Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-v2bm5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-05T22:54:59.692Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Biodiversity and metacommunity structure of animals along altitudinal gradients in tropical montane forests

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 November 2015

Michael R. Willig*
Affiliation:
Center for Environmental Sciences and Engineering and Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Connecticut, 3107 Horsebarn Hill Road, Storrs, Connecticut 06269-4210, USA
Steven J. Presley
Affiliation:
Center for Environmental Sciences and Engineering and Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Connecticut, 3107 Horsebarn Hill Road, Storrs, Connecticut 06269-4210, USA
*
1Corresponding author. Email: michael.willig@uconn.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

The study of altitudinal gradients has made enduring contributions to the theoretical and empirical bases of modern biology. Unfortunately, the persistence of these systems and the species that compose them is threatened by land-use change at lower altitudes and by climate change throughout the gradients, but especially at higher altitudes. In this review, we focus on two broad themes that are inspired by altitudinal variation in tropical montane regions: (1) dimensions of biodiversity and (2) metacommunity structure. Species richness generally decreased with increasing altitude, although not always in a linear fashion. Mid-altitudinal peaks in richness were less common than monotonic declines, and altitudinal increases in richness were restricted to amphibian faunas. Moreover, gradients of biodiversity differed among dimensions (taxonomic, phylogenetic and functional) as well as among faunas (bats, rodents, birds) in the tropical Andes, suggesting that species richness is not a good surrogate for dimensions that reflect differences in the function or evolutionary history of species. Tropical montane metacommunities evinced a variety of structures, including nested (bats), Clementsian (rodents, bats, gastropods), quasi-Clementsian (reptiles, amphibians, passerines) and quasi-Gleasonian (gastropods) patterns. Nonetheless, compositional changes were always associated with the ecotones between rain forest and cloud forest, regardless of fauna.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

INTRODUCTION

Understanding how species distributions and emergent patterns of biodiversity respond to spatial variation in the environment is a dominant theme in ecology and biogeography (Lomolino et al. Reference LOMOLINO, RIDDLE, WHITTAKER and BROWN2010, Rosenzweig Reference ROSENZWEIG1995). Indeed, some of the most important concepts and notable controversies in environmental biology have emerged from studying gradients associated with latitude (Hillebrand Reference HILLEBRAND2004, Willig et al. Reference WILLIG, KAUFMAN and STEVENS2003), depth (Hernandez-Alcantara et al. Reference HERNANDEZ-ALCANTARA, SALAS-DE LEON, SOLIS-WEISS and MONREAL-GOMEZ2014, Rex Reference REX1981), area (Coleman et al. Reference COLEMAN, MARES, WILLIG and HSIEH1982, MacArthur & Wilson Reference MACARTHUR and WILSON1963, Rosenzweig & Sandlin Reference ROSENZWEIG and SANDLIN1997, Scheiner et al. Reference SCHEINER, CHIARUCCI, FOX, HELMUS, MCGLINN and WILLIG2011), productivity (Mittelbach et al. Reference MITTELBACH, STEINER, SCHEINER, GROSS, REYNOLDS, WAIDE, WILLIG, DODSON and GOUGH2001, Waide et al. Reference WAIDE, WILLIG, STEINER, MITTELBACH, GOUGH, DODSON, JUDAY and PARMENTER1999) or landscape structure (Fahrig Reference FAHRIG2003, Turner Reference TURNER1989, Turner et al. Reference TURNER, GARDNER and O'NEILL2001). Similarly, the study of altitudinal gradients (McCain Reference MCCAIN2005, Reference MCCAIN2009, Rahbek Reference RAHBEK1995, Terborgh Reference TERBORGH1971, Whittaker Reference WHITTAKER1960) has made enduring contributions to the theoretical and empirical bases of modern biology.

Scientific studies of montane systems are critical from numerous perspectives. Montane systems comprise approximately 25% of the area of all terrestrial ecosystems (Miller & Spoolman Reference MILLER and SPOOLMAN2011), and are inhabited by an equivalent fraction of the world's human population (Meybeck et al. Reference MEYBECK, GREEN and VÖRÖSMARTY2001). Mountainous environs harbour high biodiversity – over a third of terrestrial plant species (Barthlott et al. Reference BARTHLOTT, LAUER and PLACKE1996) – and are hot spots of endemism, especially in tropical regions (Andelman & Willig Reference ANDELMAN and WILLIG2003, Gradstein et al. Reference GRADSTEIN, HOMEIER and GANSERT2008). Finally, tropical mountains harbour some of the most anthropogenically threatened environments in the world. Dependent on cloud formation and cloud height, the biodiversity as well as ecosystem structure and function of tropical montane systems are being significantly altered by land-use change at low altitudes (Becker et al. Reference BECKER, KÖRNER, BRUN, GUISAN and TAPPEINER2007) and imperilled by climate change throughout, but especially at high altitudes (McCain & Colwell Reference MCCAIN and COLWELL2011).

Montane regions are model systems (Garten et al. Reference GARTEN, POST, HANSON and COOPER1999) in which to conduct ecological research (Körner Reference KÖRNER2003). Because of their global distribution, recurrent broad-scale ecological patterns can be detected with reasonable power, and contrasts between tropical and temperate or humid and arid contexts are possible (Grytnes & McCain Reference GRYTNES, MCCAIN and Levin2007, McCain & Grytnes Reference MCCAIN and GRYTNES2010). The rapid rate of environmental change within relatively short geographic distances facilitates identification of mechanisms that mould species distributions and community assembly (Terborgh Reference TERBORGH1971, Whittaker Reference WHITTAKER1960), which can be contrasted among taxa (Presley et al. Reference PRESLEY, CISNEROS, PATTERSON and WILLIG2012), through space (McCain Reference MCCAIN2005, Reference MCCAIN2009) or over time (Rowe Reference ROWE2007, Moritz et al. Reference MORITZ, PATTON, CONROY, PARRA, WHITE and BEISSINGER2008). More specifically, altitudinal gradients reflect substantial changes in temperature, rainfall, cloud interception, soil and wind exposure, with environmental conditions at the extremes that strongly challenge species tolerances in both evolutionary and physiological contexts (Cavalier Reference CAVALIER1986, Grubb Reference GRUBB1977). Moreover, altitudinal variation in plant communities often manifests as vegetative zones with discrete altitudinal boundaries (Lieberman et al. Reference LIEBERMAN, LIEBERMAN, PERALTA and HARTSHORN1996). Such zones (e.g. forest types, biomes) represent distinct habitats and resource bases on which consumer populations rely. Tropical organisms should respond more strongly to environmental changes associated with altitudinal gradients than do their temperate counterparts because, from an evolutionary perspective, tropical organisms face little intra-annual variation in climate and, therefore, are more sensitive to other forms of environmental variability (Janzen Reference JANZEN1967). To the extent that this is true, environmental responses to global change drivers on tropical mountains may provide an early indication of the future for many of the world's ecosystems. Indeed, the interaction between global-change drivers and altitudinal gradients of ecological characteristics has stimulated considerable long-term ecological research (Brokaw et al. Reference BROKAW, CROWL, LUGO, MCDOWELL, SCATENA, WAIDE and WILLIG2012, González et al. Reference GONZÁLEZ, WILLIG and WAIDE2013).

A comprehensive or integrative overview of the rich body of ecological research addressing faunal responses to altitudinal gradients in environmental characteristics is beyond the scope of a single contribution. Rather, we consider the dynamics of terrestrial animal biodiversity along montane tropical gradients, with a focus on emerging themes associated with multiple dimensions of biodiversity and metacommunity structure.

