Alahuhta, J., Kosten, S., Akasaka, M., Auderset, D., Azzella, M., Bolpagni, R., Bove, C., Chambers, P., Chappuis, E., Clayton, J., de Winton, M., Ecke, F., Gacia, E., Gecheva, G., Grillas, P., Hauxwell, J., Hellsten, S., Hjort, J., Hoyer, M., Ilg, C., Kolada, A., Kuoppala, M., Lauridsen, T., Li, E., Lukács, B., Mjelde, M., Mikulyuk, A., Mormul, R., Nishihiro, J., Oertli, B., Rhazi, L., Rhazi, M., Sass, L., Schranz, C., Søndergaard, M., Yamanouchi, T., Yu, Q., Wang, H., Willby, N., Zhang, X., Heino, J. (2017) Global variation in the beta diversity of lake macrophytes is driven by environmental heterogeneity rather than latitude. , 44 (8), 1758-1769. doi:10.1111/jbi.12978
Global variation in the beta diversity of lake macrophytes is driven by environmental heterogeneity rather than latitude
|Author:||Alahuhta, Janne1; Kosten, Sarian2; Akasaka, Munemitsu3;|
1Geography Research Unit, University of Oulu. P.O. Box 3000, FI‒90014 Oulu, Finland
2Department of Aquatic Ecology and Environmental Biology, Institute for Water and Wetland Research, Radboud University, Heyendaalseweg 135, 6525AJ, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
3Faculty of Agriculture, Tokyo University of Agricultural and Technology, 3 ‒5‒ 8 Saiwaicho, Fuchu, Tokyo 183‒8509, Japan
4nstitut F.‒A. Forel, Environmental Sciences, University of Geneva, Bd Carl Vogt 66, CH‒1205 Geneva, Switzerland
5Department of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Cagliari, Viale S. Ignazio da Laconi 11 1113, 09123 Cagliari, Italy
6Department of Chemistry, Life Sciences and Environmental Sustainability, University of Parma, Parco Area delle Scienze 11/A, 43124 Parma, Italy
7Departamento de Botânica, Museu Nacional, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Quinta da Boa Vista, 20940 040 Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil
8Environment and Climate Change Canada, 867 Lakeshore Rd, Burlington, ON, L7S 1A1 Canada
9Centre d'Estudis Avançats de Blanes (CEAB), Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC), C/ Accés a la Cala St. Francesc 14, 17300 Blanes, Spain
10National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Limited, PO Box 11115, Hamilton, New Zealand
11Department of Aquatic Sciences and Assessment, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), PO Box 7050, SE 750 07 Uppsala, Sweden
12Department of Wildlife, Fish, and Environmental Studies, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), SE 901 83 Umeå, Sweden
13Faculty of Biology, University of Plovdiv, Plovdiv, 4000 Bulgaria
14Tour du Valat, Research Institute for the conservation of Mediterranean wetlands, Le Sambuc, 13200 Arles, France
15Center for Limnology, University of Wisconsin, 680 N Park St., Madison, WI, 53704 USA
16Finnish Environment Institute, Freshwater Centre, PO Box 413, FI 90014 Oulu, Finland
17Geography Research Unit, University of Oulu, PO Box 3000 FI 90014 Oulu, Finland
18Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, School of Forest Resources and Conservation, Institute of Food and Agricultural Services, University of Florida, 7922 NW 71st Street, Gainesville, FL, 32609 USA
19Hepia, University of Applied Sciences and Arts Western Switzerland, 150 route de Presinge, CH, 1254 Jussy/Genève, Switzerland
20Department of Freshwater Assessment Methods and Monitoring, Institute of Environmental Protection‒National Research Institute, Warsaw, Poland
21Department of Bioscience, Aarhus University, Vejsøvej 25, 8600 Silkeborg, Denmark
22Key Laboratory for Environment and Disaster Monitoring and Evaluation of Hubei Province, Institute of Geodesy and Geophysics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Wuhan, 430077 China
23Department of Tisza River Research, MTA Centre for Ecological Research, Bem tér 18/C, H 4026 Debrecen, Hungary
24Norwegian Institute for Water Research (NIVA), Gaustadalléen 21, 0349 Oslo, Norway
25Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 2801 Progress Rd., Madison, WI, 53716 USA
26Department of Biology, Research Group in Limnology, Ichthyology and Aquaculture—Nupélia, State University of Maringá, Av. Colombo 5790, Bloco H90, CEP‒87020‒900 Mringá, PR, Brazil
27Faculty of Sciences, Toho University, 2‒2‒1 Miyama, Funabashi, Chiba, 274‒8510 Japan
28Laboratory of Botany, Mycology and Environment, Faculty of Sciences, Mohammed V University in Rabat, 4 avenue Ibn Battouta B.P. 1014 RP, Rabat, Morocco
29Department of Biology, Faculty of Science and Technology, Moulay Ismail University, PB 509 Boutalamine, Errachidia, Morocco
30Illinois Natural History Survey, Prairie Research Institute, University of Illinois, 1816 South Oak Street, Champaign, IL, 61820 USA
31Bavarian Environment Agency, Demollstraße 31, 82407 Wielenbach, Germany
32State Key Laboratory of Freshwater Ecology and Biotechnology, Institute of Hydrobiology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Wuhan, 430072 China
33University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100049 China
34Biological and Environmental Science, University of Stirling, Stirling, FK9 4LA UK
35School of Life Sciences, Anqing Normal University, Anqing, 246011 China
36Finnish Environment Institute, Natural Environment Centre, Biodiversity, PO Box 413, FI 90014 Oulu, Finland
|Online Access:||PDF Full Text (PDF, 0.3 MB)|
|Persistent link:|| http://urn.fi/urn:nbn:fi-fe2019060719449
John Wiley & Sons,
|Publish Date:|| 2019-06-07
Aim: We studied global variation in beta diversity patterns of lake macrophytes using regional data from across the world. Specifically, we examined (1) how beta diversity of aquatic macrophytes is partitioned between species turnover and nestedness within each study region, and (2) which environmental characteristics structure variation in these beta diversity components.
