Is there a limit to how many species can the earth hold?

Counting species (bird lists, plant guides) is as old as ecology itself. And yet surprisingly, there are still different opinions on how many species the planet holds, and even, whether there are limits on how many species it can have. If the number of species has ecological limits, the assumptions ecologists often make – that species pools are limited and knowable, dynamics can reach equilibrium, competition should usually be important – would be stronger. Things would be more predictable. 

But is the production of diversity self-limited? There isn’t consensus but two recent articles in the American Naturalist (continuing a debate at the American Society of Naturalists meeting) provide some excellent debate of this question.

The debate is whether the majority of variation in continental-scale species richness is regulated by diversity-dependent feedbacks. In these papers, Dan Rabosky and Allen Hurlburt argue that species richness has ecological limits, while Luke Harmon and Susan Harrison take the contrary position, that species richness is dynamic. First, to define some terms: here, species richness is being considered at the largest spatial scale (e.g. terrestrial plants at the continental scale) so that dispersal limitation should be comparatively unimportant (because diversity changes are mostly driven by in situ speciation).

The crux of the Rabosky & Hurlburt argument is established in the Ecological Limits Hypothesis (ELH), which states that species richness will reach a dynamic (i.e. stochastic) equilibrium, where equilibrium richness reflects density dependence in speciation and/or extinction rates. Speciation and extinction rates are ultimately limited by total resource availability for the continent. Therefore variance in richness through time and between places should be driven these ecological limits, and richness should be predictable.

From Rabosky & Hurlburt 2015 - the Ecological Limit Hypothesis.

The evidence presented for the ELH comes from phylogenies and macroevolutionary models, the fossil record, and macroecological observations. First, there are well known patterns between species richness and energy, productivity, or habitat area, and these span multiple regions and groups of species (e.g. Jetz and Fine 2012). Further, Rabosky & Hurlburt argue that geological records suggest that changes in diversity are not unbounded or exponential, but instead rise and fall, correcting toward some equilibrium. Molecular phylogenies are often evaluated by looking at speciation rates over time, and the authors suggest that these frequently show declines, where speciation declines during adaptive radiations. One prediction that arises from the ELH is that perturbations will be followed by particular responses: “negative perturbations—mass extinctions, in particular—should lead to diversity recoveries. Second, positive perturbations—increases in the resource base available to a biota—predict increases in species richness to stable but greater equilibrial levels”.

The rebuttal article from Harmon & Harrison takes a strong and contrasting view, although it focuses mostly on poking holes into Rabosky & Hurlburt’s arguments, rather than laying out a competing hypothesis. If Rabosky & Hurlburt focused on evidence over huge evolutionary scales and spatial expanses, the Harmon & Harrison response has a particular interest in the temporal and spatial scales of interest to community ecologists (local, present day) and how these seem to disagree with Rabosky & Hurlburt's hypothesis.

First, Harmon & Harrison argue that that the macroevolutionary evidence (molecular phylogenies, fossil data) is not nearly so convincing as Rabosky & Hurlburt suggest. There are important limits to its utility resulting from issues of ambiguity in interpretation and methodological limitations. In addition, for most of the patterns Rabosky & Hurlburt highlight, there are other papers concluding that the pattern was not present in their data. With reference to the lack of relationship between clade age and diversity: “A common interpretation of these results is that a lack of a relationship between age and diversity is evidence for ecological limits.... However… this pattern is far from ubiquitous in real data and is compatible with other explanations”. They also take issue with the tendency for hand-wave-y interpretations of patterns in such data, and emphasize the need for better statistical analyses and consideration of alternate models. Fossil data has obvious limitations as well (hence the field of taphonomy), including the fact that fossils are rarely classified to the species-level, which means they do not represent species richness, but rather lineage richness.

But Harmon & Harrison's real disagreement is based on their view that ecological evidence from local communities does not at all suggest ecological limits. Energy-richness correlations, although common, may have alternative explanations: the tropics may have higher diversification rates for other reasons, or niche conservation means that more species niches suited to the tropics, confounding energy-diversity relationships. Further, local communities do not regularly show a positive energy-diversity relationship. In particular, Harmon & Harrison suggest that the logic from the ELH, if followed, predicts that if species richness is ultimately tied to the availability of energy, then competition should necessarily be very important in most ecological communities. They cite a stat from the invasion of California flora in which alpha diversity has risen by more than 1000 invasive species, with only 28 native extinctions (as of 2002), suggesting that local (or even regional) communities are not full. 

