactions
/ Interspecific relationships
/ Life Sciences
/ Plant Sciences
/ Rare species
/ Reviews and Syntheses
2019
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
Checkerboard metacommunity structure
2019
Request Book From Autostore
and Choose the Collection Method
Overview
Checkerboards have emerged as a metaphor to (1) describe mutually exclusive patterns of co-occurrence for ecologically similar species that are geographically interspersed (i.e., checkerboard distributions), and (2) characterize relationships among species distributions along gradients that involve entire metacommunities (i.e., checkerboard metacommunity structure). Critical differences exist in the conceptual foundations that characterize these patterns. Checkerboard distributions are characterized by mutual exclusion of geographically interspersed species, usually pairs of ecologically similar species for which competition prevents syntopy. In contrast, checkerboard metacommunity structures are more restrictive: groups of species must exhibit mutually exclusive distributions, and each of these groups must be spatially independent of all other groups. Consequently, in a checkerboard metacommunity, competition defines one relationship for each species (i.e., that with its mutually exclusive partner), whereas independence characterizes all other interspecific associations. Consequently, a structure designed to be consistent with this concept will conclude that the metacommunity has random rather than checkerboard structure. Indeed, empirical checkerboard metacommunities are quite rare (7 of 766 reported empirical structures), and likely arise because of poor characterization of species ranges due to detection errors (i.e., a preponderance of rare or hard-to-detect species), rather than from underlying ecological mechanisms. Importantly, no ecological mechanism has been identified that is consistent with the concept of negative coherence. Consequently, the evaluation of checkerboards should be restricted to small sets of ecologically similar species for which interspecific interactions may lead to mutual exclusion, and coherence should be used only to evaluate if species distributions are more coherent than expected by chance (i.e., one-tailed tests).
Publisher
Springer Science + Business Media,Springer Berlin Heidelberg,Springer,Springer Nature B.V
Subject
This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website.