Integrating environmental and spatial processes in ecological community dynamics.

By Karl Cottenie. Ecology Letters, 2005

1,337 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics, Nature and Landscape Conservation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/4b66099f8b4c558a852571624264b316f0e31a6d

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Ecology

In Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

Citations in the corpus

Spatial autocorrelation analysis allows disentangling the balance between neutral and niche processes in metacommunities (2012, background): “Gilbert and Lechowicz (2004) and Cottenie (2005) proposed that the component [c] of these analyses, representing the pure spatial component, could be interpreted as indicative of neutral processes.”
Metapopulations and metacommunities: combining spatial and temporal perspectives in plant ecology (2012, methodology): “…spatial processes (e.g. dispersal limitation, colonization history) and species sorting along environmental gradients to the development of community spatial structure over the course of succession by employing community variance decomposition (Borcard, Legendre & Drapeau 1992; Cottenie 2005).”
Disentangling the spatial patterns in community composition of prokaryotic and eukaryotic lake plankton (2011, methodology): “When placing our results in a wider ecological context, the recent meta-review by Cottenie (2005) is highly useful.”
Neutrality, niches, and determinants of plankton metacommunity structure across boreal wetland ponds (2007, methodology): “However, we emphasize that part of the spatial structuring might be attributed to mass effects, and the strong influence of geographical factors does not reflect mere dispersal limitation, but perhaps also neighbourhood dispersal processes (Cottenie et al., 2003; Cottenie, 2005).”
Common and rare species respond to similar niche processes in macroinvertebrate metacommunities (2012, background): “Studies on the relative importance of niche and neutral processes in structuring communities have shown that environmental heterogeneity and associated species sorting mechanisms are dominant in most systems (Cottenie 2005).”
The distance decay of similarity in communities of ectomycorrhizal fungi in different ecosystems and scales (2013, background): “…with increasing geographical distance – is one of the well-known and fundamental patterns of biodiversity (Whittaker 1975), which arises from both intrinsic processes including random and dispersal-related (i.e. neutral processes; Hubbell 2001) and niche-related processes (Cottenie 2005).”
Estimating and mapping ecological processes influencing microbial community assembly (2015, background): “In variation partitioning, variation in community composition is explained using features deemed a priori to reflect spatial relationships or environmental differences among communities (e.g., Tuomisto et al., 2003; Cottenie, 2005; Legendre et al., 2009; Heino et al., 2011).”
Assembly mechanisms determining high species turnover in aquatic communities over regional and continental scales (2016, background): “Since environmental conditions vary in space, their spatial pattern might affect the spatial distribution of species (Cottenie 2005).”
Environmental and spatial controls of biotic assemblages in a discrete semi‐terrestrial habitat: comparison of organisms with different dispersal abilities sampled in the same plots (2011, background): “Recent metacommunity models (Cottenie, 2005; Ng et al., 2009) integrate niche explanations (i.”
Small but mighty: headwaters are vital to stream network biodiversity at two levels of organization (2011, background): “Various statistical approaches (e.g., Borcard et al. 1992, Cottenie 2005, Thompson and Townsend 2006) exist to disentangle the potentially interactive effects of habitat heterogeneity and spatial isolation.”
Contrasts between habitat generalists and specialists: an empirical extension to the basic metacommunity framework. (2009, methodology): “This suggests that a combination of factors played roles in determining abundance patterns, as postulated by species sorting and mass effects or dispersal limitation models (e.g., Cottenie 2005).”
Contrasting metacommunity structure and beta diversity in an aquatic‐floodplain system (2016, background): “Often the focus of metacommunity research is on differentiating patterns into one of the four original metacommunity paradigms (neutral, patch dynamics, species sorting (SS) and mass effects (ME); Cottenie 2005, Logue et al. 2011).”
Quantifying community assembly processes and identifying features that impose them (2013, background): “Previous studies that use approaches similar to this ‘preexisting approach’ appear to assign processes to significant variables (for example, Tuomisto et al., 2003; Cottenie, 2005; Legendre et al., 2009; Heino et al., 2011).”