To this, Rabosky & Hurlburt rejoins that invasion is about dispersal changes, and not resources. Further, they believe that large evolutionary scales are most useful as evidence for the ELH, since they are most likely to show zero sum game, rather than temporary dynamics, and since confounding factors should become minimized.

The debate left me feeling a little unsatisfied (since expecting the authors solve the problem is a bit unreasonable), in part because the authors are really arguing from different scales and approaches. And both sides are clearly right in some cases (and in others, perhaps, clearly overreaching). And of course, proving whether or not there is an ecological limit on diversity is a rather difficult thing. When Harmon and Harrison argue that the ELH, which assumes that richness approaches some equilibrium value but varies about it in a stochastic fashion, isn’t parsimonious, they’re wrong – ecological processes are innately stochastic and it hardly seem un-parsimonious to assume as much. But they’re right that this view makes testing and model fitting very difficult since having high replication and good quality data is necessary (to capture accurately a distribution, rather than single value). Given the variety of issues with data representing diversification over evolutionary time, and frequently an inability to capture extinction rates with evolutionary data, having quality, replicated tests of the ELH is difficult.

On the other hand, at local scales over ecological time, observations may be less relevant. It’s not clear how to reconcile statements about saturation (or lack thereof) of local communities with richness at continental scales. Rabosky & Hurlburt suggest that local assemblages can be dynamic in diversity as long as there is a zero sum across all communities and through time. But a connection between continental scales and local scales is innate, and understanding how diversity relates over multiple spatial scales is an area of ecological research we need to continue to develop.

Given there are no easy tests of this sort of question (though bacterial microcosm provide some interesting results), we have been forced to draw conclusions based on weak tests and weak evidence. But ecologists do this because this is a truly important question, with huge implications across ecology and evolution. Ecological and evolutionary models make assumptions that implicitly or explicitly about carrying capacity, about determinants of rates of speciation and extinction, about invasion, about why global diversity changes, and these need to be confirmed. Further, if there is a strong ecological feedback of diversity, one of the most important implications is that major perturbations such as extinctions should be followed by major recoveries. In the Anthropocene, that’s an important implication. 

References:

Species Richness at Continental Scales Is Dominated by Ecological Limits. Daniel L. Rabosky, Allen H. Hurlbert. The American Naturalist, Vol. 185, No. 5 (May 2015), pp. 572-583.

Species Diversity Is Dynamic and Unbounded at Local and Continental Scales. Luke J. Harmon, Susan Harrison. The American Naturalist, Vol. 185, No. 5 (May 2015), pp. 584-593.

Ecology in evolutionary times

Ecological and evolutionary perspectives on community assembly. 2015. Gary G. Mittelbach, Douglas W. Schemske. Trends in Ecology and Evolution.

Phylogenetic patterns are not proxies of community assembly mechanisms (they are far better). 2015. Pille Gerhold, James F. Cahill Jr, Marten Winter, Igor V. Bartish and Andreas Prinzing. Functional Ecology

Community assembly has always provided some of the most challenging puzzles for ecologists. Communities are complex, vaguely delimited, involve multi-species interactions, and assemble with seemingly immense variation. Thousands of papers have been dedicated to understanding community assembly, and many have proposed different approaches understanding communities. These range from the ever popular abiotic/biotic filtering concept, functional traits, coexistence theory, island biogeography, metacommunity theory, neutral theory, and phylogenetic patterns. It is probably fair to say that no one existing approach is adequate to completely describe or predict community assembly.

One response to this problem is the growing demand to expand the lens of “community” to cover greater spatial and temporal scales. This owes a lot, directly and indirectly, to Robert Ricklefs’ influential Sewall Wright Award lecture on the Disintegration of the Ecological Community. There is also a strong trend towards re-integrating evolutionary history into studies of community ecology. Coincidentally, or perhaps not, this is occurring as so-called ‘eco-phylogenetic’ approaches have been increasingly criticised. If nothing else, eco-phylogenetics provided a path for, and popularized, the idea of reintegrating evolution into community ecology.

