Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Biodiversity analyses: are aquatic ecologists doing any better and differently than terrestrial ecologists?

  • TRENDS IN AQUATIC ECOLOGY
  • Published:
Hydrobiologia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Species richness is a key variable in biodiversity analyses, being often analyzed as either a response or an explanatory variable. We addressed whether biodiversity studies conducted in aquatic habitats (including both freshwater and marine habitats) differed substantially from those conducted in terrestrial habitats. Using a systematic literature search, we show that aquatic and terrestrial ecologists use species richness predominantly as a response variable. However, the number of studies in terrestrial systems was greater than the number of studies in aquatic habitats. The amount of variance in species richness explained by the statistical models was similar—around 59%. The frequency of citation was also similar between terrestrial and aquatic studies. The sample sizes of studies conducted in aquatic habitats were significantly lower than those of studies conducted in terrestrial habitats. Both aquatic and terrestrial ecologists tend to use a large number of explanatory variables to model species richness. We conclude that the differences between the ways aquatic and terrestrial ecologists conduct biodiversity studies were not substantial; their impacts on the scientific community were similar; and there is a need to increase the focus on theory-driven analyses. We recommend that research efforts on the mechanisms underlying species richness variation in aquatic systems should be intensified.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Balian, E. V., H. Segers, C. Lévèque & K. Martens, 2008a. The Freshwater Animal Diversity Assessment: an overview of the results. Hydrobiologia 595: 627–637.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balian, E., H. Segers, C. Lévèque & K. Martens, 2008b. An introduction to the Freshwater Animal Diversity Assessment (FADA) project. Hydrobiologia 595: 3–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bini, L. M., J. A. F. Diniz-Filho, T. F. L. V. B. Rangel, R. P. Bastos & M. P. Pinto, 2006. Challenging Wallacean and Linnean shortfalls: knowledge gradients and conservation planning in a biodiversity hotspot. Diversity and Distributions 12: 475–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bini, L. M., J. A. F. Diniz-Filho, T. F. L. V. B. Rangel, T. S. B. Akre, R. G. Albaladejo, F. S. Albuquerque, A. Aparicio, M. B. Araújo, A. Baselga, J. Beck, M. Isabel Bellocq, K. Böhning-Gaese, P. A. V. Borges, I. Castro-Parga, V. Khen Chey, S. L. Chown, J. Paulo De Marco, D. S. Dobkin, D. Ferrer-Castán, R. Field, J. Filloy, E. Fleishman, J. F. Gómez, J. Hortal, J. B. Iverson, J. T. Kerr, W. Daniel Kissling, I. J. Kitching, J. L. León-Cortés, J. M. Lobo, D. Montoya, I. Morales-Castilla, J. C. Moreno, T. Oberdorff, M. Á. Olalla-Tárraga, J. G. Pausas, H. Qian, C. Rahbek, M. Á. Rodríguez, M. Rueda, A. Ruggiero, P. Sackmann, N. J. Sanders, L. Carina Terribile, O. R. Vetaas & B. A. Hawkins, 2009. Coefficient shifts in geographical ecology: an empirical evaluation of spatial and non-spatial regression. Ecography 32: 193–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boggero A., A. Basset, M. Austoni, E. Barbone, L. Bartolozzi, I. Bertani, A. Campanaro, A. Cattaneo, F. Cianferoni, G. Corriero, A. M. Dörr, A. C. Elia, G. F. Ficetola, L. Kamburska, G. La Porta, R. Lauceri, A. Ludovisi, E. Gaino, E. Goretti, M. Lorenzoni, M. Manca, A. Marchetto, G. Morabito, F. Nonnis Marzano, A. Oggioni, C. Pierri, N. Riccardi, G. Rossetti, N. Ungaro, P. Volta, S. Zaupa & D. Fontaneto, 2014a. Weak effects of habitat type on susceptibility to invasive freshwater species: an Italian case study. Aquatic Conservation. doi:10.1002/aqc.2454.