DIMENSIONS OF BIODIVERSITY

Conceptual framework

Quantifying spatial patterns of biodiversity and uncovering the mechanisms that mould them are fundamental goals of environmental biology that critically inform conservation, management and policy. Nonetheless, spatial dynamics have been primarily documented only for the taxonomic dimension of biodiversity (TD), generally considering only species richness, although some research has incorporated information on species abundances into metrics (e.g. species evenness, species diversity, dominance and rarity) of taxonomic biodiversity as well (Gaston Reference GASTON, Gaston and Spicer1998, Schluter & Ricklefs Reference SCHLUTER, RICKLEFS, Ricklefs and Schluter1993, Wilsey et al. Reference WILSEY, CHALCRAFT, BOWLES and WILLIG2005). Such approaches consider all species to be equally distinct (notwithstanding differences in abundance), and are insensitive to interspecific variation in ecological or evolutionary characteristics, therefore representing an incomplete or potentially biased view of biodiversity dynamics (Stevens et al. Reference STEVENS, COX, STRAUSS and WILLIG2003).

Recent efforts have expanded the conceptual framework of biodiversity beyond TD, by incorporating analytical approaches that estimate biodiversity based on the evolutionary histories or ecological functions of species (Pavoine & Bonsall Reference PAVOINE and BONSALL2011, Webb et al. Reference WEBB, ACKERLY, MCPEEK and DONOGHUE2002). The phylogenetic dimension of biodiversity (PD) reflects evolutionary differences among species based on times since divergence from a common ancestor (Faith Reference FAITH1992) and represents a comprehensive estimate of phylogenetically conserved ecological and phenotypic differences among species within assemblages (Cavender-Bares et al. Reference CAVENDER-BARES, KOZAK, FINE and KEMBEL2009). The functional dimension of biodiversity (FD) reflects variability in ecological attributes among species, and provides a mechanistic link to ecosystem resistance, resilience and functioning (Petchey & Gaston Reference PETCHEY and GASTON2006). The simultaneous assessment of variation in TD, PD and FD along environmental gradients provides insights into the relative importance of ecological and evolutionary mechanisms (e.g. abiotic or biotic filtering, niche partitioning, interspecific competition) that structure different components of assemblages.

In the sections that follow, we highlight and integrate the literature on tropical altitudinal gradients as it relates to (1) species richness, (2) abundance-weighted measures of taxonomic biodiversity, and (3) multiple dimensions of biodiversity. We restrict our attention to montane tropical systems.

Empirical patterns in species richness

The generalization that species richness declines with increasing altitude enjoyed popular (Begon et al. Reference BEGON, HARPER and TOWNSEND1990, Brown & Gibson Reference BROWN and GIBSON1983) and somewhat uncritical support because it mirrored the latitudinal gradient of species richness and because it was promulgated in foundational publications from both empirical (Kikkawa & Williams Reference KIKKAWA and WILLIAMS1971, Terborgh Reference TERBORGH1971, Reference TERBORGH1977) and theoretical (MacArthur Reference MACARTHUR1972) perspectives. More recent studies, especially those that are synthetic, control for area and sampling biases, or are based on meta-analyses, suggest that a monotonic decrease in richness with altitude is far from universal and for some taxa may be rare (McCain Reference MCCAIN2005, Rahbek Reference RAHBEK1995). Moreover, this body of literature suggests that empirical patterns are likely driven by a suite of factors, rather than by a single overarching mechanism.

In general, the most pervasive altitudinal gradient in montane tropical systems is clearly one in which species richness decreases with increasing altitude. Linear decreases in richness with increasing altitude have been documented for mammals (Graham Reference GRAHAM1983, Reference GRAHAM1990), birds (Blake & Loiselle Reference BLAKE and LOISELLE2000, Kattan & Franco Reference KATTAN and FRANCO2004, Terborgh Reference TERBORGH1977) and invertebrates (Fernandes & Lara Reference FERNANDES and LARA1993, Fisher Reference FISHER1996, Liew et al. Reference LIEW, SCHILTHUIZEN and BIN LAKIM2010, Wolda Reference WOLDA1987). Non-linear declines in richness with increasing altitude (i.e. saturating relationships) are common as well, occurring in mammals (Patterson et al. Reference PATTERSON, STOTZ, SOLARI and FITZPATRICK1998, Sánchez-Cordero Reference SÁNCHEZ-CORDERO2001), birds (Fauth et al. Reference FAUTH, CROTHER and SLOWINSKI1989, Graham Reference GRAHAM1990) and insects (Brühl et al. Reference BRÜHL, MOHAMED and LINSENMAIR1999). Mid-altitudinal peaks in richness are less common than monotonic declines but are not rare, having been documented for mammals (Heaney Reference HEANEY2001, Nor Reference NOR2001), frogs (Smith et al. Reference SMITH, MONTES DE OCA, REEDER and WIENS2007) and invertebrates (Liew et al. Reference LIEW, SCHILTHUIZEN and BIN LAKIM2010, Olson Reference OLSON1994). After controlling for confounding montane characteristics (area generally decreases with increasing altitude), altitudinal patterns of species density may be modal (Rahbek Reference RAHBEK1997). The only well-documented cases of increases in richness with increasing altitude in tropical montane systems are for frogs in Brazil (Giaretta et al. Reference GIARETTA, FACURE, SAWAYA, MEYER and CHEMIN1999) or in India (Naniwadekar & Vasudevan Reference NANIWADEKAR and VASUDEVAN2007), perhaps because of strong physiological constraints associated with a need for standing water or high humidity, especially during reproduction. Rarely is there no relationship between altitude and species richness, but a lack of association has been found for tropical rodents (Sánchez-Cordero Reference SÁNCHEZ-CORDERO2001) and for moths (Brehm et al. Reference BREHM, SÜSSENBACH and FIEDLER2003).

Altitudinal variation in species richness has been explored for a number of biotas in the Luquillo Mountains of north-eastern Puerto Rico (Brokaw et al. Reference BROKAW, CROWL, LUGO, MCDOWELL, SCATENA, WAIDE and WILLIG2012, González et al. Reference GONZÁLEZ, WILLIG and WAIDE2013). The essentially synoptic characterization of gradients for multiple taxa at a single site eliminates the influence of differences in geography, historical legacies or environmental variability among mountainous regions on the interpretation of factors affecting differences among taxa. Nonetheless, caution must be used in extrapolating patterns or mechanisms from the Luquillo Mountains to other tropical montane settings.

Altitudinal patterns of species richness are taxon-specific in the Luquillo Mountains, and include monotonic decreases, monotonic increases, modal relationships and random patterns. Species richness declines with altitude for tree species (Waide et al. Reference WAIDE, WILLIG, STEINER, MITTELBACH, GOUGH, DODSON, JUDAY and PARMENTER1999), litter invertebrates along a mixed-forest transect (Richardson et al. Reference RICHARDSON, RICHARDSON and SOTO-ADAMES2005) and gastropods along both mixed-forest and palm-forest transects (Willig et al. Reference WILLIG, PRESLEY, BLOCH, ALVAREZ, González, Willig and Waide2013). In contrast, species richness increases with altitude for earthworms (González et al. Reference GONZÁLEZ, GARCIA, CRUZ, BORGES, ZALAMEA and RIVERA2007) and attains mid-altitudinal peaks for invertebrates that inhabit bromeliads (Richardson & Richardson 2013) and for vascular epiphytes and climbers (Brown et al. Reference BROWN, LUGO, SILANDER and LIEGEL1983). Finally, altitudinal variation in species richness is essentially flat for litter invertebrates along a palm-forest transect (Richardson et al. Reference RICHARDSON, RICHARDSON and SOTO-ADAMES2005). This diversity of patterns could emerge as a consequence of a variety of factors, including considerations of the correspondence between the grain of perception of taxa and the spatial scale (focus and extent) of sampling, experimental design (analyses of forest types rather than altitudes, per se), analytical approaches and the niche characteristics of biotas as well as the salient environmental characteristics to which they respond.

