Get access

Null model analysis of communities on gradients

Authors

  • James G. Sanderson

    Corresponding author
      James G. Sanderson, Center for Applied Biodiversity Science, Conservation International, 1919 M Street, NW, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20036, USA.
      E-mail: j.sanderson@conservation.org
    Search for more papers by this author

James G. Sanderson, Center for Applied Biodiversity Science, Conservation International, 1919 M Street, NW, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20036, USA.
E-mail: j.sanderson@conservation.org

Abstract

Aim  I employed a novel null model and metric to uncover unusual species co-occurrence patterns in a herpetofaunal assemblage of 49 species collected at discrete elevations along a gradient.

Location  Mount Kupe, Cameroon.

Methods  Using a construction algorithm that started from a matrix of 0s, a sample null space of 25,000 unique null matrices was generated by simultaneously conserving (1) the number of occurrences of each species, (2) site richness and (3) species range spans derived from the observed incidence matrix. I then compared the number of times each pair of confamilial species co-occurred in the null space with the same number derived from the observed incidence matrix. Two cases dealing with embedded absences in species ranges were tested: (1) embedded absences were maintained, and (2) embedded absences were assumed to be sampling omissions and were replaced by presences.

Results  In the observed absence/presence assemblage there were 147 possible confamilial species pairs. Therefore, 5% or eight were expected by chance alone to have co-occurrence patterns that differed from chance expectations by chance alone. Of these confamilial species pairs, 38 were congeneric and so 5% or two were expected to differ from chance expectations. For case (1) 16, and for case (2) 17 confamilial species pairs’ co-occurrence patterns differed significantly from chance expectations. For case (1) nine congeneric species pairs, and for case (2) 10 congeneric pairs differed significantly from chance expectations. For case (1) four, and for case (2) five congeneric species pairs formed checkerboards (patterns of mutual exclusion). Results from case (1) were a proper subset of case (2) indicating that sampling omissions did not alter greatly the results.

Main conclusions  I have demonstrated that null models are valuable tools to analyse ecological communities provided that proper models are employed. The choice of the appropriate null space to analyse distributions is critical. The null model employed to analyse birds on islands of an archipelago can be adapted to analyse species along gradients provided an additional range constraint is added to the null model. Moreover, added precision to results can be obtained by analysing each species pair separately, particularly those in the same family or genus, as opposed to applying a community-wide metric to the faunal assemblage. My results support some of the speculations of previous authors who were unable to demonstrate their suspicions analytically.

Get access to the full text of this article

Ancillary