Estimating and interpreting migration of Amazonian forests using spatially implicit and semi-explicit neutral models

Edwin Pos, Juan Ernesto Guevara Andino, Daniel Sabatier, Jean-François Molino, Nigel Pitman, Hugo Mogollón, David Neill, Carlos Cerón, Gonzalo Rivas-Torres, Anthony Di Fiore, Raquel Thomas, Milton Tirado, Kenneth R. Young, Ophelia Wang, Rodrigo Sierra, Roosevelt García-Villacorta, Roderick Zagt, Walter Palacios Cuenca, Milton Aulestia, Hans ter Steege

Research output: Contribution to JournalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

With many sophisticated methods available for estimating migration, ecologists face the difficult decision of choosing for their specific line of work. Here we test and compare several methods, performing sanity and robustness tests, applying to large-scale data and discussing the results and interpretation. Five methods were selected to compare for their ability to estimate migration from spatially implicit and semi-explicit simulations based on three large-scale field datasets from South America (Guyana, Suriname, French Guiana and Ecuador). Space was incorporated semi-explicitly by a discrete probability mass function for local recruitment, migration from adjacent plots or from a metacommunity. Most methods were able to accurately estimate migration from spatially implicit simulations. For spatially semi-explicit simulations, estimation was shown to be the additive effect of migration from adjacent plots and the metacommunity. It was only accurate when migration from the metacommunity outweighed that of adjacent plots, discrimination, however, proved to be impossible. We show that migration should be considered more an approximation of the resemblance between communities and the summed regional species pool. Application of migration estimates to simulate field datasets did show reasonably good fits and indicated consistent differences between sets in comparison with earlier studies. We conclude that estimates of migration using these methods are more an approximation of the homogenization among local communities over time rather than a direct measurement of migration and hence have a direct relationship with beta diversity. As betadiversity is the result of many (non)-neutral processes, we have to admit that migration as estimated in a spatial explicit world encompasses not only direct migration but is an ecological aggregate of these processes. The parameter m of neutral models then appears more as an emerging property revealed by neutral theory instead of being an effective mechanistic parameter and spatially implicit models should be rejected as an approximation of forest dynamics.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)4254-4265
Number of pages12
JournalEcology and Evolution
Volume7
Issue number12
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2017

Fingerprint

Suriname
methodology
Guyana
French Guiana
homogenization
ecologists
Ecuador
additive effect
testing
simulation
species pool
forest dynamics
method
test
parameter

Bibliographical note

M1 - 12

Keywords

  • betadiversity migration neutral theory parameter estimation species composition species diversity