Empirical patterns in abundance-weighted measures of taxonomic biodiversity

Recent research on aspects of biodiversity that weight richness by measures of importance (e.g. abundance, biomass, frequency of occurrence), such as species evenness, dominance, diversity and rarity, have documented considerable variability among aspects in responses to gradients of latitude (Stevens & Willig Reference STEVENS and WILLIG2002, Willig et al. Reference WILLIG, KAUFMAN and STEVENS2003) and productivity (Vance-Chalcraft et al. Reference VANCE-CHALCRAFT, WILLIG, COX, LUGO and SCATENA2010, Wilsey et al. Reference WILSEY, CHALCRAFT, BOWLES and WILLIG2005). The theory of such gradients is at an early stage of maturation (sensu Pickett et al. Reference PICKETT, KOLASA and JONES1994) and ripe for development based on the detection of recurrent patterns or linkages to established mechanisms.

Using a non-manipulative experimental approach, Willig et al. (Reference WILLIG, PRESLEY, BLOCH, ALVAREZ, González, Willig and Waide2013) quantified altitudinal gradients in species richness, evenness (Camargo's index), diversity (Shannon's index), dominance (Berger-Parker Index) and rarity (the number of species whose proportional abundance in the assemblage was < 1/S, where S equals species richness) along each of two parallel transects. One transect (mixed-forest transect) passed through each of three forest types (tabonuco forest, palo colorado forest and elfin forest), whereas the second transect passed through only a single forest type (palm forest dominated by Prestoea acuminata). Altitudinal variation in each aspect of taxonomic biodiversity was significant and independent of transect. More specifically, gastropod richness, diversity and evenness decreased with increasing altitude along each transect, and were consistently higher along the palm-forest transect than their altitudinally paired mixed-forest counterparts. This may arise because nutrients critical for gastropod metabolism and shell growth, such as nitrogen, phosphorus, calcium, potassium and magnesium, are generally higher in litter from palm-dominated areas compared with litter from non-palm-dominated areas at the same altitude, and because these same nutrients generally decrease with increasing altitude from tabonuco to palo colorado to elfin forest (Richardson et al. Reference RICHARDSON, RICHARDSON and SOTO-ADAMES2005). Because these factors contribute to higher abundances in palm versus mixed forest for the majority of gastropod species, and to higher snail abundance in lower versus higher altitudes (Willig et al. Reference WILLIG, PRESLEY, BLOCH, CASTRO-ARELLANO, CISNEROS, HIGGINS and KLINGBEIL2011, Reference WILLIG, PRESLEY, BLOCH, ALVAREZ, González, Willig and Waide2013), the more individuals hypothesis or passive sampling (Coleman et al. Reference COLEMAN, MARES, WILLIG and HSIEH1982, Scheiner & Willig Reference SCHEINER and WILLIG2005, Srivastava & Lawton Reference SRIVASTAVA and LAWTON1998) may account for higher biodiversity in aspects that are sensitive to variation in species number.

Altitudinal variation in gastropod species evenness and dominance in the Luquillo Mountains was not so simply associated with the variation in the number of individuals from a mechanistic perspective, although the correlative associations are clearly strong. As altitude increases, species richness decreases, in part because of the loss of rare species. This is consistent with the hypothesis that increasing productivity from elfin to palo colorado to tabonuco forest (Weaver Reference WEAVER1994, Weaver & Murphy Reference WEAVER and MURPHY1990) should support more populations at higher densities, such that taxa are less likely to suffer local extinction, especially as a consequence of environmental stochasticity. In a straightforward manner, greater productivity supports more species and more rare species, resulting in communities with lower evenness. At the same time, the loss of species from low productivity sites (i.e. higher altitudes) should allow the relative abundances of the remaining taxa to increase, effecting an increase in dominance, as was observed as well.

In an insightful assessment of altitudinal variation in aspects of abundance-sensitive metrics of bird biodiversity, Jankowski et al. (Reference JANKOWSKI, CIECKA, MEYER and RABENOLD2009) explored environmental gradients in the Tilaran Mountains of Costa Rica. The Pacific slope study area (36 km2) comprised six altitudinal zones, each spanning 100 m of altitude and comprising 12–17 census points. Estimates of species richness and diversity were lowest at high-altitude zones, with a suggestion of mid-altitudinal peaks reported between 1200 and 1300 m asl. The richness of species endemic to Costa Rica and Panama, as well as their proportional representation in the biota of altitudinal zones, increased with increasing altitude. Similar patterns were not apparent when considering species endemic to Central America: their richness and proportional representation in the biota of altitudinal zones was greater at lower altitudes (<1500 m asl) than at higher altitudes (>1500 m asl). Moreover, compositional variation among points within zones, pattern diversity, was higher at lower altitudes, and beta diversity (estimated by the inverse of Sørensen's similarity index with respect to the plots in the highest altitudinal zone), generally increased with increasing altitudinal distance from the highest zone.

We used summary data from Jankowski et al. (Reference JANKOWSKI, CIECKA, MEYER and RABENOLD2009) for a number of metrics of taxonomic biodiversity, to more quantitatively explore altitudinal gradients (based on mid-altitude of each zone) using orthogonal polynomial regression, as done in studies of biodiversity in the Peruvian Andes (Cisneros et al. Reference CISNEROS, BURGIO, DREISS, KLINGBEIL, PATTERSON, PRESLEY and WILLIG2014, Dreiss et al. Reference DREISS, BURGIO, CISNEROS, KLINGBEIL, PATTERSON, PRESLEY and WILLIG2015). Because of the small number of zones (N = 6), we used 0.10 as the Type I error rate for identifying the form and significance of altitudinal trends. Metrics sensitive to the total number of species (i.e. species richness, and the incidence-based cover estimator (ICE)), evinced significant non-linear relationships with altitude, attaining maxima near 1300–1400 m asl (Figure 1a, b), with altitude accounting for between 77% and 96% of the variation in richness. Altitudinal patterns of endemic species richness depended on definition of endemic (Figure 1c, d). Richness of species endemic to Panama and Costa Rica increased with increasing altitude (R2 = 0.87) with only a significant linear component, whereas richness of species endemic to Central America increased with decreasing altitude in a saturating fashion (significant linear and quadratic components), essentially remaining constant below 1500 m asl. Simpson's reciprocal diversity decreased with increasing altitude (R2 = 0.92) with only a significant linear component (Figure 1e). Finally, compositional similarity among census points within zones (Sørensen's index) increased with increasing altitude (R2 = 0.81) with only a significant linear component (Figure 1f), indicating that β diversity within zones decreases with increasing altitude.

