From species sorting to mass effects: spatial network structure mediates the shift between metacommunity archetypes

Local assemblages are embedded in networks of communities connected by dispersal, and understanding the processes that mediate this local–regional interaction is central to understanding biodiversity patterns. In this network (i.e. metacommunity), the strength of dispersal relative to the intensity of environmental selection typically determines whether local communities are comprised of species well‐adapted to the local environment (i.e. species sorting) or are dominated by regionally successful species that may not be locally adapted (i.e. mass effects), which by extension determines the capacity of the landscape to sustain diversity. Despite the fundamentally spatial nature of these dispersal‐mediated processes, much of our theoretical understanding comes from spatially implicit systems, a special case of spatial structure in which patches are all connected to each other equally. In many real systems, both the connections among patches (i.e. network topology) and the distributions of environments across patches (i.e. spatial autocorrelation) are not arranged uniformly. Here, we use a metacommunity model to investigate how spatial heterogeneities may change the balance between species sorting versus mass effects and diversity outcomes. Our simulations show that, in general, the spatially implicit model generates an outlier in biodiversity patterns compared to other networks, and most likely amplifies mass effects relative to species sorting. Network topology has a strong effect on metacommunity outcome, with topologies of sparse connections and few loops promoting sorting of species into suitable patches. Spatial autocorrelation is another key factor; by interacting with spatial topology, intermediate‐scale clusters of similar patches can emerge, leading to a reduction of regional competition, and hence maintenance of gamma diversity. These results provide a better understanding of the role that complex spatial landscape structure plays in metacommunity processes, a necessary step to understanding how metacommunity processes relate to biodiversity conservation.