  • Boggero, A., D. Fontaneto, G. Morabito & P. Volta, 2014b. Limnology in the 21st century: the importance of freshwater ecosystems as models systems in ecology and evolution. Journal of Limnology 73(s1): 1–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burkepile, D. E., 2013. Comparing aquatic and terrestrial grazing ecosystems: is the grass really greener? Oikos 122: 306–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burnham, K. P. & D. Anderson, 2002. Model Selection and Multi-model Inference. Springer, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caliman, A., A. F. Pires, F. A. Esteves, R. Bozelli & V. F. Farjalla, 2010. The prominence of and biases in biodiversity and ecosystem functioning research. Biodiversity Conservation 9: 651–664.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cardinale, B. J., J. E. Duffy, A. Gonzalez, D. U. Hooper, C. Perrings, P. Venail, A. Narwani, G. M. Mace, D. Tilman, D. A. Wardle, A. P. Kinzig, G. C. Daily, M. Loreau, J. B. Grace, A. Larigauderie, D. S. Srivastava & S. Naeem, 2012. Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature 486: 59–67.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, S. R., J. F. Kitchell & J. R. Hodgson, 1985. Cascading trophic interactions and lake productivity. BioScience 35: 634–639.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colwell, R. K. & J. A. Coddington, 1994. Estimating terrestrial biodiversity through extrapolation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B Biological Sciences 345: 101–118.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Crawley, M. J., 2007. The R Book. Wiley, Chichester, West Sussex.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cribari-Neto, F. & A. Zeileis, 2010. Beta regression in R. Journal of Statistical Software 34: 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diniz-Filho, J. A. F., R. D. Loyola, P. Raia, A. O. Mooers & L. M. Bini, 2013. Darwinian shortfalls in biodiversity conservation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 28: 689–695.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dodson, S. I., S. E. Arnott & K. L. Cottingham, 2000. The relationship in lake communities between primary productivity and species richness. Ecology 81: 2662–2679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duarte, C. M., 2002. The future of seagrass meadows. Environmental Conservation 29: 192–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dudgeon, D., A. H. Arthington, M. O. Gessner, Z.-I. Kawabata, D. J. Knowler, C. Lévêque, R. J. Naiman, A.-H. Prieur-Richard, D. Soto, M. L. J. Stiassny & C. A. Sullivan, 2006. Freshwater biodiversity: importance, threats, status and conservation challenges. Biological Reviews 81: 163–182.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Engelhardt, K. A. M. & M. E. Ritchie, 2002. The effect of aquatic plant species richness on wetland ecosystem processes. Ecology 83: 2911–2924.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Estes, J. A., J. Terborgh, J. S. Brashares, M. E. Power, J. Berger, W. J. Bond, S. R. Carpenter, T. E. Essington, R. D. Holt, J. B. C. Jackson, R. J. Marquis, L. Oksanen, T. Oksanen, R. T. Paine, E. K. Pikitch, W. J. Ripple, S. A. Sandin, M. Scheffer, T. W. Schoener, J. B. Shurin, A. R. E. Sinclair, M. E. Soulé, R. Virtanen & D. A. Wardle, 2011. Trophic Downgrading of Planet Earth. Science 333: 301–306.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ferrari, S. & F. Cribari-Neto, 2004. Beta regression for modelling rates and proportions. Journal of Applied Statistics 31: 799–815.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freckleton, R. P., P. H. Harvey & M. Pagel, 2002. Phylogenetic analysis and comparative data: a test and review of evidence. The American Naturalist 160: 712–726.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gotelli, N. J., & R. K. Colwell, 2001. Quantifying biodiversity: procedures and pitfalls in the measurement and comparison of species richness. Ecology letters 4: 379–391.

  • Gurevitch, J., L. L. Morrow, A. Wallace & J. S. Walsh, 1992. A Meta-Analysis of Competition in Field Experiments. The American Naturalist 140: 539–572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagen, M., W. D. Kissling, C. Rasmussen, M. A. M. De Aguiar, L. E. Brown, D. W. Carstensen, I. Alves-Dos-Santos, Y. L. Dupont, F. K. Edwards, J. Genini, P. R. Guimarães, G. B. Jenkins, P. Jordano, C. N. Kaiser-Bunbury, M. E. Ledger, K. P. Maia, F. M. D. Marquitti, Ó. Mclaughlin, L. P. C. Morellato, E. J. O’Gorman, K. Trøjelsgaard, J. M. Tylianakis, M. M. Vidal, G. Woodward & J. M. Olesen, 2012. Biodiversity, Species Interactions and Ecological Networks in a Fragmented World Advances in Ecological Research. Elsevier, New York: 89–210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hillebrand, H., 2004. On the generality of the latitudinal diversity gradient. The American Naturalist 163: 192–211.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hoeinghaus, D. J., A. A. Agostinho, L. C. Gomes, F. M. Pelicice, E. K. Okada, J. D. Latini, Ea L Kashiwaqui & K. O. Winemiller, 2009. Effects of river impoundment on ecosystem services of large tropical rivers: embodied energy and market value of artisanal fisheries. Conservation Biology 23: 1222–1231.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hortal, J., J. C. Nabout, J. Calatayud, F. M. Carneiro, A. Padial, A. M. C. Santos, T. Siqueira, F. Bokma, L. M. Bini & M. Ventura, 2014. Perspectives on the use of lakes and ponds as model systems for macroecological research. Journal of Limnology 73(s1): 46–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins, D. G., 2014. Lakes and rivers as microcosms, version 2.0. Journal of Limnology 73(s1): 20–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jumars, P. A., 1990. W(h)ither limnology ? Limnology and oceanography 35: 1216–1218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kinlan, B. P. & S. D. Gaines, 2003. Propagule dispersal in marine and terrestrial environments: a community perspective. Ecology 84: 2007–2020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Logue, J. B., N. Mouquet, H. Peter & H. Hillebrand, 2011. Empirical approaches to metacommunities: a review and comparison with theory. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 26: 482–491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loreau, M., S. Naeem, P. Inchausti, J. Bengtsson, J. P. Grime, A. Hector, D. U. Hooper, M. A. Huston, D. Raffaelli, B. Schmid, D. Tilman & D. A. Wardle, 2001. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: current knowledge and future challenges. Science 294: 804–808.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Low-Décarie, E., C. Chivers & M. Granados, 2014. Rising complexity and falling explanatory power in ecology. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 12: 412–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacArthur, R. H., 1967. The Theory of Island Biogeography. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Meredith, R. W., J. E. Janečka, J. Gatesy, O. A. Ryder, C. A. Fisher, E. C. Teeling, A. Goodbla, E. Eizirik, T. L. L. Simão, T. Stadler, D. L. Rabosky, R. L. Honeycutt, J. J. Flynn, C. M. Ingram, C. Steiner, T. L. Williams, T. J. Robinson, A. Burk-Herrick, M. Westerman, N. A. Ayoub, M. S. Springer & W. J. Murphy, 2011. Impacts of the cretaceous terrestrial revolution and KPg extinction on mammal diversification. Science 334: 521–524.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Møller, A. & M. D. Jennions, 2002. How much variance can be explained by ecologists and evolutionary biologists? Oecologia 132: 492–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naeem, S., 2002. Ecosystem consequences of biodiversity loss: the evolution of a paradigma. Ecology 83: 1537–1552.