Figure 1. Altitudinal variation in metrics of taxonomic biodiversity: species richness (a); incidence-based coverage estimator, ICE (b); richness of endemic species restricted to Costa Rica and Panama (c); richness of endemic species restricted to Central America (d); Simpson's reciprocal index of diversity (e); and Sørensen's similarity index (f) of birds along the Pacific versant of the Tilaran Mountains in Costa Rica. Empirical values of each metric are represented by black dots; a solid line represents an empirical second-order polynomial relationship. Coefficients from orthogonal polynomial regression analyses are indicated by b*1 and b*2 for linear and quadratic components, respectively. Plotted values for the zones on the x-axis are altitudinal mid-points. Green and white regions of the altitudinal gradient correspond to areas of cloud forest and rain-shadow forest, respectively, and are reflected in differences in bird species composition as well (Jankowski et al. Reference JANKOWSKI, CIECKA, MEYER and RABENOLD2009).

Empirical patterns in multiple dimensions of biodiversity

Although many studies have explored multiple dimensions of biodiversity in plants (Cadotte et al. Reference CADOTTE, CAVENDER-BARES, TILMAN and OAKLEY2009, Díaz & Cabido Reference DÍAZ and CABIDO2001, Spasojevic & Suding Reference SPASOJEVIC and SUDING2012, Swenson & Enquist Reference SWENSON and ENQUIST2009, Tilman et al. Reference TILMAN, KNOPS, WEDIN, REICH, RITCHIE and SIEMANN1997, Webb Reference WEBB2000), only a few recent studies have done so for animals, mostly for vertebrates (Devictor et al. Reference DEVICTOR, MOUILLOT, MEYNARD, JIGUET, THUILLER and MOUQUET2010, Mason et al. Reference MASON, LANOISELÉE, MOUILLOT and ARGILLIER2007, Petchey et al. Reference PETCHEY, EVANS, FISHBURN and GASTON2007, Safi et al. Reference SAFI, CIANCIARUSO, LOYOLA, BRITO, ARMOUR-MARSHALL and DINIZ-FILHO2011, Stevens et al. Reference STEVENS, COX, STRAUSS and WILLIG2003, Reference STEVENS, WILLIG and STRAUSS2006, Reference STEVENS, GAVILANEZ, TELLO and RAY2012, Weins et al. Reference WEINS, PARRA-OLEA, GARCÍA-PARÍS and WAKE2007). With few exceptions, such research has not been undertaken within the context of tropical montane systems.

A recent suite of contributions focusing on bats (Cisneros et al. Reference CISNEROS, BURGIO, DREISS, KLINGBEIL, PATTERSON, PRESLEY and WILLIG2014), rodents (Dreiss et al. Reference DREISS, BURGIO, CISNEROS, KLINGBEIL, PATTERSON, PRESLEY and WILLIG2015) and birds along an extensive (500–3500 m asl) tropical gradient in the Andes (Manu Biosphere Reserve, Peru) quantified the form and parameterization of altitudinal gradients in TD (species richness), PD (Rao's Q) and FD (Rao's Q). All three studies used identical statistical methodologies to characterize independent linear and non-linear components of altitudinal change (orthogonal polynomial regression), and the extent to which such variation could arise from random assembly of species from the species pool for each fauna (via simulation analyses). For all three taxa, much of the variation in richness was related to altitude (R2 > 0.90), and the decrease in richness with increasing altitude had strong linear and non-linear components (Figure 2), but with no evidence of mid-altitudinal peaks.

Figure 2. Altitudinal variation in taxonomic biodiversity for bats (a), rodents (b) and passerines (c); phylogenetic biodiversity for bats (d), rodents (e) and passerines (f); and functional biodiversity for bats (g), rodents (h) and passerines (i) at Manu. Empirical values are represented by black dots. A solid line represents an empirical polynomial relationship. Dashed lines represent mean polynomial relationships derived from randomly drawn assemblages holding species richness equal to empirical values. Shaded regions correspond to altitudinally defined forest types: lowland rain forest (blue), montane rain forest (green), cloud forest (yellow), elfin forest (orange), and mixed grassland and elfin forest (red). Graphics modified from Cisneros et al. (Reference CISNEROS, BURGIO, DREISS, KLINGBEIL, PATTERSON, PRESLEY and WILLIG2014) and Dreiss et al. (Reference DREISS, BURGIO, CISNEROS, KLINGBEIL, PATTERSON, PRESLEY and WILLIG2015).

Altitudinal gradients in FD and PD were taxon-specific (Figure 2). A large amount of variation in PD was associated with altitude for rodents (R2 = 0.91), with the gradient evincing significant linear and non-linear components (i.e. decreasing quickly from low to middle altitudes (500–1750 m asl), and essentially remaining low at high altitudes (1750–3500 m asl). Much of the variation in PD of birds was related to altitude (R2 = 0.90), with evidence for only a significant linear decline with increasing altitude. In contrast, very little of the variation in PD of bats was related to altitude (R2 = 0.02), with non-significant linear and non-linear components. Much of the empirical variation in FD of rodents was related to altitude (R2 = 0.78), and the variation evinced strong linear and non-linear components, with the suggestion of a mid-altitudinal minimum (n.b. not maximum). In contrast, variation in FD associated with altitude was small for bats (R2 = 0.30) and birds (R2 = 0.21), with no evidence of significant linear or non-linear components.

Regardless of the significance of linear or non-linear trends in FD or PD, their empirical patterns may arise as a consequence of variation in species richness (i.e. selection effect; Huston Reference HUSTON1997). The extent to which that is true differed among taxa, depending on dimension of biodiversity. For PD, gradients exhibited by rodents were no different than those that would arise from a random selection of taxa from the species pool. In contrast, gradients of PD for bats (linear component only) and birds (both linear and non-linear components) were different than those arising as a consequence of variation in species richness. Empirical PD of bats was generally higher than expected at upper altitudes (>2000 m asl), whereas empirical PD of birds was generally lower than expected at upper altitudes (>2000 m asl).

For FD, gradients exhibited by bats and birds were no different from those that would arise from a random selection of taxa from the species pool while maintaining altitude-specific richness. In contrast, gradients of FD for rodents differed from those produced by random selection of taxa from the species pool in terms of both linear and non-linear components: empirical FD was higher than expected at low altitudes (< 1000 m asl) but was lower than expected at middle to high altitudes (>1250 m asl).

These results demonstrate similarities in the form of altitudinal gradients of species richness for bats, rodents and birds. Nonetheless, TD was not an effective surrogate for either FD or PD, and the extent to which variation in richness accounted for variation in FD or PD was taxon-specific. The unique biogeographic histories of these vertebrate groups, their different physiological constraints and variation among them in habitat specificity combine to produce complex altitudinal relationships. Moreover, differences among vertebrate groups in the magnitude or pervasiveness of interspecific interactions, including competition, could also contribute to these complexities. Insufficient autecological or synecological understanding of most of the species within these faunas prevents incontrovertible resolution of competing hypotheses concerning the mechanistic bases for differences.