I’ll highlight two particular papers that address this re-integration in surprisingly convergent ways. Both have macroevolution slants (that is, they focus on the impacts and drivers of speciation and extinction, sympatry, allopatry, etc), and an interest in the feedbacks between community interactions and these processes. The first, from Pille Gerhold, James F. Cahill Jr, Marten Winter, Igor V. Bartish and Andreas Prinzing, positions itself as the phoenix from the ashes of eco-phylogenetics (as seen in their particularly enthusiastic title :) ). Evolutionary history, captured by phylogenies, was originally of interest to ecologists not for what it was, but because it could (sometimes, maybe) act as a proxy for species traits and niches. This paper does an excellent job of laying out the various hypotheses that went behind this type of approach and showing why they are not reliably true. If for no other reason, it is worth reading the paper for its clear critique of the foundation of eco-phylogenetics. Using patterns in phylogenies as proxies for the outcomes of particular ecological processes being clearly suspect, the authors argue that explicitly thinking of phylogenetic patterns as the result of both ecological and evolutionary processes is far more informative. [I’ll return to this in a bit with their examples below].

The second paper is written by two big names in their respective fields: Gary Mittlebach (ecology) and Doug Schemske (evolution). The title is a bit vague (“Ecological and evolutionary perspectives on community assembly”), but it turns out that they too have converged on the importance of considering evolutionary history in order to understand community assembly. In particular they focus on the problematic nature of the species pool: species pools are nearly always treated as a static object changing little through time or space and are notoriously difficult to define. However, the species pool underlies null model approaches used to test communities for differences from a random expectation. So defining it correctly is important.

From the early days, Elton and others defined the species pool as the group of species that can disperse to and colonize a community. However, the species pool may be dynamic, and they note “To date, relatively little attention has been focused on the feedback that occurs between local community species composition, biotic interactions, and the diversification processes that generate regional species pools.”

This paper does an excellent job of explaining how macroevolutionary processes can alter a regional species pool. The most obvious example is the process of adaptive radiation in island-like systems, where competition for resources drives ecological divergence and speciation. Darwin’s finches, Anolis lizards, and cichlid fishes provide well-known examples of this rapid expansion of the species pool through inter-specific interactions. On mainland systems, speciation may be more likely to occur in allopatry, and the rate limiting step for range expansion (leading to secondary sympatry and only then increasing a species pool) is often interspecific interactions. One study found that secondary sympatry took 7my on average, though speciation alone took only 3my. So the species pool is the outcome of constant feedbacks between species interactions and evolutionary processes.

From Mittlebach & Schemske. Figure illustrating the feedbacks between evolution and ecological interactions, in producing the species pool.

Both papers provide useful examples of how such incorporating evolution into community ecology may prove useful. As a simple example, Mittlebach and Schemske point out that evolution can greatly alter the utility of Island Biogeography Theory: given enough time, speciation events including adaptive radiations, greatly increase the (non-mainland) species pool and would strongly alter predictions of diversity, especially for distant islands.

The Gerhold et al. paper provides the below illustrations as additional possibilities for how evolution and community interactions may feedback.

From Gerhold et al. Two examples of how evolution and communities might interact.

It is certainly interesting to see this shift towards how we envision and study communities. The historical focus on local space and time no doubt reflects ecologists' attempt to limit the problem to a manageable frame. But there is some logic behind expanding our definition of communities to larger spatial scales and greater time periods, especially since there are usually no true boundaries defining communities in space and time. Answering which specific time scales and spatial scales most useful to understanding communities is difficult: if we increase the time or space we consider, how and when does the additional information provided decline? The next step is to consider evolution in this fashion for real organisms, and evaluate the true utility of this approach.  

The lifetime of a species: how parasitism is changing Darwin's finches

Sonia Kleindorfer, Jody A. O’Connor, Rachael Y. Dudaniec, Steven A. Myers,Jeremy Robertson, and Frank J. Sulloway. (2014). Species Collapse via Hybridization in Darwin’s Tree Finches. The American Naturalist, Vol. 183, No. 3, pp. 325-341

Small Galapagos tree finch,
Camarhynchus parvulus

Darwin’s finches are some of the best-known examples of how ecological conditions can cause character displacement and even lead to speciation. Continuing research on the Galapagos finches has provided the exceptional opportunity to follow post-speciation communities and explore how changes in ecological processes affect species and the boundaries between them. Separate finch species have been maintained in sympatry on the islands because various barriers maintain the species' integrity, preventing hybrids from occurring (e.g. species' behavioural differences) or being recruited (e.g. low fitness). As conditions change though, hybrids may be a source of increased genetic variance and novel evolutionary trajectories and selection against them may weaken. Though speciation is interesting in its own right, it is not the end of the story: ecological and evolutionary pressures continue and species continue to be lost or added, to adapt, or to lose integrity.

