Checkerboard score–area relationships reveal spatial scales of plant community structure

Identifying the spatial scale at which particular mechanisms influence plant community assembly is crucial to understanding the mechanisms structuring communities. It has long been recognized that many elements of community structure are sensitive to area; however the majority of studies examining p...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Oikos 2018-03, Vol.127 (3), p.415-426
Hauptverfasser: McNickle, Gordon G., Lamb, Eric G., Lavender, Mike, Cahill, James F, Schamp, Brandon S., Siciliano, Steven D., Condit, Richard, Hubbell, Stephen P., Baltzer, Jennifer L.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 426
container_issue 3
container_start_page 415
container_title Oikos
container_volume 127
creator McNickle, Gordon G.
Lamb, Eric G.
Lavender, Mike
Cahill, James F
Schamp, Brandon S.
Siciliano, Steven D.
Condit, Richard
Hubbell, Stephen P.
Baltzer, Jennifer L.
description Identifying the spatial scale at which particular mechanisms influence plant community assembly is crucial to understanding the mechanisms structuring communities. It has long been recognized that many elements of community structure are sensitive to area; however the majority of studies examining patterns of community structure use a single relatively small sampling area. As different assembly mechanisms likely cause patterns at different scales we investigate how plant species co‐occurrence patterns change with sampling unit scale. We use the checkerboard score as an index of species segregation, and examine species C‐score1–sampling area patterns in two ways. First, we show via numerical simulation that the C‐score–area relationship is necessarily hump shaped with respect to sample plot area. Second we examine empirical C‐score–area relationships in arctic tundra, grassland, boreal forest and tropical forest communities. The minimum sampling scale where species co‐occurrence patterns were significantly different from the null model expectation was at 0.1 m2 in the tundra, 0.2 m2 in grassland, and 0.2 ha in both the boreal and tropical forests. Species were most segregated in their co‐occurrence (maximum C‐score) at 0.3 m2 in the tundra (0.54 3 0.54 m quadrats), 1.5 m2 in the grassland (1.2 3 1.2 m quadrats), 0.26 ha in the tropical forest (71 3 71 m quadrats), and a maximum was not reached at the largest sampling scale of 1.4 ha in the boreal forest. The most important finding is that the dominant scales of community structure in these systems are large relative to plant body size, and hence we infer that the dominant mechanisms structuring these communities must be at similarly large scales. This provides a method for identifying the spatial scales at which communities are maximally structured; ecologists can use this information to develop hypotheses and experiments to test scale‐specific mechanisms that structure communities.
doi_str_mv 10.1111/oik.04620
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2010270232</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2010270232</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2960-d0da6996279857815641c76daaed9062d98b169093e4c8c9b81437e6085bfc7a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kL9OwzAQhy0EEqUw8AaWmBhSzk5qxyOq-FNRqQssLJbjXNS0aRzsBNSNd-ANeRJMy8otP93puzvpI-SSwYTFunH1ZgKZ4HBERkwAJCBBHJMRQAoJ40qdkrMQ1gAgpcxG5HW2QrtBXzjjSxqs8_j9-WU8GuqxMX3t2rCquxC7dzQNDV2c_aY1DQbqKto1pu2pddvt0Nb9jobeD7YfPJ6Tk8o0AS_-ckxe7u-eZ4_JYvkwn90uEsuVgKSE0gilBJcqn8qcTUXGrBSlMVgqELxUecGEApViZnOripxlqUQB-bSorDTpmFwd7nbevQ0Yer12g2_jS82BAZfAUx6p6wNlvQvBY6U7X2-N32kG-ledjur0Xl1kJwf2o25w9z-ol_On_cIPspFxJA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2010270232</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Checkerboard score–area relationships reveal spatial scales of plant community structure</title><source>Access via Wiley Online Library</source><creator>McNickle, Gordon G. ; Lamb, Eric G. ; Lavender, Mike ; Cahill, James F ; Schamp, Brandon S. ; Siciliano, Steven D. ; Condit, Richard ; Hubbell, Stephen P. ; Baltzer, Jennifer L.</creator><creatorcontrib>McNickle, Gordon G. ; Lamb, Eric G. ; Lavender, Mike ; Cahill, James F ; Schamp, Brandon S. ; Siciliano, Steven D. ; Condit, Richard ; Hubbell, Stephen P. ; Baltzer, Jennifer L.