how do diversity and stability depend on productivity?
DESCRIPTION
Mediterranean grassland. 700. 600. 500. 400. Number of species. 300. 200. 100. 0. 0. 50. 100. -2. Biomass [ g m. ]. Australian vegetation. North American prairie. 300. 70. 250. 60. 200. 50. Number of species. 150. 40. Number of species. 100. 30. 50. 20. 0. 10. 0. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
How do diversity and stability depend on productivity?
The relation between plant species diversity and productivity at a
continental scale
Mediterranean grassland
0100200300400500600700
0 50 100Biomass [ g m-2]
Num
ber o
f spe
cies
North American prairie
0
10
20304050
6070
Productivity
Num
ber o
f spe
cies
Excessive Drainage Poor
Australian vegetation
050
100150200250300
0 400 800 1200Soil PO4 [ppm]
Num
ber o
f spe
cies
British herbs
05
101520253035
0 1000 2000 3000Plant biomass + litter
Num
ber o
f spe
cies
Mediterranean plant plots
0
50
100
150
200
0 50 100 150Rain [cm]
Num
ber o
f spe
cies
The relation between animal species diversity
and productivity at a continental scale
Atlantic cumaceans
05
101520253035
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000Depth [m]
Num
ber o
f spe
cies
Productivity
Tropical mammals
0
10
20
30
40
50
0 50 100 150 200Productivity
Num
ber o
f spe
cies
Texas carnivores
10
12
14
16
18
20
0 1000 2000 3000Productivity
Num
ber o
f spe
cies
0
50
100
150
200
250
0 500 1000 1500Evapotranspiration
SPalearctic birds
0
50
100
150
200
250
0 500 1000 1500Evapotranspiration
SPalearctic butterflies
Evapotranspiration is the sum of evaporation and transpiration, hence the total amount of water going from living organismas and the soil into the atmosphere.
It is a measure of total energy input
Bird species numbers are correlated with annual evapotranspiration and temperature.
Patterns of fish species richness in China’s lakes
Fish species richness scales significantly with altitude and maximum depth of a lakeLake volume is of minor importance
020406080
100120140
1 10 100 1000 10000
Altitude [m]
S
R2 = 0.75
020406080
100120140
1 10 100 1000
Maximum depth [m]
S
R2 = 0.34
020406080
100120140
0.001 0.1 10 1000
Lake volume [108 m3]
S
020406080
100120140
0.1 10 1000 100000
Lake area [km2]
S
1
10
100
1000
-10 0 10 20 30
Mean annual temperature
S
R2 = 0.43
1
10
100
1000
0 500 1000 1500Annual potential
evapotranspiration [m]
S
R2 = 0.57
1
10
100
1000
0 500 1000Annual actual
evapotranspiration [mm]
S
R2 = 0.53
1
10
100
1000
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Annual precipitation [mm]
S
R2 = 0.40
Main determinants of fish species richness were annual PET, altitude, and lake area.
From local to global patterns of energy use of single speciesDefine:D: population densityW: individual body weight PET: potential evapotransirationM: individual metabolic rate (energy use) T: temperature
0.75
z
PET
M W ; Metabolic rate scales to body weight
D W ; Population density scales to body weight; 0.5<z<1
W e ; Body weight increases exponentially with evapotranspiration; 1
0.75 z 0.75 z
popM MD W W W
2z PET 0.75 z (0.75 z)z PET (0.75z z )PETpopM (e ) e e
Empirical results
Population energy use scales to body weight to -0.25 to 0.25, hence is roughly constant
Energy equivalence rule
Population energy use decreases or increases with evapotranspiration
Often it will be roughly constant
PET z z PETD (e ) e
Population densities should decrease with evapotranspiration
az T
T PET
D e
Population densities should
decrease with increasing temperature
If total biomass is at least stable or increases with evapotranspiration we can introduce species richness into the previous equations
PET z z PETD (e ) e
B PETB SD
z PET z PETPET Se S PET e
Species richness should nonlinear increase with potential evapotranspiration
Global patterns in energy use and population characteristics in mammals as derived from the compilation of Currie and Fritz (1993).
02468
101214
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Potential evapotranspiration [m / yr]lo
g (fa
ctor
)
Total biomass
Individual energy use
Total energy use
Population energy use
0
2
4
6
8
10
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Potential evapotranspiration [m / yr]
log
(fact
or)
Population biomass
Population density
Species richness
Individual body weight
0
20
40
60
80
100
Humped Positive Negative U-shaped
None
Per
cent
z Continental scale
0
20
40
60
80
100
Humped Positive Negative U-shaped
None
Per
cent
z
Regional
0
20
40
60
80
100
Humped Positive Negative U-shaped
None
Per
cent
z Local scale
Gillman, Wright (2006)
The influence of productivity on the species richness of plants
Productivity and stability
Are tropical populations more stable than populations in temperate or arctic regions?
012345
0 20 40 60 80Latitude
CV
Taxon r PHemiptera 0.01 >0.1Hymenoptera -0.72 <0.01Lepidoptera -0.37 <0.001Falconiformes -0.85 <0.01Galliformes 0.22 >0.1Passeriformes -0.28 <0.01Strigiformes 0.7 >0.1Artiodactyla 0.21 >0.1Carnivora 0.71 <0.01Insectivora -0.09 >0.1Lagomorpha -0.99 <0.001Rodentia 0.32 <0.01
012345
0 20 40 60 80
CV
There is no general latitudinal trend in population variability
Vazquez, Stevens 2004
Today’s reading
Global patterns in biodiversity:www.uesc.br/cursos/pos_graduacao/especializacao/biologia_florestas/insightnaturepadroes.pdf
Diversity and stability:www.biology.lsu.edu/webfac/kharms/12DivStabDivProd.ppt