| Literature DB >> 26658136 |
Andreas Schuldt1, Tesfaye Wubet2,3, François Buscot2,3, Michael Staab4, Thorsten Assmann1, Martin Böhnke-Kammerlander5, Sabine Both6, Alexandra Erfmeier3,7, Alexandra-Maria Klein4, Keping Ma8, Katherina Pietsch9, Sabrina Schultze1, Christian Wirth3,9, Jiayong Zhang10, Pascale Zumstein1, Helge Bruelheide3,5.
Abstract
Subtropical and tropical forests are biodiversity hotspots, and untangling the spatial scaling of their diversity is fundamental for understanding global species richness and conserving biodiversity essential to human well-being. However, scale-dependent diversity distributions among coexisting taxa remain poorly understood for heterogeneous environments in biodiverse regions. We show that diversity relations among 43 taxa-including plants, arthropods and microorganisms-in a mountainous subtropical forest are highly nonlinear across spatial scales. Taxon-specific differences in β-diversity cause under- or overestimation of overall diversity by up to 50% when using surrogate taxa such as plants. Similar relationships may apply to half of all (sub)tropical forests-including major biodiversity hotspots-where high environmental heterogeneity causes high biodiversity and species turnover. Our study highlights that our general understanding of biodiversity patterns has to be improved-and that much larger areas will be required than in better-studied lowland forests-to reliably estimate biodiversity distributions and devise conservation strategies for the world's biodiverse regions.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26658136 PMCID: PMC4682160 DOI: 10.1038/ncomms10169
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nat Commun ISSN: 2041-1723 Impact factor: 14.919
Figure 1Species–area relationships, turnover and relationships with woody plant species richness for herbaceous plants and arthropods in the Gutianshan National Nature Reserve.
Shaded areas in the species–area curves show 95% confidence bands, percentage values are fractions of the total estimated species richness in 1 and 10 ha of forest. Stacked barplots show the average number of species per study plot (αPlot; n=27) and the relative species turnover (β) at scales of 0.5, 1, 10 ha, and the whole reserve (±95% confidence intervals). Insets below the curves show species-richness relationships between woody plants and herbs or arthropods, based on the species–area models. Shaded areas in the inset show the deviation between the estimated nonlinear relationships across the whole reserve and a linear relationship based on the species richness data of ≤1 ha.
Figure 2Species–area relationships, turnover and relationships with woody plant species richness for selected taxa of fungi and bacteria.
The taxa shown reflect the variation in spatial turnover patterns exhibited by the 12 fungal (top) and 19 bacterial (bottom) taxa analysed. Shaded areas in the species–area curves show 95% confidence bands, percentage values are fractions of the total estimated species richness in 1 and 10 ha of forest. Stacked barplots show the average number of species per study plot (αPlot; n=27) and the relative species turnover (β) at scales of 0.5, 1, 10 ha, and the whole reserve (±95% confidence intervals). Insets below the curves show species-richness relationships between woody plants and microorganisms, based on the species–area models. Shaded areas in the inset show the deviation between the estimated nonlinear relationships across the whole reserve and a linear relationship based on the species richness data of ≤1 ha.
Figure 3Deviation of relative species richness patterns among the focal taxa.
The plot shows the extent to which the species richness of a given taxon over- or underestimates the species richness of the other taxa relative to the overall species richness of each taxon. For example, the +50% deviation for bacteria ‘type 2' at the scale of 1 ha indicates that the species richness of bacteria would underestimate overall relative species richness patterns by 50%. For the 12 fungal and 19 bacterial taxa, only 4 taxa representing the most common types of turnover patterns are shown (Fungi ‘type 1': Agaricomycetes; Fungi ‘type 2': Dothideomycetes; Bacteria ‘type 1': Alphaproteobacteria; Bacteria ‘type 2': Planctomycetes).