Cite this

Pos, Edwin ; Guevara Andino, Juan Ernesto ; Sabatier, Daniel ; Molino, Jean-François ; Pitman, Nigel ; Mogollón, Hugo ; Neill, David ; Cerón, Carlos ; Rivas-Torres, Gonzalo ; Di Fiore, Anthony ; Thomas, Raquel ; Tirado, Milton ; Young, Kenneth R. ; Wang, Ophelia ; Sierra, Rodrigo ; García-Villacorta, Roosevelt ; Zagt, Roderick ; Palacios Cuenca, Walter ; Aulestia, Milton ; ter Steege, Hans. / Estimating and interpreting migration of Amazonian forests using spatially implicit and semi-explicit neutral models. In: Ecology and Evolution. 2017 ; Vol. 7, No. 12. pp. 4254-4265.
@article{2b1e53862c284cfaa7ae2b60435fb4e8,
title = "Estimating and interpreting migration of Amazonian forests using spatially implicit and semi-explicit neutral models",
abstract = "With many sophisticated methods available for estimating migration, ecologists face the difficult decision of choosing for their specific line of work. Here we test and compare several methods, performing sanity and robustness tests, applying to large-scale data and discussing the results and interpretation. Five methods were selected to compare for their ability to estimate migration from spatially implicit and semi-explicit simulations based on three large-scale field datasets from South America (Guyana, Suriname, French Guiana and Ecuador). Space was incorporated semi-explicitly by a discrete probability mass function for local recruitment, migration from adjacent plots or from a metacommunity. Most methods were able to accurately estimate migration from spatially implicit simulations. For spatially semi-explicit simulations, estimation was shown to be the additive effect of migration from adjacent plots and the metacommunity. It was only accurate when migration from the metacommunity outweighed that of adjacent plots, discrimination, however, proved to be impossible. We show that migration should be considered more an approximation of the resemblance between communities and the summed regional species pool. Application of migration estimates to simulate field datasets did show reasonably good fits and indicated consistent differences between sets in comparison with earlier studies. We conclude that estimates of migration using these methods are more an approximation of the homogenization among local communities over time rather than a direct measurement of migration and hence have a direct relationship with beta diversity. As betadiversity is the result of many (non)-neutral processes, we have to admit that migration as estimated in a spatial explicit world encompasses not only direct migration but is an ecological aggregate of these processes. The parameter m of neutral models then appears more as an emerging property revealed by neutral theory instead of being an effective mechanistic parameter and spatially implicit models should be rejected as an approximation of forest dynamics.",
keywords = "betadiversity migration neutral theory parameter estimation species composition species diversity",
author = "Edwin Pos and {Guevara Andino}, {Juan Ernesto} and Daniel Sabatier and Jean-Fran{\cc}ois Molino and Nigel Pitman and Hugo Mogoll{\'o}n and David Neill and Carlos Cer{\'o}n and Gonzalo Rivas-Torres and {Di Fiore}, Anthony and Raquel Thomas and Milton Tirado and Young, {Kenneth R.} and Ophelia Wang and Rodrigo Sierra and Roosevelt Garc{\'i}a-Villacorta and Roderick Zagt and {Palacios Cuenca}, Walter and Milton Aulestia and {ter Steege}, Hans",
note = "M1 - 12",
year = "2017",
doi = "10.1002/ece3.2930",
language = "English",
volume = "7",
pages = "4254--4265",
journal = "Ecology and Evolution",
issn = "2045-7758",
publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Ltd",
number = "12",

}

Pos, E, Guevara Andino, JE, Sabatier, D, Molino, J-F, Pitman, N, Mogollón, H, Neill, D, Cerón, C, Rivas-Torres, G, Di Fiore, A, Thomas, R, Tirado, M, Young, KR, Wang, O, Sierra, R, García-Villacorta, R, Zagt, R, Palacios Cuenca, W, Aulestia, M & ter Steege, H 2017, 'Estimating and interpreting migration of Amazonian forests using spatially implicit and semi-explicit neutral models' Ecology and Evolution, vol. 7, no. 12, pp. 4254-4265. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.2930

Estimating and interpreting migration of Amazonian forests using spatially implicit and semi-explicit neutral models. / Pos, Edwin; Guevara Andino, Juan Ernesto; Sabatier, Daniel; Molino, Jean-François; Pitman, Nigel; Mogollón, Hugo; Neill, David; Cerón, Carlos; Rivas-Torres, Gonzalo; Di Fiore, Anthony; Thomas, Raquel; Tirado, Milton; Young, Kenneth R.; Wang, Ophelia; Sierra, Rodrigo; García-Villacorta, Roosevelt; Zagt, Roderick; Palacios Cuenca, Walter; Aulestia, Milton; ter Steege, Hans.

In: Ecology and Evolution, Vol. 7, No. 12, 2017, p. 4254-4265.

Research output: Contribution to JournalArticleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Estimating and interpreting migration of Amazonian forests using spatially implicit and semi-explicit neutral models

AU - Pos, Edwin

AU - Guevara Andino, Juan Ernesto

AU - Sabatier, Daniel

AU - Molino, Jean-François

AU - Pitman, Nigel

AU - Mogollón, Hugo

AU - Neill, David

AU - Cerón, Carlos

AU - Rivas-Torres, Gonzalo

AU - Di Fiore, Anthony

AU - Thomas, Raquel

AU - Tirado, Milton

AU - Young, Kenneth R.

