Article

Primate communities are structured more by dispersal limitation than by niches.

Graduate Group in Ecology, University of California, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616, USA.
Journal of Animal Ecology (Impact Factor: 4.84). 11/2010; 80(2):332-41. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2656.2010.01777.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT 1. A major goal in community ecology is to identify mechanisms that govern the assembly and maintenance of ecological communities. Current models of metacommunity dynamics differ chiefly in the relative emphasis placed on dispersal limitation and niche differentiation as causal mechanisms structuring ecological communities. Herein we investigate the relative roles of these two mechanisms in structuring primate communities in Africa, South America, Madagascar and Borneo. 2. We hypothesized that if dispersal limitation is important in structuring communities, then community similarity should depend on geographical proximity even after controlling for ecological similarity. Conversely, if communities are assembled primarily through niche processes, then community similarity should be determined by ecological similarity regardless of geographical proximity. 3. We performed Mantel and partial Mantel tests to investigate correlations among primate community similarity, ecological distance and geographical distance. Results showed significant and strongly negative relationships between diurnal primate community similarity and both ecological similarity and geographical distance in Madagascar, but significant and stronger negative relationships between community similarity and geographical distance in African, South American and Bornean metacommunities. 4. We conclude that dispersal limitation is an important determinant of primate community structure and may play a stronger role in shaping the structure of some terrestrial vertebrate communities than niche differentiation. These patterns are consistent with neutral theory. We recommend tests of functional equivalence to determine the extent to which neutral theory may explain primate community composition.

1 Bookmark
 · 
116 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The site of Loperot in West Turkana, Kenya, is usually assigned to the Early Miocene. Recent discoveries at Loperot, including catarrhine primates, led to a revision of its mammalian fauna. Our revision of the fauna at Loperot shows an unusual taxonomic composition of the catarrhine community as well as several other unique mammalian taxa. Loperot shares two non-cercopithecoid catarrhine taxa with Early Miocene sites near Lake Victoria, e.g., Songhor and the Hiwegi Formation of Rusinga Island, but Loperot shares a cercopithecoid, Noropithecus, with Buluk (Surgei Plateau, near Lake Chew Bahir). We use Simpson's Faunal Resemblance Index (Simpson's FRI), a cluster analysis, and two partial Mantel tests, to compare Loperot to 10 other localities in East Africa representing several time divisions within the Early and Middle Miocene. Simpson's FRI of mammalian communities indicates that Loperot is most similar in its taxonomic composition to the Hiwegi Formation of Rusinga Island, suggesting a similarity in age (≥18 Ma) that implies that Loperot is geographically distant from its contemporaries, i.e.
    International Journal of Primatology 01/2014; · 1.79 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Many factors contribute to the structure of primate communities, including historical processes, interspecific competition, and climate. Here, we quantify the phylogenetic structure of individual primate communities to evaluate these factors relative to a null model. Then, we examine the effects of species richness and local climate on variation in community phylogenetic structure. We analyze 71 haplorhine and 29 strepsirrhine communities in Africa and quantify their net relatedness (NRI) and nearest taxon (NTI) indices. Significantly low, i.e., phylogenetically even, NRI and NTI values are indicative of interspecific competition in the past, resulting in closely related species not being found in the same community. In contrast, significantly high, i.e., phylogenetically clustered, NRI and NTI values suggest that closely related species have similar ecological requirements, resulting in closely related species occupying the same community. In a second set of analyses, we used simultaneous autoregressive models to examine if species richness, rainfall, and temperature predict variation in community phylogenetic structure. Most individual communities exhibited phyloge-netically random species assemblages. However, significantly structured haplorhine communities were even whereas strepsirrhine communities were clustered. Species richness significantly predicted variation in haplorhine phylogenetic structure, whereas abiotic factors significantly predicted variation in strepsirrhine phylogenetic structure. We suggest that past interspecific competition and habitat filtering have affected a relatively small proportion of African primate communities, but that past interspecific competition has more strongly influenced haplorhine communities whereas environ-mental conditions have more strongly influenced strepsirrhine communities. Our study illustrates the utility of phylogenetic metrics and spatially explicit models for under-standing primate communities.
    International Journal of Primatology 01/2014; · 1.79 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: At least three community assembly processes shape communities: 1) environmental niche-based processes, 2) spatial effects through dispersal limitation, and 3) biogeographic dispersal barriers. Previous studies suggested primate communities were dispersal limited, except in Madagascar, where environmental effects shaped communities. However, previous work did not investigate the role of biogeographic barriers. Further, the relative roles of these processes are potentially specific to taxonomic and/or functional groups owing to a group’s ecological preferences. I aimed to identify to what extent environmental factors, spatial effects, and biogeographic barriers shape patterns of primate and nonprimate community composition, in comparison to terrestrial and arboreal mammal communities in Madagascar. I analyzed occurrence data of nonvolant mammals and site-specific environmental and biogeographic data for 34 sites in Madagascar using principal coordinates of neighbor matrices and variation partitioning to test the relative contribution of environmental, spatial, and biogeographic effects to the patterns of community composition. Environmental and spatial effects almost equally explained nonvolant mammal communities. However, for primate and arboreal mammal communities, especially at broad spatial scales, spatial effects explained more of the variation than environmental effects. By contrast, only environmental effects explained nonprimate and terrestrial mammal distributions. Biogeographic effects were not significant for any community type. The difference between arboreal and terrestrial mammals is perhaps due to functional differences in dispersal ability, which habitat modification and a large impassable agricultural matrix in Madagascar may compound. Future research should consider the influence of functional diversity on patterns of community assembly.
    International Journal of Primatology 06/2014; · 1.79 Impact Factor

Full-text (3 Sources)

Download
96 Downloads
Available from
May 21, 2014