Gillard, MB, Aroviita, J, Alahuhta, J. Same species, same habitat preferences? The distribution of aquatic plants is not explained by the same predictors in lakes and streams. Freshwater Biology. 2020; 65: 878– 892. https://doi.org/10.1111/fwb.13470
Same species, same habitat preferences? : the distribution of aquatic plants is not explained by the same predictors in lakes and streams
|Author:||Gillard, Morgane B.1; Aroviita, Jukka2; Alahuhta, Janne2,3|
1USDA-ARS Invasive Species and Pollinator Health Research Unit, Department of Plant Sciences, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA
2Finnish Environment Institute, Freshwater Centre, Oulu, Finland
3Geography Research Unit, University of Oulu, PO Box 3000, FI-90014 University of Oulu, Finland
|Online Access:||PDF Full Text (PDF, 3.1 MB)|
|Persistent link:|| http://urn.fi/urn:nbn:fi-fe20201216101021
John Wiley & Sons,
|Publish Date:|| 2021-01-02
1. Studying the geographical distribution of species can reveal conditions and processes that may drive species presence and abundance. Organism distribution has frequently been explained by climate, but the relative role of local environmental predictors is not fully understood. Moreover, in the freshwater realm, intrinsic differences existing between different categories of water bodies can lead to significant differences in species–environment relationships. Here, we tested the relative importance of broad‐scale climate and local environmental predictors in explaining plant species distributions in freshwater lakes and streams.
2. We built species distribution models to investigate which predictors best explain aquatic plant distribution in two categories of water bodies. We used species inventories and records of three climate and eight local environmental predictors for 150 lakes and 150 streams in Finland.
3. We found that sets of predictors that explain the distribution of macrophyte species are unique depending on if species are in a lake or a stream. Overall, air temperature and ecosystem size were essential to predict aquatic plant species presence in both water body categories. Broad‐scale climate predictors were always very important in explaining species distribution, while local environmental conditions such as water chemistry were of variable influence, depending on species and water body category.
4. These results are probably due to high spatial and temporal variability and range of water physico‐chemical parameters, especially in streams. Nonetheless, despite a lower relative importance than climatic factors, local environmental predictors also strongly affected species distributions.
5. Our findings highlight that incorporating local environmental conditions to species distribution models in addition to climate predictors is necessary to improve predictions, particularly for distribution of stream flora. Considering the species‐specific responses of aquatic plants to their environment, studying species individually with species distribution models represents a useful analysis.
|Pages:||878 - 892|
|Type of Publication:||
A1 Journal article – refereed
|Field of Science:||
1181 Ecology, evolutionary biology
Aroviita was supported by the MARS (contract No. 603378) project funded under the 7th Framework Programme by the European Union, the Freshabit EU LIFE IP project (LIFE14/IPE/FI/023) and the Nordic Centre of Excellence “BIOWATER” (Nordforsk Project no. 82263). J. Alahuhta acknowledges support from the Academy of Finland.
© 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Gillard, MB, Aroviita, J, Alahuhta, J. Same species, same habitat preferences? The distribution of aquatic plants is not explained by the same predictors in lakes and streams. Freshwater Biology. 2020; 65: 878– 892, which has been published in final form at https://doi.org/10.1111/fwb.13470. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Self-Archiving