Methods: We used presence–absence data for aquatic macrophytes from 21 regions distributed around the world. We calculated pairwise‐site and multiple‐site beta diversity among lakes within each region using Sørensen dissimilarity index and partitioned it into turnover and nestedness coefficients. Beta regression was used to correlate the diversity coefficients with regional environmental characteristics.
Results: Aquatic macrophytes showed different levels of beta diversity within each of the 21 study regions, with species turnover typically accounting for the majority of beta diversity, especially in high‐diversity regions. However, nestedness contributed 30–50% of total variation in macrophyte beta diversity in low‐diversity regions. The most important environmental factor explaining the three beta diversity coefficients (total, species turnover and nestedness) was elevation range, followed by relative areal extent of freshwater, latitude and water alkalinity range.
Main conclusions: Our findings show that global patterns in beta diversity of lake macrophytes are caused by species turnover rather than by nestedness. These patterns in beta diversity were driven by natural environmental heterogeneity, notably variability in elevation range (also related to temperature variation) among regions. In addition, a greater range in alkalinity within a region, likely amplified by human activities, was also correlated with increased macrophyte beta diversity. These findings suggest that efforts to conserve aquatic macrophyte diversity should primarily focus on regions with large numbers of lakes that exhibit broad environmental gradients.
Journal of biogeography
|Pages:||1758 - 1769|
|Type of Publication:||
A1 Journal article – refereed
|Field of Science:||
1172 Environmental sciences
1181 Ecology, evolutionary biology
The gathering of the Finnish data was partly supported by Biological Monitoring of Finnish Freshwaters under diffuse loading ‐project (XPR3304) financed by Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and partly by national surveillance monitoring programs of lakes. S.H. and M.M. were supported by the EU‐funded MARS‐project (7th EU Framework Programme, Contract No.: 603378). SALGA‐team, especially Gissell Lacerot, Nestor Mazzeo, Vera Huszar, David da Motta Marques and Erik Jeppesen for organizing and executing the SALGA field sampling campaign and Bruno Irgang† and Eduardo Alonso Paz for help with identification. Swedish macrophyte data were collected within the Swedish Monitoring Program of macrophytes in lakes funded by the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management. S.K. was supported by NWO Veni grant 86312012. Macrophyte data from Brazilian Amazon were collected within a limnological monitoring program funded by Vale S.A. The vast majority of macrophyte data from Polish lakes were collected within the State Environmental Monitoring Programme and were provided by the Inspection for Environmental Protection. Macrophyte data for British lakes were collated by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee from surveys resourced by the national conservation agencies. Swiss macrophytes data were collected during a study financially supported by the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment. Wisconsin data collection was funded by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and supported by the Wisconsin Cooperative Fishery Research Unit. The Norwegian macrophyte data were collected within the European Union project ‘LAKES – Long distance dispersal of Aquatic Key Species’, contract no. env4‐ct‐97‐0585.
© 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Alahuhta, J., Kosten, S., Akasaka, M., Auderset, D., Azzella, M., Bolpagni, R., Bove, C., Chambers, P., Chappuis, E., Clayton, J., de Winton, M., Ecke, F., Gacia, E., Gecheva, G., Grillas, P., Hauxwell, J., Hellsten, S., Hjort, J., Hoyer, M., Ilg, C., Kolada, A., Kuoppala, M., Lauridsen, T., Li, E., Lukács, B., Mjelde, M., Mikulyuk, A., Mormul, R., Nishihiro, J., Oertli, B., Rhazi, L., Rhazi, M., Sass, L., Schranz, C., Søndergaard, M., Yamanouchi, T., Yu, Q., Wang, H., Willby, N., Zhang, X., Heino, J. (2017) Global variation in the beta diversity of lake macrophytes is driven by environmental heterogeneity rather than latitude. , 44 (8), 1758-1769. doi:10.1111/jbi.12978.
This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Self-Archiving.