Distance decay of similarity in freshwater communities: do macro‐ and microorganisms follow the same rules?

By A. Astorga, Jari Oksanen, Miska Luoto, J. Soininen, R. Virtanen, T. Muotka. 2012

333 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Environmental Chemistry

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/aca62c13c947b7b524cce3df76cf7852fb3f7f10

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 Environmental Chemistry

Citations in the corpus

Metacommunity organisation, spatial extent and dispersal in aquatic systems: patterns, processes and prospects (2015, unknown): “…in the spatial extent of these two studies (Heino et al., 2015): in the former, the largest between-site geographical distance was about 800 km (Astorga et al., 2012), while the latter was restricted to small areas in two separate drainage basins with the largest distances between sites being…”
Body size and dispersal mode as key traits determining metacommunity structure of aquatic organisms. (2012, methodology): “…contributed in important ways to the development of metacommunity theory, yet an intrinsic risk to the meta-analysis approach is that variability in sampling design, spatial scale, patch configuration and methodological quality may bias, obscure or confound important patterns (Astorga et al. 2012).”
Current measures for distance decay in similarity of species composition are influenced by study extent and grain size (2012, methodology): “To assess distance decay it has been suggested to calculate the dissimilarity between all pairs of records (plots, sites) within a data set (e.g. Nekola & White, 1999; Jurasinski et al., 2009; Astorga et al., 2012).”
Beta diversity of diatom species and ecological guilds: Response to environmental and spatial mechanisms along the stream watercourse (2018, background): “While earlier studies have examined how spatial processes structure freshwater species assemblages (Astorga et al., 2012; G€othe, Angeler, Gottschalk, L€ofgren, & Sandin, 2013; Heino, Melo, Siqueira, et al., 2015; Rouquette et al., 2013), the variability in nestedness and turnover components…”
Dispersal traits drive the phylogenetic distance decay of similarity in Neotropical stream metacommunities (2015, background): “…one could divide the entire assemblage data set into subsets of species with similar ecological attributes such as body size, capacity to direct flight (e.g. Astorga et al., 2012; Landeiro et al., 2012; Gr€onroos et al., 2013; Heino, 2013) and the number of generations per year (voltinism).”
What drives study‐dependent differences in distance–decay relationships of microbial communities? (2021, background): “Distance– decay relationships are well documented in a multitude of plant and animal communities (e.g., multiple aquatic taxa, Astorga et al., 2012; tropical amphibians, Basham et al., 2019; multiple taxa, Soininen et al., 2007; urban plants, Sorte et al., 2008).”