Variations on a theme: sources of heterogeneity in the form of the interspecific relationship between abundance and distribution

Authors

  • TIM M. BLACKBURN,

    1. Centre for Ornithology, School of Biosciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK; and Biodiversity and Macroecology Group, Department of Animal and Plant Sciences, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2TN, UK
    Search for more papers by this author
  • PHILLIP CASSEY,

    1. Centre for Ornithology, School of Biosciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK; and Biodiversity and Macroecology Group, Department of Animal and Plant Sciences, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2TN, UK
    Search for more papers by this author
  • KEVIN J. GASTON

    1. Centre for Ornithology, School of Biosciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK; and Biodiversity and Macroecology Group, Department of Animal and Plant Sciences, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2TN, UK
    Search for more papers by this author

Tel.: +44 121414 5893. E-mail: t.blackburn@bham.ac.uk

Summary

  • 1A positive interspecific relationship between abundance and distribution is widely considered to be one of the most general patterns in ecology. However, the relationship appears to vary considerably across assemblages, from significant positive to significant negative correlations and all shades in between.
  • 2This variation has led to the suggestion that the abundance–distribution relationship has multiple forms, with the corollary that different patterns may inform about, or have different, causes. However, this variation has never been formally quantified, nor has it been determined whether the observed variation is indicative of sampling error in estimating a single effect or of real heterogeneity in such relationships. Here, we use the meta-analytical approach to assess variation in abundance–distribution relationships, and to test different hypotheses for it.
  • 3Analysis of 279 relationships found a mean effect size of 0·655, which was both highly significantly different from zero and indicative of a strong positive association between abundance and distribution. However, effect sizes were highly heterogeneous, supporting the contention that this relationship does indeed have multiple forms.
  • 4Most notably, relationships vary significantly in strength across realms, with the strongest in the marine and intertidal, intermediate relationships for terrestrial and parasitic assemblages, and the weakest relationships in freshwater systems. Effect sizes in all of the aquatic realms are homogeneous, suggesting that realm is an important source of the heterogeneity observed across all studies. We posit that this may be because the different spatial structure of the environment in each realm affects the opportunity for the dispersal of individuals between sites.
  • 5Some of the remaining heterogeneity in effect sizes for terrestrial assemblages could be explained by partitioning assemblages by habitat, scale, biogeographical region and taxon, but considerable heterogeneity in effect sizes for terrestrial and parasitic assemblages remained unexplained.

Ancillary