METACOMMUNITY STRUCTURE

Conceptual framework

The metacommunity concept (Leibold et al. Reference LEIBOLD, HOLYOAK, MOUQUET, AMARASEKARE, CHASE, HOOPES, HOLT, SHURIN, LAW, TILMAN, LOREAU and GONZALEZ2004) provides a framework with which to evaluate the organization of biotas along environmental gradients. A metacommunity is a set of ecological communities that occur at sites that are effectively connected by dispersal, with each community being a group of species at a particular site (Leibold & Mikkelson Reference LEIBOLD and MIKKELSON2002). Metacommunity structure is an emergent property of a set of species distributions across a geographic or environmental gradient. Several conceptual models of spatial structure describe patterns of species distribution. Clements (Reference CLEMENTS1916) described an idealized metacommunity structure comprising communities with distinctive species compositions based on shared evolutionary history and inter-dependent ecological relationships, resulting in coincident range boundaries and compositional unity along different portions of the environmental gradient. In contrast, Gleason (Reference GLEASON1926) described a structure based on idiosyncratic species-specific responses to the environment, with coexistence resulting from chance similarities in requirements or tolerances. In situations where interspecific competition exists, trade-offs in competitive ability may result in distributions that are more evenly spaced along environmental gradients than expected by chance (Tilman Reference TILMAN1982). Alternatively, strong competition may result in chequerboard patterns produced by pairs of species with mutually exclusive ranges (Diamond Reference DIAMOND, Cody and Diamond1975). If mutually exclusive pairs occur at random with respect to other such pairs, chequerboards will manifest at the metacommunity level. Finally, species-poor communities may form nested subsets of increasingly species-rich communities (Patterson & Atmar Reference PATTERSON and ATMAR1986), with predictable patterns of species gain associated with variation in species-specific characteristics (e.g. dispersal ability, degree of habitat specialization, tolerance to abiotic conditions).

Three attributes of species distributions (i.e. coherence, species turnover and range-boundary clumping) can discriminate among metacommunity structures (Leibold & Mikkelson Reference LEIBOLD and MIKKELSON2002, Presley et al. Reference PRESLEY, HIGGINS and WILLIG2010). Analyses of metacommunity structure are based on reciprocal averaging or correspondence analysis, which allows the entire suite of species under consideration to define response gradients and facilitates the quantification of structure along multiple environmental gradients (Presley et al. Reference PRESLEY, HIGGINS, LÓPEZ-GONZÁLEZ and STEVENS2009). If a preponderance of species in a metacommunity does not respond to the same environmental gradient, non-coherence and random structure arise. Importantly, random structure does not indicate that species occur at random, only that they occur at random with respect to each other (i.e. that their distributions are not defined by the same environmental gradient). In contrast, each coherent structure is characterized by species distributions that are moulded by a common environmental gradient defined by variation among sites in biotic and abiotic factors. Nested structures are defined by negative turnover (i.e. less turnover than expected by chance) along the environmental gradient, whereas Clementsian, Gleasonian and evenly spaced structures are defined by positive turnover (i.e. more turnover than expected by chance). Quasi-structures have turnover that is indistinguishable from that expected by chance, but have structures consistent with the conceptual underpinning of Clementsian, evenly spaced, Gleasonian, or nested distributions (Presley et al. Reference PRESLEY, HIGGINS and WILLIG2010). Range boundary clumping distinguishes among the types of nestedness or among structures with positive turnover. In the case of significantly nested metacommunities, clumped boundaries suggest that species are being added or lost along a gradient in groups (i.e. not randomly with respect to each other). For metacommunities with significant turnover along gradients, positive clumping corresponds to the existence of compartments (Clementsian structure), negative clumping corresponds to evenly spaced structures and randomness with respect to clumping suggests Gleasonian structure (species distributions are unrelated to each other along the gradient).

Although altitudinal changes in abiotic characteristics (e.g. temperature, precipitation) and associated vegetation (composition and physiognomy) are predictable, they typically differ in the form of their variation. Abiotic characteristics generally change gradually with altitude, but not necessarily in a linear fashion (Barry Reference BARRY2008, Whiteman Reference WHITEMAN2000), whereas floral associations often have more-or-less discrete boundaries recognized as habitat types, forest types or life zones (Barone et al. Reference BARONE, THOMLINSON, ANGLADA-CORDERO and ZIMMERMAN2008, Hemp Reference HEMP2006, Kessler Reference KESSLER2000, Kitayama Reference KITAYAMA1992, Martin et al. Reference MARTIN, SHERMAN and FAHEY2007, Woldu et al. Reference WOLDU, FEOLI and NIGATU1989). Because habitat specialization and responses to abiotic characteristics are important in defining faunal ranges, the structure of a metacommunity is contingent on the dominant mechanism that moulds animal species distributions. If habitat boundaries are more-or-less discrete, metacommunities along altitudinal gradients that are moulded by habitat preferences or specializations should include multiple species with range boundaries that are coincident with ecotones (i.e. range boundary clumping), evincing Clementsian structure. Alternatively, if abiotic characteristics change gradually with altitude and species-specific tolerances are idiosyncratic, then metacommunities moulded by responses to abiotic characteristics should have Gleasonian structure. Finally, altitudinal variation in temperature and resource abundance may create physiological constraints associated with energy budgets (Speakman & Thomas Reference SPEAKMAN, THOMAS, Kunz and Fenton2003), resulting in nested altitudinal distributions. Distributions of species that are highly constrained by environmental conditions will be nested within those of species that can maintain populations along a larger portion of the gradient (Presley et al. Reference PRESLEY, CISNEROS, PATTERSON and WILLIG2012).

Interspecific interactions (e.g. competition, predation) may affect metacommunity structure; however, these effects are an aspect of species sorting processes as other species represent part of the environment to which species respond (Holyoak et al. Reference HOLYOAK, LEIBOLD and HOLT2005). Species sorting requires taxa to perform (i.e. survive and reproduce) differently under different conditions. Within the context of altitudinal gradients, different habitat types along gradients represent the environmental setting and often contribute to the outcome of interspecific interactions such as competition (e.g. species A excludes species B from montane rain forest, but species B excludes species A from cloud forest). Such mutual exclusion may be actively maintained via competitive interactions or may represent habitat associations due to the legacy of historical competition (i.e. the ‘ghost of competition past’; Connell Reference CONNELL1980). To influence metacommunity structure, the strength of such interactions would have to completely exclude individuals, because the elements of metacommunity structure evaluate patterns of the spatial distributions of species and are not sensitive to changes in abundance that do not reduce populations to zero. In most studies of metacommunity structure, including those reviewed here, insufficient knowledge of the autecology or synecology of species is available within the context of local communities to assess the relative importance of antagonistic interspecific interactions versus abiotic filtering or habitat associations.

Empirical structures

Metacommunity structure along extensive tropical altitudinal gradients has been evaluated for gastropods in Puerto Rico (Presley et al. Reference PRESLEY, WILLIG, BLOCH, CASTRO-ARELLANO, HIGGINS and KLINGBEIL2011, Willig et al. Reference WILLIG, PRESLEY, BLOCH, CASTRO-ARELLANO, CISNEROS, HIGGINS and KLINGBEIL2011), for reptiles and amphibians in Cameroon (Hofer et al. Reference HOFER, BERSIER and BORCARD1999, Reference HOFER, BERSIER and BORCARD2000), for bats in Mexico (López-González et al. Reference LÓPEZ-GONZÁLEZ, PRESLEY, LOZANO, STEVENS and HIGGINS2012) and for bats, rodents and passerines in Peru (Patterson et al. Reference PATTERSON, STOTZ, SOLARI and FITZPATRICK1998, Presley et al. Reference PRESLEY, CISNEROS, PATTERSON and WILLIG2012). These metacommunities (Table 1) manifest a number of structures, including nested (Peruvian bats), Clementsian (Peruvian rodents, Mexican bats and Puerto Rican gastropods), quasi-Clementsian (Cameroon herpetofauna and Peruvian passerines) and quasi-Gleasonian (Puerto Rican gastropods) patterns. Nonetheless, transitions between habitat types (i.e. ecotones) along altitudinal gradients are generally important for defining the altitudinal range boundaries of many species. Most of these metacommunities have distinctive lowland and upland faunal compartments, with the transition between rain forest and cloud forest often being the ecotone that defines the altitudinal boundaries between compositionally distinct communities (Patterson et al. Reference PATTERSON, STOTZ, SOLARI and FITZPATRICK1998, Presley et al. Reference PRESLEY, CISNEROS, PATTERSON and WILLIG2012, Terborgh Reference TERBORGH1985). Because altitude gives rise to considerable environmental variation and because changes in assemblage composition occur in response to such gradients, the latent environmental gradients for these metacommunity structures were strongly associated with altitude.