</creatorcontrib><description>Identifying the spatial scale at which particular mechanisms influence plant community assembly is crucial to understanding the mechanisms structuring communities. It has long been recognized that many elements of community structure are sensitive to area; however the majority of studies examining patterns of community structure use a single relatively small sampling area. As different assembly mechanisms likely cause patterns at different scales we investigate how plant species co‐occurrence patterns change with sampling unit scale. We use the checkerboard score as an index of species segregation, and examine species C‐score1–sampling area patterns in two ways. First, we show via numerical simulation that the C‐score–area relationship is necessarily hump shaped with respect to sample plot area. Second we examine empirical C‐score–area relationships in arctic tundra, grassland, boreal forest and tropical forest communities. The minimum sampling scale where species co‐occurrence patterns were significantly different from the null model expectation was at 0.1 m2 in the tundra, 0.2 m2 in grassland, and 0.2 ha in both the boreal and tropical forests. Species were most segregated in their co‐occurrence (maximum C‐score) at 0.3 m2 in the tundra (0.54 3 0.54 m quadrats), 1.5 m2 in the grassland (1.2 3 1.2 m quadrats), 0.26 ha in the tropical forest (71 3 71 m quadrats), and a maximum was not reached at the largest sampling scale of 1.4 ha in the boreal forest. The most important finding is that the dominant scales of community structure in these systems are large relative to plant body size, and hence we infer that the dominant mechanisms structuring these communities must be at similarly large scales. This provides a method for identifying the spatial scales at which communities are maximally structured; ecologists can use this information to develop hypotheses and experiments to test scale‐specific mechanisms that structure communities.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0030-1299</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1600-0706</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/oik.04620</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Area ; Assembly ; Body size ; Boreal forests ; Community structure ; Computer simulation ; Ecologists ; Forest communities ; Forests ; Grasslands ; Mathematical models ; Plant communities ; Polar environments ; Sampling ; Segregation ; Species ; Taiga ; Taiga &amp; tundra ; Tropical climate ; Tropical forests ; Tundra</subject><ispartof>Oikos, 2018-03, Vol.127 (3), p.415-426</ispartof><rights>2017 The Authors</rights><rights>Oikos © 2017 Nordic Society Oikos</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2960-d0da6996279857815641c76daaed9062d98b169093e4c8c9b81437e6085bfc7a3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2960-d0da6996279857815641c76daaed9062d98b169093e4c8c9b81437e6085bfc7a3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Foik.04620$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Foik.04620$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1417,27924,27925,45574,45575</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>McNickle, Gordon G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lamb, Eric G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lavender, Mike</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cahill, James F</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schamp, Brandon S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Siciliano, Steven D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Condit, Richard</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hubbell, Stephen P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Baltzer, Jennifer L.</creatorcontrib><title>Checkerboard score–area relationships reveal spatial scales of plant community structure</title><title>Oikos</title><description>Identifying the spatial scale at which particular mechanisms influence plant community assembly is crucial to understanding the mechanisms structuring communities. It has long been recognized that many elements of community structure are sensitive to area; however the majority of studies examining patterns of community structure use a single relatively small sampling area. As different assembly mechanisms likely cause patterns at different scales we investigate how plant species co‐occurrence patterns change with sampling unit scale. We use the checkerboard score as an index of species segregation, and examine species C‐score1–sampling area patterns in two