  • Noss, R. F., 1990. Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: a hierarchical approach. Conservation Biology 4: 355–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nowlin, W. H., M. J. Vanni & L. H. Yang, 2008. Comparing resource pulses in aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Ecology 89: 647–659.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pennisi, E., 2005. What determines species diversity? Science 309: 90.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rahbek, C., 1995. The elevational gradient of species richness: a uniform pattern? Ecography 18: 200–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, C. S., 1998. The state of freshwater ecology. Freshwater Biology 39: 741–753.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ricklefs, R. E., 2008. Disintegration of the Ecological Community. The American Naturalist 172: 741–750.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rigler, F. H., & R. H. Peters, 1995. Science and limnology. Ecology Institute. Germany.

  • Rohde, K., 1992. Latitudinal gradients in species diversity: the search for the primary cause. Oikos 65: 514–527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rotjan, R. D. & J. Idjadi, 2013. Surf and Turf: toward better synthesis by cross-system understanding. Oikos 122: 285–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sala, O. E., F. S. Chapin, J. J. Armesto, E. Berlow, J. Bloomfield, R. Dirzo, E. Huber-Sanwald, L. F. Huenneke, R. B. Jackson, A. Kinzig, R. Leemans, D. M. Lodge, H. A. Mooney, M. Oesterheld, N. L. Poff, M. T. Sykes, B. H. Walker, M. Walker & D. H. Wall, 2000. Global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100. Science 287: 1770–1774.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shurin, J. B., D. S. Gruner & H. Hillebrand, 2006. All wet or dried up? Real differences between aquatic and terrestrial food webs. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 273: 1–9.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shurin, J. B., E. T. Borer, E. W. Seabloom, K. Anderson, C. A. Blanchette, B. Broitman, S. D. Cooper & B. S. Halpern, 2002. A cross-ecosystem comparison of the strength of trophic cascades. Ecology letters 5: 785–791.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, P.F., 2001 (onwards). Angiosperm Phylogeny Website. Version 12, July 2012 [and more or less continuously updated since]. http://www.mobot.org/MOBOT/research/APweb/

  • Treplin, M. & M. Zimmer, 2012. Drowned or dry: a cross-habitat comparison of detrital breakdown processes. Ecosystems 15: 477–491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vamosi, S. M., 2014. Phylogenetic community ecology as an approach for studying old ideas on competition in the plankton: opportunities and challenges. Journal of Limnology 73(s1): 186–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webb, T. J., 2012. Marine and terrestrial ecology: unifying concepts, revealing differences. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 27: 535–541.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, E. O., 1986. Biophilia. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yvon-Durocher, G., J. Reiss, J. Blanchard, B. Ebenman, D. M. Perkins, D. C. Reuman, A. Thierry, G. Woodward & O. L. Petchey, 2011. Across ecosystem comparisons of size structure: methods, approaches and prospects. Oikos 120: 550–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank an anonymous referee for his/her constructive comments on an earlier version of this manuscript. The writing of this study was partially funded by grant #2013/50424-1, São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) and by #480933/2012-0, Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Diego Fontaneto.

Additional information

Guest editor: Koen Martens / Emerging Trends in Aquatic Ecology

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Siqueira, T., Bini, L.M., Thomaz, S.M. et al. Biodiversity analyses: are aquatic ecologists doing any better and differently than terrestrial ecologists?. Hydrobiologia 750, 5–12 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-014-2071-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-014-2071-6

Keywords

Navigation