Table 1. Summary of empirical analyses of metacommunity structure or nested subsets along tropical altitudinal gradients. *, significant (P ≤ 0.05); NS, non-significant; NA, not applicable. The direction of deviations from random expectation are indicated by a + or −.

The ecotones between rain forest and cloud forest are important loci of compositional change for faunas along tropical altitudinal gradients. However, the ways in which metacommunities are structured around these ecotones is taxon-specific (Figure 3). For example, the rain forest-cloud forest ecotone in Manu is an important boundary for compositional change of rodents, bats and passerines, but each group had different metacommunity structure because of differences in their autecologies (Presley et al. Reference PRESLEY, CISNEROS, PATTERSON and WILLIG2012). Rodents have low vagility compared with their volant counterparts (birds and bats), resulting in greater habitat specialization. Rodents were specialists of lowland rain forest, montane rain forest, cloud forest or elfin forest. However, habitat generalists only spanned portions of the gradient, either above or below the cloud condensation point, defining the primary aspect of this Clementsian metacommunity (Figure 3a).

Figure 3. Distributional profiles of each species (black vertical bars) as ordered via reciprocal averaging for rodents (a), bats (b) and passerines (c). Placement of sites (identified by altitude) along the primary axis of correspondence exactly maintained altitudinal order after reciprocal averaging for rodents and birds and closely approximated it for bats (modified from Presley et al. Reference PRESLEY, CISNEROS, PATTERSON and WILLIG2012).

In contrast to rodents, bats in the Peruvian Andes generally do not specialize on particular forest types along the gradient. Rather, nearly all bat species occur in lowland rain forest, with species loss accompanying increasing altitude so as to produce a nested structure (Figure 3b). Importantly, range boundaries are clumped in the nested structure, with most of them occurring at ecotones. The nested structure of bats is a function of direct (colder temperatures) and indirect (reduced resource diversity and abundance) effects of altitudinal variation in climate. Bats have thermoregulatory constraints due to the combination of energy expenditures required for flight, heat loss via naked wing membranes, and nocturnal activity, making it more difficult for them to balance energy budgets in colder climates (Speakman & Thomas Reference SPEAKMAN, THOMAS, Kunz and Fenton2003, von Helversen & Winter Reference VON HELVERSEN, WINTER, Kunz and Fenton2003). In addition, loss of bat species can be partially explained by altitudinal changes in resources. All resources used by bats (i.e. fruit, nectar, arboreal insects, aerial insects) are diverse and abundant at low altitudes, but decline in these characteristics with increasing altitude. The most dramatic loss of bat species occurs at the ecotone between montane and cloud forests.

Passerines in the Peruvian Andes form two compartments, one associated with rain forests (lowland and montane) and another associated with upland forests (cloud and elfin). Few species have an appreciable portion of their altitudinal range in both rain forest and upland habitats (Patterson et al. Reference PATTERSON, STOTZ, SOLARI and FITZPATRICK1998, Presley et al. Reference PRESLEY, CISNEROS, PATTERSON and WILLIG2012, Terborgh Reference TERBORGH1985). The transition zone between low-altitude and high-altitude compartments is relatively broad and indistinct compared with that of rodents (Figure 3), and is centred on the ecotone between montane rain forest and cloud forest. This broad transition zone for birds may arise from the relaxation of environmental constraints during particular seasons, allowing species of this volant taxon to move up or down the gradient for short time periods, obscuring the effects of ecotones on metacommunity structure. For example, birds that reproduce at higher altitudes may move to lower altitudes during colder seasons or during times of lower resource abundance at high altitudes. This ability to move quickly in response to seasonal changes in environmental conditions may explain why the transition between upland and lowland bird faunas is broad compared with that of the less vagile rodents.

The herpetofauna comprises two compartments on Mount Kupe in Cameroon, with a faunal discontinuity at 1250 m asl, resulting in a distinct assemblage from 900 to 1200 m asl and another from 1300 to 2000 m asl. Importantly, the boundary between lowland and montane faunas was not associated with an ecotone or habitat discontinuity (Hofer et al. Reference HOFER, BERSIER and BORCARD1999). Rather, this abrupt change occurred in the midst of submontane forest, which spans altitudes from 900 to 1800 m asl. In contrast to responses of endotherms, temperature and water availability likely are of primary importance for defining altitudinal distributions of amphibians and reptiles than are changes in vegetation along the gradient. More specifically, reptile distributions were best explained by altitudinal variation (a proxy for abiotic variation, including temperature), whereas amphibian distributions were best explained by the availability of streams that serve as breeding sites (Hofer et al. Reference HOFER, BERSIER and BORCARD2000).

Metacommunity structure of terrestrial gastropods was evaluated along two altitudinal gradients in the same watershed in the Luquillo Mountains of Puerto Rico. One transect included montane rain forest, cloud forest and elfin forest, whereas the other transect was restricted to forest dominated by sierra palm (Willig et al. Reference WILLIG, PRESLEY, BLOCH, CASTRO-ARELLANO, CISNEROS, HIGGINS and KLINGBEIL2011, Reference WILLIG, PRESLEY, BLOCH, ALVAREZ, González, Willig and Waide2013). The metacommunity from the palm forest transect was quasi-Gleasonian, with structure determined by species-specific responses to altitudinal variation in abiotic factors (Willig et al. Reference WILLIG, PRESLEY, BLOCH, CASTRO-ARELLANO, CISNEROS, HIGGINS and KLINGBEIL2011). However, when altitudinal variation in forest type was superimposed on the gradient in abiotic variation in the mixed-forest transect, gastropods exhibited a Clementsian structure with compartmentalization associated with changes in forest type (Barone et al. Reference BARONE, THOMLINSON, ANGLADA-CORDERO and ZIMMERMAN2008, Willig et al. Reference WILLIG, PRESLEY, BLOCH, ALVAREZ, González, Willig and Waide2013). In concert, these analyses suggest that the distribution of gastropods in the Luquillo Mountains is affected by two broad correlates of altitudinal variation: forest type and abiotic factors.

Analysis of nested subsets

A few tropical montane studies have focused on assessing the existence of nested subsets along altitudinal gradients in species richness. These studies have two potential shortcomings compared with a more comprehensive evaluation of metacommunity structure as defined by Leibold & Mikkelson (Reference LEIBOLD and MIKKELSON2002). First, analyses cannot distinguish between different types of non-nested structures. This results in the grouping of non-nested structures, including chequerboard, Gleasonian and Clementsian structures, into a single category of random. Second, analyses of nestedness are conducted along gradients of richness rather than gradients defined by species distributions along environmental gradients. Consequently, environmental or ecological factors that produce nested structures can only be understood if richness gradients are correlated with environmental gradients.

