Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-03T15:48:08.609Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

15 - Microbes as a test of biogeographic principles

from Part V - Processes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 August 2012

By
David G. Jenkins ,
Kim A. Medley  and
Rima B. Franklin
Edited by
Diego Fontaneto
David G. Jenkins
Affiliation:
University of Central Florida
Kim A. Medley
Affiliation:
University of Central Florida
Rima B. Franklin
Affiliation:
Virginia Commonwealth University
Diego Fontaneto
Affiliation:
Imperial College London
Get access

Summary

Introduction

In the hierarchy of scientific knowledge, a principle, rule or law describes consistent observations and precedes hypothesis and theory. Given consistent observations, other information or insight may suggest mechanisms, and a hypothesis can be formed. For example, the first principle of biogeography, Buffon's law, states that disjunct regions have distinct species assemblages despite similar environments. Buffon proposed a mechanism to explain biogeographic patterns: that species ‘improve’ or ‘degenerate’ according to their environment. Given generality and often incorporating multiple facets, a theory may emerge that explains the patterns well (e.g. evolutionary theory).

As in ecology, biogeographic principles may include speculations that ‘have often been elevated to laws merely by the passing of time’ (Loehle, 1987). Tests of biogeographic laws/principles/rules are thus valuable for biogeography in general and for understanding the tested system.

In that context, the statement for microbes that ‘Everything is everywhere, but the environment selects’ (Finlay, 2002; de Wit and Bouvier, 2006; hereafter abbreviated as EiE) is valuable to test the generality of biogeography's principles and their hypothesised mechanisms. Generality is tested best by extremes, and microbes (defined here as < ~1–2 mm; Finlay, 2002) certainly represent the lower margin of body size for most biogeographic evidence because most biogeography research has been conducted with macrobes (defined here as larger than 1–2 mm; Finlay, 2002). According to EiE, microbes have no biogeographic pattern due to their enormous population sizes and high probability of ubiquitous dispersal (Finlay, 2002).

