| Literature DB >> 28376096 |
Pieter I Olivier1, Victor Rolo1, Natasha Visser, Rudi J van Aarde1.
Abstract
The peninsula effect predicts that the number of species should decline from the base of a peninsula to the tip. However, evidence for the peninsula effect is ambiguous, as different analytical methods, study taxa, and variations in local habitat or regional climatic conditions influence conclusions on its presence. We address this uncertainty by using two analytical methods to investigate the peninsula effect in three taxa that occupy different trophic levels: trees, millipedes, and birds. We surveyed 81 tree quadrants, 102 millipede transects, and 152 bird points within 150 km of coastal dune forest that resemble a habitat peninsula along the northeast coast of South Africa. We then used spatial (trend surface analyses) and non-spatial regressions (generalized linear mixed models) to test for the presence of the peninsula effect in each of the three taxa. We also used linear mixed models to test if climate (temperature and precipitation) and/or local habitat conditions (water availability associated with topography and landscape structural variables) could explain gradients in species richness. Non-spatial models suggest that the peninsula effect was present in all three taxa. However, spatial models indicated that only bird species richness declined from the peninsula base to the peninsula tip. Millipede species richness increased near the centre of the peninsula, while tree species richness increased near the tip. Local habitat conditions explained species richness patterns of birds and trees, but not of millipedes, regardless of model type. Our study highlights the idiosyncrasies associated with the peninsula effect-conclusions on the presence of the peninsula effect depend on the analytical methods used and the taxon studied. The peninsula effect might therefore be better suited to describe a species richness pattern where the number of species decline from a broader habitat base to a narrow tip, rather than a process that drives species richness.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28376096 PMCID: PMC5380308 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0173694
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1The distribution of the coastal dune forest (habitat peninsula) along the east coast of South Africa.
Dark grey areas represent old-growth forests, in which this study was conducted, and light grey areas represent regenerating new-growth forests. All survey sites are indicated by triangles.
Description of the predictor variables used in spatial and non-spatial models to determine the effects of climate, local habitat conditions and the peninsula effect on tree, millipede and bird species richness in a coastal dune forest habitat peninsula.
| Environmental variable | Description |
|---|---|
| Forest Area (ha) | Amount of forest within each hexagon |
| (Range = 2.6–10). | |
| Area Weighted Mean Shape Index (AWMSI) | Shape complexity of forest patches within each hexagon |
| (Range = 1–2.6) | |
| Precipitation (mm) | Mean annual precipitation |
| (Range = 1118–1328) | |
| Temperature (°C) | Mean annual temperature |
| (Range = 21.14–21.84) | |
| Terrain Wetness Index | Capacity of an area to accumulate water |
| (Range = 0–6.6) |
Fig 2Non-spatial regression that illustrate the relationship between species richness of (A) tree, (B) millipede and (C) bird species and distance from the base of the coastal dune forest peninsula to the tip.
R2 values represents the variability explained by position without including the random effects (i.e. marginal R2).
Fig 3Spatial regression (trend surface models) that illustrate predicted z-values of species richness of (A) bird, (B) tree and (C) millipede of each transect sampled along the coastal dune forest peninsula.
Coefficient estimates and adjusted Standard Errors (SE) of environmental variables (forest area, AWMSI, temperature, rainfall and TWI) after model averaging of GLMMs to explore their relationship with tree, millipede and bird species richness.
The response variables in all models were detrended species richness (i.e. residuals from spatial and non-spatial models). Estimates represent standardize values and, therefore, they are in a comparable scale. The relative importance of predictor variables was calculated as the sum of AICc-wi values of the competing models in which the predictor was present. Significant predictors at P < 0.05 are depicted in bold and marginally significant (0.05 < P < 0.1) in italics.
| Estimate | SE | Importance | Num. Models | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Spatial | ||||||
| Tree | AWMSI | 0.254 | 0.100 | 1.00 | 3 (3) | |
| TWI | -0.203 | 0.094 | 1.00 | 3 (3) | ||
| Forest Area | 0.066 | 0.098 | 0.497 | 0.22 | 1 (3) | |
| Temperature | -0.065 | 0.102 | 0.522 | 0.21 | 1 (3) | |
| Bird | Forest Area | -0.232 | 0.120 | 1.00 | 4 (4) | |
| TWI | 0.252 | 0.121 | 0.77 | 3 (4) | ||
| Temperature | -0.108 | 0.118 | 0.358 | 0.18 | 1 (4) | |
| AWMSI | -0.108 | 0.120 | 0.369 | 0.17 | 1 (4) | |
| Millipede | Rainfall | 0.092 | 0.134 | 0.495 | 0.17 | 1 (4) |
| Temperature | -0.050 | 0.092 | 0.585 | 0.15 | 1 (4) | |
| TWI | 0.031 | 0.061 | 0.611 | 0.15 | 1 (4) | |
| Forest Area | -0.034 | 0.073 | 0.645 | 0.15 | 1 (4) | |
| Non-Spatial | ||||||
| Tree | TWI | -0.202 | 0.095 | 0.89 | 4 (4) | |
| AWMSI | 0.134 | 0.097 | 0.164 | 0.51 | 3 (4) | |
| Temperature | -0.106 | 0.095 | 0.264 | 0.34 | 2 (4) | |
| Bird | Forest Area | -0.169 | 0.083 | 1.00 | 3 (3) | |
| TWI | 0.181 | 0.084 | 0.76 | 2 (3) | ||
| AWMSI | -0.081 | 0.083 | 0.328 | 0.25 | 1 (3) | |
| Millipede | Rainfall | -0.160 | 0.099 | 0.107 | 0.81 | 3 (4) |
| Temperature | 0.140 | 0.171 | 0.412 | 0.21 | 1 (4) | |
| TWI | 0.043 | 0.073 | 0.551 | 0.17 | 1 (4) |
*Number of times in which a predictor appears in the set of competing model (AICc < 2) per taxa.
Numbers in brackets indicates the number of competing models.