Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of contributors
- Preface
- Part I Theoretical framework
- Part II Prokaryotes
- Part III Unicellular eukaryotes
- Part IV Pluricellular eukaryotes
- Part V Processes
- 15 Microbes as a test of biogeographic principles
- 16 A metacommunity perspective on the phylo- and biogeography of small organisms
- 17 Geographic variation in the diversity of microbial communities: research directions and prospects for experimental biogeography
- Index
- Systematics Association Publications
- Systematics Association Special Volumes
- Plate section
- References
15 - Microbes as a test of biogeographic principles
from Part V - Processes
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 August 2012
Edited by
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of contributors
- Preface
- Part I Theoretical framework
- Part II Prokaryotes
- Part III Unicellular eukaryotes
- Part IV Pluricellular eukaryotes
- Part V Processes
- 15 Microbes as a test of biogeographic principles
- 16 A metacommunity perspective on the phylo- and biogeography of small organisms
- 17 Geographic variation in the diversity of microbial communities: research directions and prospects for experimental biogeography
- Index
- Systematics Association Publications
- Systematics Association Special Volumes
- Plate section
- References
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 OrganismsIs Everything Small Everywhere?, pp. 309 - 323Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2011
References
, (1954). The Distribution and Abundance of Animals. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
, , , , (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
, , , (2007). Differential thermal adaptation of clonal strains of a protist morphospecies originating from different climatic zones. Environmental Microbiology 9, 593–602.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
H. (1984). On the relationship between abundance and distribution of species. American Naturalist 124, 255–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, (2003). Ecological Niches: Linking Classical and Contemporary Approaches. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, (2009). Hutchinson's duality: The once and future niche. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 106, 19651–19658.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(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
, (2006). ‘Everything is everywhere, but the environment selects’; what did Baas Becking and Beijerinck really say?Environmental Microbiology 8, 755–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2002). Global dispersal of free-living microbial eukaryote species. Science 296, 1061–1063.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, (2004) Cosmopolitan metapopulations of free-living microbial eukaryotes. Protist 155, 237–244.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , , 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
(1996). Species–range-size distributions: patterns, mechanisms and implications. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 11, 197–201.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(2003). The Structure and Dynamics of Geographic Ranges. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
, , (1997). Interspecific abundance–range size relationships: an appraisal of mechanisms. Journal of Animal Ecology 66, 579–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, (2006). Spatial scaling in microbial biodiversity. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 21, 501–507.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(1917). The niche-relationships of the California Thrasher. The Auk 34, 427–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, . (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
, , (2001). Self-similarity and the relationship between abundance and range size. American Naturalist 157, 374–386.Google ScholarPubMed
, (1982). The distribution of abundance. I. Measurements. Journal of Biogeography 9, 303–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , et al. (2008). The ecological niche ofDaphnia magna characterized using population growth rate. Ecology 89, 1015–1022.Google Scholar
, , , (2004). A taxa–area relationship for bacteria. Nature 432, 750–753.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(2001). The Unified Neutral Theory of Biodiversity and Biogeography. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
(1957). Concluding remarks. Cold Spring Harbor Symposium on Quantitative Biology 22, 415–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, (2000). Responses of plant populations and communities to environmental changes of the late Quaternary. Paleobiology 26 (Suppl), 194–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , et al. (2007). Does size matter for dispersal distance?Global Ecology and Biogeography 16, 415–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, (2009). Mechanistic niche modelling: combining physiological and spatial data to predict species ranges. Ecology Letters 12, 334–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , 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
, , , 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
(1987). Hypothesis testing in ecology: psychological aspects and the importance of theory maturation. Quarterly Review of Biology 62, 397–409.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , et al. (2006) Microbial biogeography: putting microorganisms on the map. Nature Reviews Microbiology 4, 102–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(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
, , , , . (2008). Ecological variation withinSellaphora species complexes (Bacillariophyceae): specialists or generalists? Hydrobiologia 614, 373–386.Google Scholar
(2002). On the relationship between niche and distribution. Ecology Letters 3, 349–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, (2007). Biogeography: an emerging cornerstone for understanding prokaryotic diversity, ecology, and evolution. Microbial Ecology 53, 197–207.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , , (2008). Ecologic niche modeling ofBlastomyces dermatitidis in Wisconsin. PLoS ONE 3, 1–7.Google Scholar
, (2002). The ‘abundant centre’ distribution: to what extent is it a biogeographical rule?Ecology Letters 5, 137–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D, , (2006). Moving beyond assumptions to understand abundance distributions across the ranges of species. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 21, 526–530.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, (2009). Niches and distributional areas: concepts, methods, and assumptions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 106, 19644–10650.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, Kunin, W.E. (1999). The spatial structure of populations. Journal of Animal Ecology 68, 647–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , et al. (2001). Niche separation in common prostome freshwater ciliates: the effect of food and temperature. Aquatic Microbial Ecology 26, 167–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2004). Vertical niche separation of two consumers (Rotatoria) in an extreme habitat. Oecologia 139, 594–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1980). Gaussian analysis: identifying environmental factors influencing bell-shaped species distributions. Ecology 61, 733–739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1956). Vegetation of the Great Smoky Mountains. Ecological Monographs 26, 2–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , , (2003). Niche modeling and geographic range predictions in the marine environment using a machine-learning algorithm. Oceanography 16, 120–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1988). Spatial heterogeneity and niche differentiation in oceanic zooplankton. Hydrobiologia 167–168, 151–159.Google Scholar
- 9
- Cited by