How do diversity and stability depend on productivity?

The relation between plant species diversity and productivity at a

continental scale

Mediterranean grassland

0100200300400500600700

0 50 100

Biomass [ g m-2]

Num

ber

of

spe

cie

s

North American prairie

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Productivity

Num

ber

of

spe

cie

s

Excessive Drainage Poor

Australian vegetation

050

100150200250300

0 400 800 1200Soil PO4 [ppm]

Num

ber

of

spe

cie

s

British herbs

05

101520253035

0 1000 2000 3000

Plant biomass + litter

Num

ber

of

spe

cie

s Mediterranean plant plots

0

50

100

150

200

0 50 100 150

Rain [cm]N

umb

er o

f sp

eci

es

The relation between animal species diversity

and productivity at a continental scale

Atlantic cumaceans

05

101520253035

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

Depth [m]

Num

ber

of s

peci

es

Productivity

Tropical mammals

0

10

20

30

40

50

0 50 100 150 200

Productivity

Num

ber

of s

peci

es

Texas carnivores

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 1000 2000 3000

Productivity

Num

ber

of s

peci

es

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 lake

Lake 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 PET

B 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).

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 0.5 1 1.5 2

Potential evapotranspiration [m / yr]lo

g (f

acto

r)

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

(fac

tor)

Population biomass

Population density

Species richness

Individual body weight

0

20

40

60

80

100

Humped Positive Negative U-shaped

None

Pe

rce

nt

z

Continental scale

0

20

40

60

80

100

Humped Positive Negative U-shaped

None

Pe

rce

nt

zRegional

0

20

40

60

80

100

Humped Positive Negative U-shaped

None

Pe

rce

nt

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?

0

1

2

3

4

5

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

0

1

2

3

4

5

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