TY - JOUR
T1 - Forest fragmentation shapes the alpha–gamma relationship in plant diversity
AU - Almoussawi, Ali
AU - Lenoir, Jonathan
AU - Jamoneau, Aurélien
AU - Hattab, Tarek
AU - Wasof, Safaa
AU - Gallet-Moron, Emilie
AU - Garzon-Lopez, Carol X.
AU - Spicher, Fabien
AU - Kobaissi, Ahmad
AU - Decocq, Guillaume
N1 - Funding Information:
Funding information This study was part of the METAFOR research project funded by the Conseil Régional de Picardie. We greatly acknowledge the “Clover ME” for funding AA's PhD thesis. We wish to thank R. Saguez, C. Mallet, V. Garcia, L. Bocher-Leroy, G. Ingelaere, F. Bartowiack, C.-E. Bernard, S. Delormel, J. Fatus and J. Demarcq for their contribution to field surveys.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2019 International Association for Vegetation Science
PY - 2020
Y1 - 2020
N2 - Questions: Forest fragmentation affects biodiversity locally (α diversity) and beyond — at relatively larger scales (γ diversity) — by increasing dispersal and recruitment limitations. Yet, does an increase in fragmentation affect the relationship between α and γ diversity and what can we learn from it?. Location: Northern France. Methods: We surveyed 116 forest patches across three fragmentation levels: none (continuous forest); intermediate (forest patches connected by hedgerows); and high (isolated forest patches). Plant species richness of both forest specialists and generalists was surveyed at five nested spatial resolutions across each forest patch: 1 m2; 10 m2; 100 m2; 1,000 m2; and total forest patch area. First, we ran log-ratio models to quantify the α–γ relationship. We did that separately for all possible combinations of fragmentation level (none vs intermediate vs high) × spatial scale (e.g., α-1 m2 vs γ-10 m2) × species type (e.g., α-specialists vs γ-specialists). We then used linear mixed-effects models to analyze the effect of fragmentation level, spatial scale, species type and all two-way interaction terms on the slope coefficient extracted from all log-ratio models. Results: We found an interaction effect between fragmentation level and species type, such that forest specialists shifted from a linear (i.e., proportional sampling) to a curvilinear plateau (i.e., community saturation) relationship at low and high fragmentation, respectively, while generalists shifted from a curvilinear to a linear pattern. Conclusions: The impact of forest fragmentation on the α–γ relationship supports generalist species persistence over forest specialists, with contrasting mechanisms for these two guilds. As fragmentation increases, forest specialists shift from proportional sampling towards community saturation, thus reducing α diversity likely due to dispersal limitation. Contrariwise, generalists shift from community saturation towards proportional sampling, thus increasing α diversity likely due to an increase in the edge:core ratio. To ensure long-term conservation of forest specialists, one single large forest patch should be preferred over several small ones.
AB - Questions: Forest fragmentation affects biodiversity locally (α diversity) and beyond — at relatively larger scales (γ diversity) — by increasing dispersal and recruitment limitations. Yet, does an increase in fragmentation affect the relationship between α and γ diversity and what can we learn from it?. Location: Northern France. Methods: We surveyed 116 forest patches across three fragmentation levels: none (continuous forest); intermediate (forest patches connected by hedgerows); and high (isolated forest patches). Plant species richness of both forest specialists and generalists was surveyed at five nested spatial resolutions across each forest patch: 1 m2; 10 m2; 100 m2; 1,000 m2; and total forest patch area. First, we ran log-ratio models to quantify the α–γ relationship. We did that separately for all possible combinations of fragmentation level (none vs intermediate vs high) × spatial scale (e.g., α-1 m2 vs γ-10 m2) × species type (e.g., α-specialists vs γ-specialists). We then used linear mixed-effects models to analyze the effect of fragmentation level, spatial scale, species type and all two-way interaction terms on the slope coefficient extracted from all log-ratio models. Results: We found an interaction effect between fragmentation level and species type, such that forest specialists shifted from a linear (i.e., proportional sampling) to a curvilinear plateau (i.e., community saturation) relationship at low and high fragmentation, respectively, while generalists shifted from a curvilinear to a linear pattern. Conclusions: The impact of forest fragmentation on the α–γ relationship supports generalist species persistence over forest specialists, with contrasting mechanisms for these two guilds. As fragmentation increases, forest specialists shift from proportional sampling towards community saturation, thus reducing α diversity likely due to dispersal limitation. Contrariwise, generalists shift from community saturation towards proportional sampling, thus increasing α diversity likely due to an increase in the edge:core ratio. To ensure long-term conservation of forest specialists, one single large forest patch should be preferred over several small ones.
KW - agricultural landscapes
KW - alpha diversity
KW - anthropogenic disturbances
KW - community assembly
KW - dispersal limitations
KW - gamma diversity
KW - habitat conservation strategies
KW - habitat fragmentation
KW - local–regional richness relationship
KW - metacommunity dynamics
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85074749313&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1111/jvs.12817
DO - 10.1111/jvs.12817
M3 - Article
SN - 1100-9233
VL - 31
SP - 63
EP - 74
JO - Journal of Vegetation Science
JF - Journal of Vegetation Science
IS - 1
ER -