A fascinating paper by Kleindorfer et al. (2014) explores exactly this issue among the small, medium, and large tree finches (Camarhynchus spp.) of Floreana Island, Galapagos. Large and small tree finches first colonized Floreana, with the medium tree finch speciating on the island from a morph of the large tree finch. This resulted in three sympatric finch species that differ in body and beak size, but otherwise share very similar behaviour and appearance. However, ecological and environmental conditions have not remained constant on Floreana since observations in the 1800s: a parasite first observed on the island in 1997, Philornis downsi has taken residence and has caused massive nestling mortality (up to 98%) for the tree finches. Since parasite density is correlated with tree finch body size, the authors predicted that high parasite intensity should be linked to declining recruitment of the large tree finch. If females increasingly prefer smaller mates, there may also be increased hybridization, particularly if there is some advantage in having mixed parental ancestry. To test this, the authors sampled tree finch populations on Floreana in both 2005 and 2010. Parasite numbers increase with high precipitation, and so by combining museum records (collected between 1852-1906, when no parasites were present), 2005 sampling records (dry conditions, lower parasite numbers), and 2010 sampling records (high rainfall, high parasite numbers), they could examine a gradient of parasite effects. They measured a number of morphological variables, collected blood for genotyping, estimated individual age, measured parasite intensity in nests, and observed mate choice.

Philornis downsi:
larval stage parasitizes nestlings.
(a Google image search will provide
some more graphic illustrations)

For each time period, morphological measurements were used to cluster individuals into putative species. The museum specimens from the 1800s had 3 morphologically distinguishable populations, the true small, medium and large tree finch species usually written about. In 2005 there were still 3 distinct clusters, but the morphological overlap between them had increased. By 2010, the year with the highest parasite numbers, there were only two morphologically distinguishable populations. Which species had disappeared? Although recent studies have labelled the two populations as the “small” tree finch and “large” tree finch, the authors found that the 2010 “large” population is much smaller than the true large tree finches collected in 1852-1906, suggesting perhaps the large tree finch was no longer present. Genetic population assignment suggested that despite morphological clustering, there were actually only two distinct species on Floreana in 2005 and 2010: it appeared that the large tree finch species had gone extinct, and the boundary between the small and medium tree finch species had become porous, leading to morphologically intermediate hybrids.

The question then, is whether the extinction of the large tree finch and the collapse of the boundary between small and medium tree finches can be attributed to the parasite, and the changing selective pressures associated with it. Certainly there were clear changes in size structure (from larger birds to smaller birds) and in recruitment (from few young hybrids to many young hybrids) between the low parasite year (2005) and the high parasite year (2010). Strikingly, parasite loads in nests were much lower for hybrids and smaller-bodied populations than for the larger-bodied population (figure below). Compared to their large-bodied parents, hybrids somehow avoided parasite attack even in years with high parasite densities (2010). When parasite loads are high, hybrid offspring have a fitness advantage, as evidenced by the large number of young hybrids in 2012. The collapse of the large tree finch population is also likely a product of parasite pressures as well, as females selected smaller mates with comparatively lower parasite loads. Despite the apparent importance of the parasites in 2010, the existence of only a few older hybrid individuals, and greater morphological distance between populations seen in the 2005 survey (a low parasite period) suggests that selection for hybrids varies greatly through time. Though the persistence of the Philornis parasite on Floreana may prevent re-establishment of the large tree finch, changing parasite densities and other selective pressures may continue to cause the boundaries of the remaining finch populations to overlap and retract in the future. The story of Darwin's finches is even more interesting if we consider that it doesn't stop at character displacement but continues to this day.

From Kleindorfer et al 2014: Philornis parasite intensity in nests sampled in 2005 (lower parasite) and 2010/2012 (higher parasite), for nests of the small-bodied (population 1), intermediate hybrid, and larger-bodied (population 2) individuals.