ways. First, we show via numerical simulation that the C‐score–area relationship is necessarily hump shaped with respect to sample plot area. Second we examine empirical C‐score–area relationships in arctic tundra, grassland, boreal forest and tropical forest communities. The minimum sampling scale where species co‐occurrence patterns were significantly different from the null model expectation was at 0.1 m2 in the tundra, 0.2 m2 in grassland, and 0.2 ha in both the boreal and tropical forests. Species were most segregated in their co‐occurrence (maximum C‐score) at 0.3 m2 in the tundra (0.54 3 0.54 m quadrats), 1.5 m2 in the grassland (1.2 3 1.2 m quadrats), 0.26 ha in the tropical forest (71 3 71 m quadrats), and a maximum was not reached at the largest sampling scale of 1.4 ha in the boreal forest. The most important finding is that the dominant scales of community structure in these systems are large relative to plant body size, and hence we infer that the dominant mechanisms structuring these communities must be at similarly large scales. This provides a method for identifying the spatial scales at which communities are maximally structured; ecologists can use this information to develop hypotheses and experiments to test scale‐specific mechanisms that structure communities.</description><subject>Area</subject><subject>Assembly</subject><subject>Body size</subject><subject>Boreal forests</subject><subject>Community structure</subject><subject>Computer simulation</subject><subject>Ecologists</subject><subject>Forest communities</subject><subject>Forests</subject><subject>Grasslands</subject><subject>Mathematical models</subject><subject>Plant communities</subject><subject>Polar environments</subject><subject>Sampling</subject><subject>Segregation</subject><subject>Species</subject><subject>Taiga</subject><subject>Taiga &amp; tundra</subject><subject>Tropical climate</subject><subject>Tropical forests</subject><subject>Tundra</subject><issn>0030-1299</issn><issn>1600-0706</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1kL9OwzAQhy0EEqUw8AaWmBhSzk5qxyOq-FNRqQssLJbjXNS0aRzsBNSNd-ANeRJMy8otP93puzvpI-SSwYTFunH1ZgKZ4HBERkwAJCBBHJMRQAoJ40qdkrMQ1gAgpcxG5HW2QrtBXzjjSxqs8_j9-WU8GuqxMX3t2rCquxC7dzQNDV2c_aY1DQbqKto1pu2pddvt0Nb9jobeD7YfPJ6Tk8o0AS_-ckxe7u-eZ4_JYvkwn90uEsuVgKSE0gilBJcqn8qcTUXGrBSlMVgqELxUecGEApViZnOripxlqUQB-bSorDTpmFwd7nbevQ0Yer12g2_jS82BAZfAUx6p6wNlvQvBY6U7X2-N32kG-ledjur0Xl1kJwf2o25w9z-ol_On_cIPspFxJA</recordid><startdate>201803</startdate><enddate>201803</enddate><creator>McNickle, Gordon G.</creator><creator>Lamb, Eric G.</creator><creator>Lavender, Mike</creator><creator>Cahill, James F</creator><creator>Schamp, Brandon S.</creator><creator>Siciliano, Steven D.</creator><creator>Condit, Richard</creator><creator>Hubbell, Stephen P.</creator><creator>Baltzer, Jennifer L.</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>H95</scope><scope>L.G</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>RC3</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201803</creationdate><title>Checkerboard score–area relationships reveal spatial scales of plant community structure</title><author>McNickle, Gordon G. ; Lamb, Eric G. ; Lavender, Mike ; Cahill, James F ; Schamp, Brandon S. ; Siciliano, Steven D. ; Condit, Richard ; Hubbell, Stephen P. ; Baltzer, Jennifer L.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c2960-d0da6996279857815641c76daaed9062d98b169093e4c8c9b81437e6085bfc7a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Area</topic><topic>Assembly</topic><topic>Body size</topic><topic>Boreal forests</topic><topic>Community structure</topic><topic>Computer simulation</topic><topic>Ecologists</topic><topic>Forest communities</topic><topic>Forests</topic><topic>Grasslands</topic><topic>Mathematical models</topic><topic>Plant communities</topic><topic>Polar environments</topic><topic>Sampling</topic><topic>Segregation</topic><topic>Species</topic><topic>Taiga</topic><topic>Taiga &amp; tundra</topic><topic>Tropical climate</topic><topic>Tropical forests</topic><topic>Tundra</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>McNickle, Gordon G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lamb, Eric G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lavender, Mike</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cahill, James F</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schamp, Brandon S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Siciliano, Steven D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Condit, Richard</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hubbell, Stephen P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Baltzer, Jennifer L.