An official website of the United States government
Abstract The equilibrium theory of island biogeography and its quantitative consideration of origination and extinction dynamics as they relate to island area and distance from source populations have evolved over time and enriched theory related to many disciplines in spatial ecology. Indeed, the island focus was catalytic to the emergence of landscape ecology and macroecology in the late 20th century. We integrate concepts and perspectives of island biogeography, landscape ecology, macroecology, and metacommunity ecology, and show how these disciplines have advanced the understanding of variation in abundance, biodiversity, and composition of bat communities. We leverage the well‐studied bat fauna of the islands in the Caribbean to illustrate the complex interplay of ecological, biogeographical, and evolutionary processes in molding local biodiversity and system‐wide structure. Thereafter, we highlight the role of habitat loss and fragmentation, which is increasing at an accelerating rate during the Anthropocene, on the structure of local bat communities and regional metacommunities across landscapes. Bat species richness increases with the amount of available habitat, often forming nested subsets along gradients of patch or island area. Similarly, the distance to and identity of sources of colonization influence the richness, composition, and metacommunity structure of islands and landscape networks.
more »
« less
Unifying macroecology and macroevolution to answer fundamental questions about biodiversity
Abstract The study of biodiversity started as a single unified field that spanned both ecology and evolution and both macro and micro phenomena. But over the 20th century, major trends drove ecology and evolution apart and pushed an emphasis towards the micro perspective in both disciplines. Macroecology and macroevolution re‐emerged as self‐consciously distinct fields in the 1970s and 1980s, but they remain largely separated from each other. Here, we argue that despite the challenges, it is worth working to combine macroecology and macroevolution. We present 25 fundamental questions about biodiversity that are answerable only with a mixture of the views and tools of both macroecology and macroevolution.
more »
« less
- PAR ID:
- 10372884
- Publisher / Repository:
- Wiley-Blackwell
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Global Ecology and Biogeography
- Volume:
- 28
- Issue:
- 12
- ISSN:
- 1466-822X
- Format(s):
- Medium: X Size: p. 1925-1936
- Size(s):
- p. 1925-1936
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Abstract AimHow do factors such as space, time, climate and other ecological drivers influence food web structure and dynamics? Collections of well‐studied food webs and replicate food webs from the same system that span biogeographical and ecological gradients now enable detailed, quantitative investigation of such questions and help integrate food web ecology and macroecology. Here, we integrate macroecology and food web ecology by focusing on how ecogeographical rules [the latitudinal diversity gradient (LDG), Bergmann's rule, the island rule and Rapoport's rule] are associated with the architecture of food webs. LocationGlobal. Time periodCurrent. Major taxa studiedAll taxa. MethodsWe discuss the implications of each ecogeographical rule for food webs, present predictions for how food web structure will vary with each rule, assess empirical support where available, and discuss how food webs may influence ecogeographical rules. Finally, we recommend systems and approaches for further advancing this research agenda. ResultsWe derived testable predictions for some ecogeographical rules (e.g. LDG, Rapoport's rule), while for others (e.g., Bergmann's and island rules) it is less clear how we would expect food webs to change over macroecological scales. Based on the LDG, we found weak support for both positive and negative relationships between food chain length and latitude and for increased generality and linkage density at higher latitudes. Based on Rapoport's rule, we found support for the prediction that species turnover in food webs is inversely related to latitude. Main conclusionsThe macroecology of food webs goes beyond traditional approaches to biodiversity at macroecological scales by focusing on trophic interactions among species. The collection of food web data for different types of ecosystems across biogeographical gradients is key to advance this research agenda. Further, considering food web interactions as a selection pressure that drives or disrupts ecogeographical rules has the potential to address both mechanisms of and deviations from these macroecological relationships. For these reasons, further integration of macroecology and food webs will help ecologists better understand the assembly, maintenance and change of ecosystems across space and time.more » « less
-
Explaining broad molecular, phenotypic and species biodiversity patterns necessitates a unifying framework spanning multiple evolutionary scales. Here we argue that although substantial effort has been made to reconcile microevolution and macroevolution, much work remains to identify the links between biological processes at play. We highlight four major questions of evolutionary biology whose solutions require conceptual bridges between micro and macroevolution. We review potential avenues for future research to establish how mechanisms at one scale (drift, mutation, migration, selection) translate to processes at the other scale (speciation, extinction, biogeographic dispersal) and vice versa. We propose ways in which current comparative methods to infer molecular evolution, phenotypic evolution and species diversification could be improved to specifically address these questions. We conclude that researchers are in a better position than ever before to build a synthesis to understand how microevolutionary dynamics unfold over millions of years.more » « less
-
null (Ed.)The burgeoning field of phylogenetic paleoecology (Lamsdell et al. 2017) represents a synthesis of the related but differently focused fields of macroecology (Brown 1995) and macroevolution (Stanley 1975). Through a combination of the data and methods of both disciplines, phylogenetic paleoecology leverages phylogenetic theory and quantitative paleoecology to explain the temporal and spatial variation in species diversity, distribution, and disparity. Phylogenetic paleoecology is ideally situated to elucidate many fundamental issues in evolutionary biology, including the generation of new phenotypes and occupation of previously unexploited environments; the nature of relationships among character change, ecology, and evolutionary rates; determinants of the geographic distribution of species and clades; and the underlying phylogenetic signal of ecological selectivity in extinctions and radiations. This is because phylogenetic paleoecology explicitly recognizes and incorporates the quasi-independent nature of evolutionary and ecological data as expressed in the dual biological hierarchies (Eldredge and Salthe 1984; Congreve et al. 2018; Fig. 1), incorporating both as covarying factors rather than focusing on one and treating the other as error within the dataset.more » « less
-
Evolutionary rates play a central role in connecting micro- and macroevolution. All evolutionary rate estimates, including rates of molecular evolution, trait evolution, and lineage diversification, share a similar scaling pattern with time: The highest rates are those measured over the shortest time interval. This creates a disconnect between micro- and macroevolution, although the pattern is the opposite of what some might expect: Patterns of change over short timescales predict that evolution has tremendous potential to create variation and that potential is barely tapped by macroevolution. In this review, we discuss this shared scaling pattern across evolutionary rates. We break down possible explanations for scaling into two categories, estimation error and model misspecification, and discuss how both apply to each type of rate. We also discuss the consequences of this ubiquitous pattern, which can lead to unexpected results when comparing ratesover different timescales. Finally, after addressing purely statistical concerns, we explore a few possibilities for a shared unifying explanation across the three types of rates that results from a failure to fully understand and account for how biological processes scale over time.more » « less
