Diversity-stability relationships across organism groups and ecosystem types become decoupled across spatial scales

Nathan I Wisnoski; Riley Andrade; Max C N Castorani; Christopher P Catano; Aldo Compagnoni; Thomas Lamy; Nina K Lany; Luca Marazzi; Sydne Record; Annie C Smith; Christopher M Swan; Jonathan D Tonkin; Nicole M Voelker; Phoebe L Zarnetske; Eric R Sokol

doi:10.1002/ecy.4136

Diversity-stability relationships across organism groups and ecosystem types become decoupled across spatial scales

Ecology. 2023 Sep;104(9):e4136. doi: 10.1002/ecy.4136. Epub 2023 Jul 17.

Authors

Nathan I Wisnoski^{1

2

3}, Riley Andrade^{4

5}, Max C N Castorani⁶, Christopher P Catano⁷, Aldo Compagnoni^{8

9}, Thomas Lamy^{10

11}, Nina K Lany¹², Luca Marazzi^{13

14}, Sydne Record^{15

16}, Annie C Smith^{17

18

19

20}, Christopher M Swan²¹, Jonathan D Tonkin^{22

23

24}, Nicole M Voelker²¹, Phoebe L Zarnetske^{18

19}, Eric R Sokol^{25

26}

Affiliations

¹ Department of Biological Sciences, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, Mississippi, USA.
² Wyoming Geographic Information Science Center, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming, USA.
³ Department of Biology, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, USA.
⁴ Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois, USA.
⁵ Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA.
⁶ Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA.
⁷ Department of Plant Biology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA.
⁸ Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle (Saale), Germany.
⁹ German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.
¹⁰ Marine Science Institute, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, California, USA.
¹¹ MARBEC, University of Montpellier, CNRS, Ifremer, IRD, Montpellier, France.
¹² Northern Research Station, Forest Service, US Department of Agriculture (USDA), Durham, New Hampshire, USA.
¹³ Institute of Environment, Florida International University, Miami, Florida, USA.
¹⁴ Thames21, London, UK.
¹⁵ Department of Biology, Bryn Mawr College, Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania, USA.
¹⁶ Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Conservation Biology, University of Maine, Orono, Maine, USA.
¹⁷ Department of Forestry, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA.
¹⁸ Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior Program, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA.
¹⁹ Department of Integrative Biology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA.
²⁰ Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Olympia, Washington, USA.
²¹ Department of Geography and Environmental Systems, University of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
²² School of Biological Sciences, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.
²³ Te Pūnaha Matatini Centre of Research Excellence, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.
²⁴ Bioprotection Aotearoa Centre of Research Excellence, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.
²⁵ National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON), Boulder, Colorado, USA.
²⁶ Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research (INSTAAR), University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, USA.

PMID: 37401548
DOI: 10.1002/ecy.4136

Abstract

The relationship between biodiversity and stability, or its inverse, temporal variability, is multidimensional and complex. Temporal variability in aggregate properties, like total biomass or abundance, is typically lower in communities with higher species diversity (i.e., the diversity-stability relationship [DSR]). At broader spatial extents, regional-scale aggregate variability is also lower with higher regional diversity (in plant systems) and with lower spatial synchrony. However, focusing exclusively on aggregate properties of communities may overlook potentially destabilizing compositional shifts. It is not yet clear how diversity is related to different components of variability across spatial scales, nor whether regional DSRs emerge across a broad range of organisms and ecosystem types. To test these questions, we compiled a large collection of long-term metacommunity data spanning a wide range of taxonomic groups (e.g., birds, fish, plants, invertebrates) and ecosystem types (e.g., deserts, forests, oceans). We applied a newly developed quantitative framework for jointly analyzing aggregate and compositional variability across scales. We quantified DSRs for composition and aggregate variability in local communities and metacommunities. At the local scale, more diverse communities were less variable, but this effect was stronger for aggregate than compositional properties. We found no stabilizing effect of γ-diversity on metacommunity variability, but β-diversity played a strong role in reducing compositional spatial synchrony, which reduced regional variability. Spatial synchrony differed among taxa, suggesting differences in stabilization by spatial processes. However, metacommunity variability was more strongly driven by local variability than by spatial synchrony. Across a broader range of taxa, our results suggest that high γ-diversity does not consistently stabilize aggregate properties at regional scales without sufficient spatial β-diversity to reduce spatial synchrony.

Keywords: community variability; diversity-stability relationship; metacommunity; spatial insurance hypothesis; stability.

Abstract

Grants and funding