Letter | Published:

General patterns of taxonomic and biomass partitioning in extant and fossil plant communities

Abstract

A central goal of evolutionary ecology is to identify the general features maintaining the diversity of species assemblages1,2,3. Understanding the taxonomic and ecological characteristics of ecological communities provides a means to develop and test theories about the processes that regulate species coexistence and diversity. Here, using data from woody plant communities from different biogeographic regions, continents and geologic time periods, we show that the number of higher taxa is a general power-function of species richness that is significantly different from randomized assemblages. In general, we find that local communities are characterized by fewer higher taxa than would be expected by chance. The degree of taxonomic diversity is influenced by modes of dispersal and potential biotic interactions. Further, changes in local diversity are accompanied by regular changes in the partitioning of community biomass between taxa that are also described by a power function. Our results indicate that local and regional processes2 have consistently regulated community diversity and biomass partitioning for millions of years.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

References

  1. 1

    Hutchinson, G. E. Homage to Santa Rosalia, or why are there so many kinds of animals? Am. Nat. 93, 145–159 (1959)

  2. 2

    Hubbell, S. P. A Unified Theory of Biodiversity and Biogeography (Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, 2001)

  3. 3

    Ricklefs, R. E. & Schluter, D. (eds) Species Diversity in Ecological Communities (Univ. Chicago Press, Chicago, 1993)

  4. 4

    Elton, J. Competition and the structure of ecological communities. Anim. Ecol. 15, 54–68 (1946)

  5. 5

    Williams, C. B. Patterns in the Balance of Nature (Academic, New York, 1964)

  6. 6

    Kinzig, A. P., Levin, S. A., Dushoff, J. & Pacala, S. Limiting similarity, species packing, and system stability for hierarchical competition-colonization models. Am. Nat. 153, 371–383 (1999)

  7. 7

    MacArthur, R. H. & Levins, R. The limiting similarity, convergence, and divergence of coexisting species. Am. Nat. 101, 377–385 (1967)

  8. 8

    Simberloff, D. S. Taxonomic diversity of island biotas. Evolution 24, 23–47 (1970)

  9. 9

    Gentry, A. H. Changes in plant community diversity and floristic composition on environmental and geographic gradients. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 75, 1–34 (1988)

  10. 10

    Gentry, A. H. Biological Relationships Between Africa and South America (ed. Goldblatt, P.) 500–547 (Yale Univ. Press, New Haven, 1993)

  11. 11

    Webb, C. O. Exploring the phylogenetic structure of ecological communities: An example for rain forest trees. Am. Nat. 156, 145–155 (2000)

  12. 12

    Williams, P. H., Humphries, C. J. & Gaston, K. J. Centers of seed-plant diversity—the family way. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 256, 67–70 (1994)

  13. 13

    Roy, K., Jablonski, D. & Valentine, J. W. Higher taxa in biodiversity studies: patterns from eastern Pacific marine mollusks. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 351, 1605–1613 (1996)

  14. 14

    Valentine, J. W. How many marine invertebrate fossil species? A new approximation. J. Paleontol. 44, 410–415 (1970)

  15. 15

    Sepkoski, J. J. Jr The Unity of Evolutionary Biology (ed. Dudley, E. C.) 210–236 (Dioscorides, Portland, 1991)

  16. 16

    Robeck, H., Maley, C. C. & Donoghue, M. Taxonomy and temporal diversity patterns. Paleobiology 26, 171–187 (2000)

  17. 17

    Manly, B. F. J. Randomization, Bootstrap and Monte Carlo Methods in Biology (Chapman & Hall, New York, 1997)

  18. 18

    Gotelli, N. J. & McCabe, D. J. Species co-occurrence: a meta-analysis of J.M. Diamond's assembly rules model. Ecology 83, 2091–2096 (2002)

  19. 19

    MacArthur, R. H. & Wilson, E. O. The Theory of Island Biogeography (Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, 1967)

  20. 20

    Darwin, C. The Origin of Species (John Murray, London, 1859)

  21. 21

    Karr, J. R. & James, F. C. Ecology and Evolution of Communities (eds Cody, M. L. & Diamond, J. M.) 258–291 (Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1975)

  22. 22

    Ricklefs, R. E. & O'Rourke, K. Aspect diversity in moths: a temperate-tropical comparison. Evolution 29, 313–324 (1975)

  23. 23

    Hubbell, S. P. et al. Light-gap disturbances, recruitment limitation, and tree diversity in a neotropical forest. Science 283, 554–557 (1999)

  24. 24

    Tilman, D., Lehman, C. L. & Thompson, K. T. Plant diversity and ecosystem productivity: Theoretical considerations. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 94, 1857–1861 (1997)

  25. 25

    Hughes, L. et al. Predicting dispersal spectra—a minimal set of hypotheses based on plant attributes. J. Ecol. 82, 933–950 (1994)

  26. 26

    Vazquez., J. A. G. & Givnish, T. J. Altitudinal gradients in tropical forest composition, structure, and diversity in the Sierra de Manantlan. J. Ecol. 86, 999–1020 (1998)

  27. 27

    Ribbens, E., Silander, J. A. & Pacala, S. W. Seedling recruitment in forests: Calibrating models to predict patterns of tree seedling dispersion. Ecology 75, 1794–1806 (1994)

  28. 28

    Enquist, B. J. & Niklas, K. J. Invariant scaling relations across tree-dominated communities. Nature 401, 655–660 (2001)

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank J. H. Brown, S. Collins, R. Colwell, M. J. Donoghue, N. J. Gotelli, D. Post, S. P. Hubbell, C. J. Humphries, W. P. Maddison, K. J. Niklas, N. Pittman, F. A. Smith, M. Weiser, J. Williams, R. Whittaker and the members of the NCEAS Body Size Working Group and Phylogenies and Community Ecology Working Group for critical discussions and/or comments on earlier drafts. In particular, C. O. Webb provided valuable comments. This work stems in part from the Body Size in Ecology and Evolution Working Group (F.A. Smith, Principal Investigator) sponsored by The National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS, a national centre funded by the NSF, the University of California Santa Barbara and the State of California). B.J.E. was supported by the NSF and NCEAS. J.P.H. was supported by a student internship from NCEAS. Computer resources for the simulations were provided by the UNM Department of Biology, Sevilleta Long Term Ecological Research site and NCEAS.

Author information

Correspondence to Brian J. Enquist.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Table 1 and Discussion, Methods and Analysis (DOC 665 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Further reading

Figure 1: Three graphical hypotheses for the relationship between species richness and number of higher taxa within a local community.
Figure 2: Relationship between the number of species and higher taxa across 227 0.1-ha sites from around the world.
Figure 3: Relationship between the number of species and higher taxa across 28 local palaeoflora sites ranging from 4.5 to 45 Myr ago.
Figure 4: Relationship between species pool size and the results of randomization experiments using the total number of sampled sites from South America.
Figure 5: Biomass partitioning between species (open squares), genera (open circles), and families (filled diamonds) across global woody plant communities.

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.