Model‐based decomposition of environmental, spatial and species‐interaction effects on the community structure of common fish species in 772 European lakes

Thomas Mehner,Erik Jeppesen,Christine Argillier,Teet Krause,Trygve Hesthagen,Ian J Winfield,Fiona Kelly,Mikko Olin,Sandra Brucet,Pietro Volta,Kerstin Holmgren

doi:10.1111/geb.13314

Abstract

AbstractAimWe tested whether there is a strong effect of species interactions on assembly of local lake fish communities, in addition to environmental filters and dispersal.LocationSeven hundred and seventy‐two European lakes and reservoirs.Time period1993–2012.Major taxa studiedNineteen species of freshwater fishes.MethodsWe applied a latent variable approach using Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithms (R package “BORAL”). We compared the contributions of six environmental predictors and the spatial organization of 772 European lakes in 209 river basins on the presence/absence of the 19 most frequent fish species and on the biomass and mean mass of the six dominant species. We inspected the residual correlation matrix for positive and negative correlations between species.ResultsEnvironmental (50%) and spatial (10%) predictors contributed to the presence/absence assembly of lake fish communities, whereas lake size and productivity contributed strongly to the biomass and mean mass structures. We found highly significant negative correlations between predator and prey fish species pairs in the presence/absence, biomass and mean mass datasets. There were more significantly positive than negative correlations between species pairs in all three datasets. In addition, unmeasured abiotic predictors might explain some of the correlations between species.Main conclusionsStrong effects of species interactions on assembly of lake fish communities are very likely. We admit that our approach is of a correlational nature and does not generate mechanistic evidence that interactions strongly shape fish community structures; however, the results fit with present knowledge about the interactions between the most frequent fish species in European lakes and they support the assumption that, in particular, the mean masses of fish species in lakes are modified by species interactions.

Highlights

Macroecology traditionally considers species distributions at large spatial scales to be primarily driven by abiotic environmental conditions
We admit that our approach is of a correlational nature and does not generate mechanistic evidence that interactions strongly shape fish community structures; the results fit with present knowledge about the interactions between the most frequent fish species in European lakes and they support the assumption that, in particular, the mean masses of fish species in lakes are modified by species interactions
By adopting the terminology from evolutionary biology, a conceptual synthesis of community ecology suggested that patterns in the diversity and composition of species are influenced by four major processes: selection, drift, speciation and dispersal (Vellend, 2010)

Summary

Introduction

Macroecology traditionally considers species distributions at large spatial scales to be primarily driven by abiotic environmental conditions. By adopting the terminology from evolutionary biology, a conceptual synthesis of community ecology suggested that patterns in the diversity and composition of species are influenced by four major processes: selection, drift, speciation and dispersal (Vellend, 2010). The effects of speciation and drift on local communities can be inferred only from following community composition over time, whereas information on the effects of selection and dispersal can be obtained from comparisons of community composition across large spatial and environmental gradients (e.g., Boulangeat et al, 2012; Cazelles et al, 2016; Lansac- Tôha et al, 2021). The assembly processes of abiotic filtering and dispersal, as considered by macroecology, are linked with the species interactions at local scales dominantly considered in community ecology

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion