Weak but consistent abundance–occupancy relationships across taxa, space and time

Abstract

AbstractAimAbundance–occupancy relationships posit that more locally abundant species occupy more sites than less abundant species. Although widely supported, the occurrence and detection of abundance–occupancy relationships is sensitive to sampling and detection processes. Data from large‐scale standardized sampling efforts are key to address abundance–occupancy relationships. We aimed to use such a dataset to evaluate the occurrence of abundance–occupancy relationships across different spatial grains and over time for aquatic and terrestrial taxa.LocationUSA.Time period2014–2019.Major taxa studiedBirds, mammals, beetles, ticks, fishes, macroinvertebrates and zooplankton.MethodsSpecies abundance and occupancy data were obtained from the National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON). Species mean abundance and occupancy (fraction of sampled locations that were occupied) were estimated for three different spatial grains (i.e., plot, site and domain) for all years sampled. Linear models were used to explore the consistency of interspecific abundance–occupancy relationships. The slope coefficients of these models were related to temporal and spatial variables and to species richness while controlling for taxa in a linear mixed‐effects model (LMM) framework.ResultsWe found evidence for positive abundance–occupancy relationships across the three spatial grains and over time for all taxa we studied. However, our linear models had low explanatory power, suggesting that relationships, although general, were weak. Abundance–occupancy relationships were slightly stronger at the smallest spatial grain than at the largest spatial grain, but showed no detectable change over time for any taxa. Finally, species richness was not associated with the strength of these relationships.Main conclusionsTogether, our results suggest that positive interspecific abundance–occupancy relationships are fairly general but are not capable of explaining substantial variation in spatial patterns of abundance, and that other factors, such as species traits and niche, are also likely to influence these relationships.