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 1: Biological Sciences &amp; Living Resources</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Oikos</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>McNickle, Gordon G.</au><au>Lamb, Eric G.</au><au>Lavender, Mike</au><au>Cahill, James F</au><au>Schamp, Brandon S.</au><au>Siciliano, Steven D.</au><au>Condit, Richard</au><au>Hubbell, Stephen P.</au><au>Baltzer, Jennifer L.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Checkerboard score–area relationships reveal spatial scales of plant community structure</atitle><jtitle>Oikos</jtitle><date>2018-03</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>127</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>415</spage><epage>426</epage><pages>415-426</pages><issn>0030-1299</issn><eissn>1600-0706</eissn><abstract>Identifying the spatial scale at which particular mechanisms influence plant community assembly is crucial to understanding the mechanisms structuring communities. It has long been recognized that many elements of community structure are sensitive to area; however the majority of studies examining patterns of community structure use a single relatively small sampling area. As different assembly mechanisms likely cause patterns at different scales we investigate how plant species co‐occurrence patterns change with sampling unit scale. We use the checkerboard score as an index of species segregation, and examine species C‐score1–sampling area patterns in two ways. First, we show via numerical simulation that the C‐score–area relationship is necessarily hump shaped with respect to sample plot area. Second we examine empirical C‐score–area relationships in arctic tundra, grassland, boreal forest and tropical forest communities. The minimum sampling scale where species co‐occurrence patterns were significantly different from the null model expectation was at 0.1 m2 in the tundra, 0.2 m2 in grassland, and 0.2 ha in both the boreal and tropical forests. Species were most segregated in their co‐occurrence (maximum C‐score) at 0.3 m2 in the tundra (0.54 3 0.54 m quadrats), 1.5 m2 in the grassland (1.2 3 1.2 m quadrats), 0.26 ha in the tropical forest (71 3 71 m quadrats), and a maximum was not reached at the largest sampling scale of 1.4 ha in the boreal forest. The most important finding is that the dominant scales of community structure in these systems are large relative to plant body size, and hence we infer that the dominant mechanisms structuring these communities must be at similarly large scales. This provides a method for identifying the spatial scales at which communities are maximally structured; ecologists can use this information to develop hypotheses and experiments to test scale‐specific mechanisms that structure communities.</abstract><cop>Oxford, UK</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><doi>10.1111/oik.04620</doi><tpages>11</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0030-1299
ispartof Oikos, 2018-03, Vol.127 (3), p.415-426
issn 0030-1299
1600-0706
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2010270232
source Access via Wiley Online Library
subjects Area
Assembly
Body size
Boreal forests
Community structure
Computer simulation
Ecologists
Forest communities
Forests
Grasslands
Mathematical models
Plant communities
Polar environments
Sampling
Segregation
Species
Taiga
Taiga & tundra
Tropical climate
Tropical forests
Tundra
title Checkerboard score–area relationships reveal spatial scales of plant community structure
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-01T17%3A39%3A33IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Checkerboard%20score%E2%80%93area%20relationships%20reveal%20spatial%20scales%20of%20plant%20community%20structure&rft.jtitle=Oikos&rft.au=McNickle,%20Gordon%20G.&rft.date=2018-03&rft.volume=127&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=415&rft.epage=426&rft.pages=415-426&rft.issn=0030-1299&rft.eissn=1600-0706&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/oik.04620&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2010270232%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2010270232&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true