Studies that evaluate nestedness of assemblages along tropical altitudinal gradients have been conducted for bats, birds, mice and termites in Peru (Palin et al. Reference PALIN, EGGLETON, MALHI, GIRARDIN, ROZAS-DÁVILA and PARR2011, Patterson et al. Reference PATTERSON, STOTZ, SOLARI and FITZPATRICK1998) as well as for schizophoran flies in Australia (Wilson et al. Reference WILSON, TRUEMAN, WILLIAMS and YEATES2007). Bat and bird assemblages in Peru were highly nested and moderately nested, respectively, whereas mice, termites and schizophoran flies were not nested. Predictably, richness gradients were only associated with altitude for the nested metacommunities. Non-nested metacommunities – Peruvian birds (Patterson et al. Reference PATTERSON, STOTZ, SOLARI and FITZPATRICK1998) and Australian schizophoran flies (Wilson et al. Reference WILSON, TRUEMAN, WILLIAMS and YEATES2007) – exhibited compositional turnover with compositional changes linked to ecotones. Importantly, the ecotone between rain forest and cloud forest is an ecological barrier for termites as well; however, rather than species turnover occurring at the ecotone, termites are unable to cope with the humidity of cloud forests and do not occur at or above those altitudes (Palin et al. Reference PALIN, EGGLETON, MALHI, GIRARDIN, ROZAS-DÁVILA and PARR2011).

BIOGEOGRAPHY OF TROPICAL MONTANE FORESTS

Montane biotas often are insular, with communities on each mountaintop separated from others in a mountain range by lowland environs that are distinctive in terms of climate and vegetation (Brown Reference BROWN1971, Patterson Reference PATTERSON1982). In general, naturally fragmented tropical montane habitats have been isolated from one another since the late Pleistocene in the Neotropics as well as in Africa, making them useful insular systems that comprise habitat islands for biogeographic study (Diamond & Hamilton Reference DIAMOND and HAMILTON1980, Simpson Reference SIMPSON1974, Watson & Peterson Reference WATSON and PETERSON1999). Immigration among these high-altitude habitat islands may be achieved more easily than for oceanic islands, as montane islands are surrounded by other terrestrial habitats rather than by water as in classic studies in island biogeography. Throughout the world, the isolation of montane habitats from one another has increased and their areal extents have decreased due to recent anthropogenic activities in lowlands and at lower altitudes on mountains (Cordeiro Reference CORDEIRO1998, Pineda & Halffter Reference PINEDA and HALFFTER2004).

Biogeographic studies of insular montane faunas have generally used two approaches: (1) application of classical island biogeography theory (MacArthur & Wilson Reference MACARTHUR and WILSON1963) to evaluate the effects of forest area and isolation on species richness and (2) evaluation of nested subsets to determine if predictable patterns of extinction or immigration determine species composition of isolated faunas. Although there are many biogeographical studies of insular montane biotas, few have been conducted in tropical settings. These studies have focused on frogs (Cordeiro Reference CORDEIRO1998), birds (Martínez-Morales Reference MARTÍNEZ-MORALES2005, Pineda & Halffter Reference PINEDA and HALFFTER2004, Watson Reference WATSON2003, Watson & Peterson Reference WATSON and PETERSON1999), or non-volant small mammals (Anderson et al. Reference ANDERSON, GUTIÉRREZ, OCHOA, GARCÍA and AGUILERA2012). Although these studies represent three classes of vertebrates and three distinct biogeographic regions (Nearctic, Neotropical and Ethiopian), there is general concordance in results. Mountaintop communities formed nested subsets, with larger montane forest patches harbouring more species than smaller patches. Nonetheless, aspects of historical biogeography from each region influenced variation in biodiversity and community composition. For example, Central American birds were most species rich on mountains that were near centres of endemism and that were covered by large areas of cloud forest (Watson & Peterson Reference WATSON and PETERSON1999). In addition, species traits were associated with patterns of nestedness for Mexican birds. Species with larger altitudinal ranges, that are more vagile, or that are more abundant, occurred on more mountain-top islands (Watson Reference WATSON2003). In the Eastern Arc Mountains of Tanzania, rare birds occurred only in larger montane forest patches on expansive mountains, whereas common species occurred on both large and small mountains (Cordeiro Reference CORDEIRO1998). Species richness of frogs from Neotropical montane cloud forests was associated with canopy cover and cloud-forest area (Pineda & Halffter Reference PINEDA and HALFFTER2004). Importantly, many of these frog species also use shade coffee, suggesting that some types of disturbed habitats may have conservation value and may serve as conduits of dispersal to connect isolated fragments of cloud forest.

CONCLUDING COMMENTS

Although much ecological and biodiversity research on animals occurs in tropical montane habitats, most studies focus on one or a few sites, rather than on a sufficient number of sites with a spatial distribution appropriate for characterizing altitudinal gradients. Consequently, a concerted effort to collect synoptic environmental data along altitudinal gradients, in addition to data on the distributions of plant and animal species, would enhance the mechanistic understanding of variation in biodiversity and metacommunity structure. Similarly, understanding the extent to which variation in habitat heterogeneity, as well as in the α- and β-diversity of sites within strata along gradients, contribute to altitudinal patterns and overall γ-diversity of montane systems remains a fruitful area for future research (Jankowski et al. Reference JANKOWSKI, CIECKA, MEYER and RABENOLD2009). Such approaches require replicated sites within altitudinal strata for which comparable effort has been expended in estimating the abundances or incidences of species. Finally, execution of parallel projects in a variety of settings across the tropics would facilitate the ability to distinguish general patterns from those that are site- or region-specific.

Conservation action in mountainous tropical regions is a daunting challenge given their high diversity, high proportion of endemic species, high species-turnover along altitudinal gradients and the nested nature of species composition for upper-altitude habitat patches. Complicating matters further, the associations between taxonomic, functional and phylogenetic biodiversity along altitudinal gradients are complex, and species richness may not be an effective surrogate for all or most aspects of biodiversity. Because the effects of global climate change may be particularly stressful for biota that occupy high-altitude forests in the tropics (McCain & Colwell Reference MCCAIN and COLWELL2011), the need for increased ecological research and targeted conservation action are more urgent than ever. At the same time, changing climates will initiate a non-manipulative experiment in which the mapping of environmental conditions onto geographic space is in flux, especially along altitudinal gradients, creating increased stimulus to study mountainous tropical regions and the underlying mechanisms that give rise to their biodiversity.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

SJP and MRW were supported by the National Science Foundation (DEB-1239764 and DEB-1354040) and by the Center for Environmental Sciences and Engineering at the University of Connecticut. We appreciate the support and understanding of the editors, especially P. Martin, who maintained faith in our ability to produce a manuscript despite repeated inability to meet deadlines. In addition, we acknowledge that many of the ideas summarized in this work arose from discussion with our colleagues in the Luquillo Mountains Long-Term Ecological Research Program, the Cloud Forest Research Collaboration Network, or the Dimensions of Biodiversity Distributed Graduate Seminar, especially K. Burgio, L. Cisneros, L. Dreiss, B. Klingbeil and B. Patterson. Finally, we appreciate the comments from M. Lomolino and an anonymous reviewer; their suggestions improved the content and exposition of the manuscript.