Type
Chapter
Information
Biogeography of Microscopic Organisms
Is Everything Small Everywhere?
 , pp. 309 - 323
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Andrewartha, H.G., Birch, L.C. (1954). The Distribution and Abundance of Animals. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Blackburn, T.M., Gaston, K.J., Quinn, R.M., Arnold, H., Gregory, R.D. (1997). Of mice and wrens: the relation between abundance and geographic range size in British mammals and birds. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 352, 419–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boenigk, J., Jost, S., Stoeck, T., Garstecki, T. (2007). Differential thermal adaptation of clonal strains of a protist morphospecies originating from different climatic zones. Environmental Microbiology 9, 593–602.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brown, J. H. (1984). On the relationship between abundance and distribution of species. American Naturalist 124, 255–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, J.H., Mehlman, D.W., Stevens, G.C. (1995). Spatial variation in abundance. Ecology 76, 2028–2043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chase, J.M., Leibold, M.A. (2003). Ecological Niches: Linking Classical and Contemporary Approaches. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colwell, R. K., Rangel, T.F. (2009). Hutchinson's duality: The once and future niche. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 106, 19651–19658.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Damuth, J. (1987). Interspecific allometry of population density in mammals and other animals: the independence of body mass and population energy use. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 31, 193–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wit, R., Bouvier, T. (2006). ‘Everything is everywhere, but the environment selects’; what did Baas Becking and Beijerinck really say?Environmental Microbiology 8, 755–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finlay, B.J. (2002). Global dispersal of free-living microbial eukaryote species. Science 296, 1061–1063.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Finlay, B.J., Fenchel, T. (2004) Cosmopolitan metapopulations of free-living microbial eukaryotes. Protist 155, 237–244.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Foulon, E., Not, F., Jalabert, F., Cariou, T. et al. (2008). Ecological niche partitioning in the picoplanktonic green algaMicromonas pusilla: evidence from environmental surveys using phylogenetic probes. Environmental Microbiology 10, 2433–2443.Google ScholarPubMed
Gaston, K.J. (1996). Species–range-size distributions: patterns, mechanisms and implications. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 11, 197–201.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gaston, K.J. (2003). The Structure and Dynamics of Geographic Ranges. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gaston, K.J., Blackburn, T.M., Lawton, J.H. (1997). Interspecific abundance–range size relationships: an appraisal of mechanisms. Journal of Animal Ecology 66, 579–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, J., Bohannan, B.J.M. (2006). Spatial scaling in microbial biodiversity. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 21, 501–507.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grinnell, J. (1917). The niche-relationships of the California Thrasher. The Auk 34, 427–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hahn, M.W., Pöckl, M . (2005). Ecotypes of planktonic actinobacteria with identical 16s rrna genes adapted to thermal niches in temperate, subtropical, and tropical freshwater habitats. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 71, 766–773.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harte, J., Blackburn, T., Ostling, A. (2001). Self-similarity and the relationship between abundance and range size. American Naturalist 157, 374–386.Google ScholarPubMed
Hengeveld, R., Haeck, J. (1982). The distribution of abundance. I. Measurements. Journal of Biogeography 9, 303–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hooper, H.L., Connon, R., Callaghan, A., Fryer, G. et al. (2008). The ecological niche ofDaphnia magna characterized using population growth rate. Ecology 89, 1015–1022.Google Scholar
Horner-Devine, M.C., Lage, M., Hughes, J.B., Bohannan, B.J. (2004). A taxa–area relationship for bacteria. Nature 432, 750–753.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hubbell, S.P. (2001). The Unified Neutral Theory of Biodiversity and Biogeography. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Hutchinson, G.E. (1957). Concluding remarks. Cold Spring Harbor Symposium on Quantitative Biology 22, 415–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, S.T., Overpeck, J.T. (2000). Responses of plant populations and communities to environmental changes of the late Quaternary. Paleobiology 26 (Suppl), 194–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jenkins, D.G., Brescacin, C.R., Duxbury, C.V. et al. (2007). Does size matter for dispersal distance?Global Ecology and Biogeography 16, 415–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kearney, M., Porter, W. (2009). Mechanistic niche modelling: combining physiological and spatial data to predict species ranges. Ecology Letters 12, 334–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kernan, M., Ventura, M., Bitušík, P., Brancelj, A. et al. (2009). Regionalisation of remote European mountain lake ecosystems according to their biota: environmental versus geographical patterns. Freshwater Biology 54, 2470–2493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krasnov, B.R., Shenbrot, G.I., Khokhlova, I.S., Vinarski, M. et al. (2008). Geographical patterns of abundance: testing expectations of the ‘abundance optimum’ model in two taxa of ectoparasitic arthropods. Journal of Biogeography 35, 2187–2194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loehle, C. (1987). Hypothesis testing in ecology: psychological aspects and the importance of theory maturation. Quarterly Review of Biology 62, 397–409.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lomolino, M.V., Riddle, B.R., Brown, J.H. (2006). Biogeography, 3rd Edition. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.Google Scholar
Martiny, J.B.H., Bohannan, B., Brown, J. et al. (2006) Microbial biogeography: putting microorganisms on the map. Nature Reviews Microbiology 4, 102–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Medley, K.A. (2010). Niche shifts during the global invasion of the Asian tiger mosquito, Aedes albopictus Skuse (Culicidae), revealed by reciprocal distribution models. Global Ecology and Biogeography 19, 122–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poulíčková, A., Špačková, J., Kelly, M.G., Duchoslav, M., Mann, D.G . (2008). Ecological variation withinSellaphora species complexes (Bacillariophyceae): specialists or generalists? Hydrobiologia 614, 373–386.Google Scholar
Pulliam, H.R. (2002). On the relationship between niche and distribution. Ecology Letters 3, 349–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramette, A., Tiedje, J.M. (2007). Biogeography: an emerging cornerstone for understanding prokaryotic diversity, ecology, and evolution. Microbial Ecology 53, 197–207.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reed, K.D., Meece, J.K., Archer, J.R., Peterson, A.T. (2008). Ecologic niche modeling ofBlastomyces dermatitidis in Wisconsin. PLoS ONE 3, 1–7.Google Scholar
Sagarin, R.D., Gaines, S.D. (2002). The ‘abundant centre’ distribution: to what extent is it a biogeographical rule?Ecology Letters 5, 137–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sagarin, R. D, Gaines, S.D., Gaylord, B. (2006). Moving beyond assumptions to understand abundance distributions across the ranges of species. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 21, 526–530.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Soberón, J., Nakamura, M. (2009). Niches and distributional areas: concepts, methods, and assumptions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 106, 19644–10650.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thomas, C.D., Kunin, W.E. (1999). The spatial structure of populations. Journal of Animal Ecology 68, 647–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weisse, T., Karstens, N., Meyer, V.C.L. et al. (2001). Niche separation in common prostome freshwater ciliates: the effect of food and temperature. Aquatic Microbial Ecology 26, 167–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weithoff, G. (2004). Vertical niche separation of two consumers (Rotatoria) in an extreme habitat. Oecologia 139, 594–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westman, W.E. (1980). Gaussian analysis: identifying environmental factors influencing bell-shaped species distributions. Ecology 61, 733–739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittaker, R.H. (1956). Vegetation of the Great Smoky Mountains. Ecological Monographs 26, 2–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiley, E.O., McNyset, K.M., Peterson, A.T., Robins, C.R., Stewart, A.M. (2003). Niche modeling and geographic range predictions in the marine environment using a machine-learning algorithm. Oceanography 16, 120–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, R. (1988). Spatial heterogeneity and niche differentiation in oceanic zooplankton. Hydrobiologia 167–168, 151–159.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×