AU - Wang, Ophelia

AU - Sierra, Rodrigo

AU - García-Villacorta, Roosevelt

AU - Zagt, Roderick

AU - Palacios Cuenca, Walter

AU - Aulestia, Milton

AU - ter Steege, Hans

N1 - M1 - 12

PY - 2017

Y1 - 2017

N2 - With many sophisticated methods available for estimating migration, ecologists face the difficult decision of choosing for their specific line of work. Here we test and compare several methods, performing sanity and robustness tests, applying to large-scale data and discussing the results and interpretation. Five methods were selected to compare for their ability to estimate migration from spatially implicit and semi-explicit simulations based on three large-scale field datasets from South America (Guyana, Suriname, French Guiana and Ecuador). Space was incorporated semi-explicitly by a discrete probability mass function for local recruitment, migration from adjacent plots or from a metacommunity. Most methods were able to accurately estimate migration from spatially implicit simulations. For spatially semi-explicit simulations, estimation was shown to be the additive effect of migration from adjacent plots and the metacommunity. It was only accurate when migration from the metacommunity outweighed that of adjacent plots, discrimination, however, proved to be impossible. We show that migration should be considered more an approximation of the resemblance between communities and the summed regional species pool. Application of migration estimates to simulate field datasets did show reasonably good fits and indicated consistent differences between sets in comparison with earlier studies. We conclude that estimates of migration using these methods are more an approximation of the homogenization among local communities over time rather than a direct measurement of migration and hence have a direct relationship with beta diversity. As betadiversity is the result of many (non)-neutral processes, we have to admit that migration as estimated in a spatial explicit world encompasses not only direct migration but is an ecological aggregate of these processes. The parameter m of neutral models then appears more as an emerging property revealed by neutral theory instead of being an effective mechanistic parameter and spatially implicit models should be rejected as an approximation of forest dynamics.

AB - With many sophisticated methods available for estimating migration, ecologists face the difficult decision of choosing for their specific line of work. Here we test and compare several methods, performing sanity and robustness tests, applying to large-scale data and discussing the results and interpretation. Five methods were selected to compare for their ability to estimate migration from spatially implicit and semi-explicit simulations based on three large-scale field datasets from South America (Guyana, Suriname, French Guiana and Ecuador). Space was incorporated semi-explicitly by a discrete probability mass function for local recruitment, migration from adjacent plots or from a metacommunity. Most methods were able to accurately estimate migration from spatially implicit simulations. For spatially semi-explicit simulations, estimation was shown to be the additive effect of migration from adjacent plots and the metacommunity. It was only accurate when migration from the metacommunity outweighed that of adjacent plots, discrimination, however, proved to be impossible. We show that migration should be considered more an approximation of the resemblance between communities and the summed regional species pool. Application of migration estimates to simulate field datasets did show reasonably good fits and indicated consistent differences between sets in comparison with earlier studies. We conclude that estimates of migration using these methods are more an approximation of the homogenization among local communities over time rather than a direct measurement of migration and hence have a direct relationship with beta diversity. As betadiversity is the result of many (non)-neutral processes, we have to admit that migration as estimated in a spatial explicit world encompasses not only direct migration but is an ecological aggregate of these processes. The parameter m of neutral models then appears more as an emerging property revealed by neutral theory instead of being an effective mechanistic parameter and spatially implicit models should be rejected as an approximation of forest dynamics.

KW - betadiversity migration neutral theory parameter estimation species composition species diversity

U2 - 10.1002/ece3.2930

DO - 10.1002/ece3.2930

M3 - Article

VL - 7

SP - 4254

EP - 4265

JO - Ecology and Evolution

JF - Ecology and Evolution

SN - 2045-7758

IS - 12

ER -