| Literature DB >> 33177646 |
Gábor Borics1, Viktória B-Béres1, István Bácsi2, Balázs A Lukács3, E T-Krasznai1, Zoltán Botta-Dukát4, Gábor Várbíró5.
Abstract
Environmental filtering and limiting similarity are those locally acting processes that influence community structure. These mechanisms acting on the traits of species result in trait convergence or divergence within the communities. The role of these processes might change along environmental gradients, and it has been conceptualised in the stress-dominance hypothesis, which predicts that the relative importance of environmental filtering increases and competition decreases with increasing environmental stress. Analysing trait convergence and divergence in lake phytoplankton assemblages, we studied how the concepts of 'limiting similarity' versus 'environmental filtering' can be applied to these microscopic aquatic communities, and how they support or contradict the stress-dominance hypothesis. Using a null model approach, we investigated the divergence and convergence of phytoplankton traits along environmental gradients represented by canonical axes of an RDA. We used Rao's quadratic entropy as a measure of functional diversity and calculated effect size (ES) values for each sample. Negative ES values refer to trait convergence, i.e., to the higher probability of the environmental filtering in community assembly, while positive values indicate trait divergence, stressing the importance of limiting similarity (niche partitioning), that is, the competition between the phytoplankters. Our results revealed that limiting similarity and environmental filtering may operate simultaneously in phytoplankton communities, but these assembly mechanisms influenced the distribution of phytoplankton traits differently, and the effects show considerable changes along with the studied scales. Studying the changes of ES values along with the various scales, our results partly supported the stress-dominance hypothesis, which predicts that the relative importance of environmental filtering increases and competition decreases with increasing environmental stress.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33177646 PMCID: PMC7658209 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-76645-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1RDA biplots displaying the importance of physical and chemical characteristics of lakes on the relative abundance of the various algal traits. Red arrows are environmental variables, black arrows are traits. Depth mean depth of the water bodies (m); area area of the water bodies (m2), Cond electrical conductivity (μS cm−1); TP total phosphorus (μg L−1), TN total nitrogen (μg L−1), CHLA chlorophyll-a (μg L−1), Secchi Secchi transparency (m), COD chemical oxygen demand (mg L−1), Time number of weeks in the date of sampling Functional groups of algae are represented as circles and codes.
Summary table of RDA results total variation is 594.62792, explanatory variables account for 18.0% (adjusted explained variation is 12.4%).
| Statistic | Axis 1 | Axis 2 | Axis 3 | Axis 4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Eigenvalues | 0.1019 | 0.0536 | 0.0113 | 0.0061 |
| Explained variation (cumulative) | 10.19 | 15.55 | 16.68 | 17.3 |
| Pseudo-canonical correlation | 0.4806 | 0.5634 | 0.3272 | 0.2433 |
| Explained fitted variation (cumulative) | 56.71 | 86.55 | 92.84 | 96.25 |
| On first axis | Pseudo-F = 15.0, P = 0.002 | |||
| On all axes | Pseudo-F = 3.2, P = 0.002 | |||
Summary table of the ES value distributions. Significant results are written in bold.
| Traits | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Flagellated | Size (larger > 40 µm) | Colonial | Single celled | Filamentous | Mixotrophic | Siliceous | Nitrogen fixing | Vacuolated | Large flagellated | ||
| Distribution of the trait in the whole dataset (%) | 26% | 39% | 28% | 61% | 11% | 26% | 20% | 3% | 5% | 13% | |
| Distribution of the ES values compared to the random distributions | Mean (ES) | ||||||||||
| Level of significance | 0.145 | 0.124 | |||||||||
| Slope of the linear regression model | Time | 0.002 | 0.002 | 0.009 | 0.001 | ||||||
| TP | 0.029 | 0.014 | − 0.099 | − 0.180 | 0.049 | ||||||
| TN | − 0.343 | 0.330 | 0.669 | − 0.334 | 0.433 | 0.192 | 0.155 | ||||
| Biomass | − 0.110 | − 0.025 | 0.030 | 0.210 | − 0.106 | −0.161 | |||||
| Chlorophyll- | − 0.125 | − 0.132 | − 0.025 | 0.220 | − 0.131 | − 0.248 | −0.167 | ||||
| COD | − 0.072 | − 0.075 | 0.619 | 0.533 | − 0.087 | − 0.187 | −0.058 | ||||
| Secchi | 0.199 | 0.209 | 0.039 | − 0.350 | 0.208 | 0.394 | 0.266 | ||||
| pH | 0.233 | 0.091 | 0.245 | 0.228 | −0.238 | ||||||
| Conductivity | −0.469 | −0.183 | 0.256 | −0.000 | −0.497 | 0.183 | −0.150 | −0.222 | −0.301 | ||
| RDA Axis 1 | − 0.053 | − 0.042 | − 0.051 | 0.035 | − 0.016 | − 0.012 | |||||
| RDA Axis 2 | − 0.014 | 0.015 | 0.013 | 0.035 | − 0.020 | −0.020 | |||||
| Significance of the linear regression modell | Time | 0.780 | 0.804 | 0.352 | 0.916 | 0.031 | 0.044 | ||||
| TP | 0.442 | 0.813 | 0.379 | 0.917 | 0.372 | 0.115 | 0.716 | ||||
| TN | 0.130 | 0.219 | 0.011 | 0.142 | 0.065 | 0.350 | 0.490 | ||||
| Biomass | 0.206 | 0.796 | 0.766 | 0.040 | 0.223 | 0.129 | |||||
| Chlorophyll- | 0.236 | 0.218 | 0.833 | 0.062 | 0.218 | 0.018 | 0.191 | ||||
| COD | 0.748 | 0.762 | 0.017 | 0.044 | 0.700 | 0.429 | 0.830 | ||||
| Secchi | 0.236 | 0.218 | 0.833 | 0.062 | 0.218 | 0.018 | 0.191 | ||||
| pH | 0.162 | 0.622 | 0.143 | 0.180 | 0.242 | ||||||
| Conductivity | 0.093 | 0.551 | 0.438 | 0.079 | 0.076 | 0.524 | 0.616 | 0.496 | 0.377 | ||
| RDA Axis 1 | 0.105 | 0.313 | 0.117 | 0.286 | 0.666 | 0.757 | |||||
| RDA Axis 2 | 0.624 | 0.617 | 0.682 | 0.278 | 0.500 | 0.575 | |||||
Figure 2Effect sizes (ES) of selected functional traits along the first two canonical axes of the RDA. Dotted lines indicate the position of ES = 0. Positive values indicate divergence, negative ones convergence of traits. Each dot represents a sample on the gradient. Black lines indicate trends based on GAM.
Figure 3Main steps of the statistical approach.
Figure 4Possible outcomes of the analyses. Each dot represents a sample on the gradient/effect size plot. (a) Traits showing neither convergence nor divergence; (b) trait convergence, (c) trait divergence; (d) shift from trait convergence to divergence.