Search

Community variability has a dual nature. On the one hand, there is compositional variability, changes in the relative abundance of component species. On the other hand, there is aggregate variability, changes in summary properties such as total abundance, biomass, or production. Although these two aspects of variability have received much individual attention, few studies have explicitly? related the compositional and aggregate variability of natural communities. In this paper, we show how simultaneous consideration of both aspects of community variability might advance our understanding of ecological communities.We use the distinction between compositional and aggregate variability to develop an organizational framework for describing patterns of community variability. At their extremes, compositional and aggregate variability combine in four different ways: (I) stasis, low compositional and low aggregate variability; (2) synchrony, low compositional and high aggregate variability; (3) asynchrony, high compositional and high aggregate variability; and (4) compensation, high compositional and low aggregate variability. Each of these patterns has been observed in natural communities, and can be linked to a suite of abiotic and biotic mechanisms. We give examples of the potential relevance of variability patterns to applied ecology, and describe the methodological developments needed to make meaningful comparisons of aggregate and compositional variability across communities. Finally, we provide two numerical examples of how our approach can be applied to natural communities.

The species–time relationship (STR) describes how the species richness of a community increases with the time span over which the community is observed. This pattern has numerous implications for both theory and conservation in much the same way as the species–area relationship (SAR). However, the STR has received much less attention and to date only a handful of papers have been published on the pattern. Here we gather together 984 community time-series, representing 15 study areas and nine taxonomic groups, and evaluate their STRs in order to assess the generality of the STR, its consistency across ecosystems and taxonomic groups, its functional form, and its relationship to local species richness. In general, STRs were surprisingly similar across major taxonomic groups and ecosystem types. STRs tended to be well fit by both power and logarithmic functions, and power function exponents typically ranged between 0.2 and 0.4. Communities with high richness tended to have lower STR exponents, suggesting that factors increasing richness may simultaneously decrease turnover in ecological systems. Our results suggest that the STR is as fundamental an ecological pattern as the SAR, and raise questions about the general processes underlying this pattern. They also highlight the dynamic nature of most species assemblages, and the need to incorporate time scale in both basic and applied research on species richness patterns. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]