Latitudinal differences in species abundance distributions, rather than spatial aggregation, explain beta‐diversity along latitudinal gradients

Abstract

AbstractAimVariation in species composition among sites (β‐diversity) generally decreases with increasing latitude, but the underlying mechanisms are ambiguous. Although both local and large‐scale processes may drive this pattern, they act all through influencing species abundance distribution (SAD) and spatial pattern of species. A null model incorporating SAD is often used to calculate expected β‐diversity, which accounts for most variation in β‐diversity. However, a recent study has shown that the deviation of observed β‐diversity from expected values (β‐deviation) increases with latitude. The latitudinal gradients in β‐deviation may be related to both latitudinal differences in SADs and the degrees of spatial aggregation. Our study aims to (1) investigate how β‐deviation varies with SAD and spatial aggregation, and (2) separate the contributions of SAD and aggregation in explaining latitudinal gradients in β‐deviation.LocationGlobal.Methods197 forest plots (each containing 10 subplots) distributed along latitudinal gradients were used. Two β‐diversity models were derived for communities with randomly and nonrandomly distributed species. The two models were used to simulate relationships of β‐deviation with SAD and aggregation, and to separate the contributions of these two factors in explaining latitudinal gradients in β‐deviation.Resultsβ‐deviation increased with the degree of aggregation and peaked at intermediate species abundance. The fraction of β‐deviation linked to SAD increased with latitude in global and regional analyses, whereas the fraction of β‐deviation linked to aggregation was only significantly correlated with latitude in New World south. The degree of aggregation increased with latitude in New World south, but not in global extent and New World north.Main conclusionsThe latitudinal gradients in β‐deviation are primarily explained by latitudinal differences in SADs. Additionally, the expected β‐diversity is determined solely by SAD. Therefore, we conclude that latitude‐β‐diversity gradients at local spatial scales appear to be explained by latitudinal differences in SADs.