References

LITERATURE CITED

ANDELMAN, S. J. & WILLIG, M. R. 2003. Present patterns and future prospects for biodiversity in the western hemisphere. Ecology Letters 6:818824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ANDERSON, R. P., GUTIÉRREZ, E. E., OCHOA, G.J., GARCÍA, F. J. & AGUILERA, M. 2012. Faunal nestedness and species–area relationship for small non-volant mammals in “sky islands” of northern Venezuela. Studies on Neotropical Fauna and Environment 47:157170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BARONE, J. A., THOMLINSON, J., ANGLADA-CORDERO, P. & ZIMMERMAN, J. K. 2008. Metacommunity structure of tropical forests along an elevational gradient in Puerto Rico. Journal of Tropical Ecology 24:110.Google Scholar
BARRY, R. G. 2008. Mountain weather and climate. (Third edition). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 532 pp.Google Scholar
BARTHLOTT, W., LAUER, W. & PLACKE, A. 1996. Global distribution of species diversity in vascular plants: towards a world map of phytodiversity. Erdkunde 50:317327.Google Scholar
BECKER, A., KÖRNER, C., BRUN, J.-J., GUISAN, A. & TAPPEINER, U. 2007. Ecological and landuse studies along elevational gradients. Mountain Research and Development 27:5865.Google Scholar
BEGON, M., HARPER, J. L. & TOWNSEND, C. R. 1990. Ecology: individuals, populations and communities. Blackwell, Oxford. 958 pp.Google Scholar
BLAKE, J. G. & LOISELLE, B. A. 2000. Diversity of birds along an elevational gradient in the Cordillera Central, Costa Rica. The Auk 117:663686.Google Scholar
BREHM, G., SÜSSENBACH, D. & FIEDLER, K. 2003. Unique elevational diversity patterns of geometrid moths in an Andean montane rainforest. Ecography 26:456466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BROKAW, N., CROWL, T. A., LUGO, A. E., MCDOWELL, W. H., SCATENA, F. N., WAIDE, R. B. & WILLIG, M. R. (eds.). 2012. A Caribbean forest tapestry: the multidimensional nature of disturbance and response. Oxford University Press, New York. 496 pp.Google Scholar
BROWN, J. H. 1971. Mammals on mountaintops: nonequilibrium insular biogeography. American Naturalist 105:467478.Google Scholar
BROWN, J. H. & GIBSON, A. C. 1983. Biogeography. McGraw-Hill, New York. 643 pp.Google Scholar
BROWN, S., LUGO, A. E., SILANDER, S. & LIEGEL, L. 1983. Research history and opportunities in the Luquillo Experimental Forest. General Technical Report SO–44. US Dept. of Agriculture. 132 pp.Google Scholar
BRÜHL, C. A., MOHAMED, M. & LINSENMAIR, K. E. 1999. Altitudinal distribution of leaf litter ants along a transect in primary forests on Mount Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia. Journal of Tropical Ecology 15:265277.Google Scholar
CADOTTE, M. W., CAVENDER-BARES, J., TILMAN, D. & OAKLEY, T. H. 2009. Using phylogenetic, functional and trait diversity to understand patterns of plant community productivity. PLoS ONE 4:e5695.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
CAVALIER, J. 1986. Relaciones hídricas de nutrientes en bosques enanos nublados tropicales. Unpubl. M.S. thesis, Universidad de los Andes de Merida, Venezuela.Google Scholar
CAVENDER-BARES, J., KOZAK, K. H., FINE, P. V. A. & KEMBEL, S. W. 2009. The merging of community ecology and phylogenetic biology. Ecology Letters 12:693715.Google Scholar
CISNEROS, L. M., BURGIO, K. R., DREISS, L. M., KLINGBEIL, B. T., PATTERSON, B. D., PRESLEY, S. J. & WILLIG, M. R. 2014. Multiple dimensions of bat biodiversity along an extensive tropical elevational gradient. Journal of Animal Ecology 83:11241136.Google Scholar
CLEMENTS, F. E. 1916. Plant succession: an analysis of the development of vegetation. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington D.C. 512 pp.Google Scholar
COLEMAN, B. D., MARES, M. A., WILLIG, M. R. & HSIEH, Y. H. 1982. Randomness, area and species richness. Ecology 63:11211133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CONNELL, J. H. 1980. Diversity and the coevolution of competitors, or the ghost of competition past. Oikos 35:131138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CORDEIRO, N. J. 1998. Preliminary analysis of the nestedness patterns of montane forest birds of the Eastern Arc Mountains. Journal of East African Natural History 87:101118.Google Scholar
DEVICTOR, V., MOUILLOT, D., MEYNARD, C., JIGUET, F., THUILLER, W. & MOUQUET, N. 2010. Spatial mismatch and congruence between taxonomic, phylogenetic and functional diversity: the need for integrative conservation strategies in a changing world. Ecology Letters 13:10301040.Google Scholar
DIAMOND, J. M. 1975. Assembly of species communities. Pp. 342444 in Cody, M. L. & Diamond, J. M. (eds.). Ecology and evolution of communities. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
DIAMOND, A. W. & HAMILTON, A. C. 1980. The distribution of forest passerine birds and Quaternary climatic change in Africa. Journal of Zoology 191:379402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DÍAZ, S. & CABIDO, M. 2001. Vive la différence: plant functional diversity matters to ecosystem process. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 16:646655.Google Scholar
DREISS, L. M., BURGIO, K. R., CISNEROS, L. M., KLINGBEIL, B. T., PATTERSON, B. D., PRESLEY, S. J. & WILLIG, M. R. 2015. Taxonomic, functional, and phylogenetic dimensions of rodent biodiversity along an extensive tropical elevational gradient. Ecography 38:876888.Google Scholar
FAHRIG, L. 2003. Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution & Systematics 34:487515.Google Scholar
FAITH, D. P. 1992. Conservation evaluation and phylogenetic diversity. Biological Conservation 61:110.Google Scholar
FAUTH, J. E., CROTHER, B. I. & SLOWINSKI, J. B. 1989. Elevational patterns of species richness, evenness, and abundance of the Costa Rican leaf-litter herpetofauna. Biotropica 21:178185.Google Scholar
FERNANDES, G. W. & LARA, A. C. F. 1993. Diversity of Indonesian gall-forming herbivores along altitudinal gradients. Biodiversity Letters 1:186192.Google Scholar
FISHER, B. L. 1996. Ant diversity patterns along an elevational gradient in the Réserve Naturelle Intégrale d'Andringitra, Madagascar. Fieldiana Zoology 85:93108.Google Scholar
GARTEN, J. C. T., POST, W. M., HANSON, P. J. & COOPER, L. W. 1999. Forest soil carbon inventories and dynamics along an elevational gradient in the southern Appalachian Mountains. Biogeochemistry 45:115145.Google Scholar
GASTON, K. J. 1998. Species richness: measure and measurement. Pp. 77113 in Gaston, K. J. and Spicer, J. I. (eds,). Biodiversity: an introduction. Blackwell Science, Oxford.Google Scholar
GIARETTA, A. A., FACURE, K. G., SAWAYA, R. J., MEYER, J. H. DE M. & CHEMIN, N. 1999. Diversity and abundance of litter frogs in a montane forest of southeastern Brazil: seasonal and altitudinal changes. Biotropica 31:669674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
GLEASON, H. A. 1926. The individualistic concept of the plant association. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 53:726.Google Scholar
GONZÁLEZ, G., GARCIA, E., CRUZ, V., BORGES, S., ZALAMEA, M. & RIVERA, M. M. 2007. Earthworm communities along an elevation gradient in northeastern Puerto Rico. European Journal of Soil Biology 43:S24S32.Google Scholar
GONZÁLEZ, G., WILLIG, M. R. & WAIDE, R. B. (eds.). 2013. Ecological gradient analyses in a tropical landscape. Ecological Bulletins 54:1250.Google Scholar
GRADSTEIN, S. R., HOMEIER, J. & GANSERT, D. (eds.) 2008. The tropical mountain forest: patterns and processes in a biodiversity hotspot. Universitätsverlag Göttingen, Göttingen. 217 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
GRAHAM, G. L. 1983. Changes in bat species diversity along an elevational gradient up the Peruvian Andes. Journal of Mammalogy 64:559571.Google Scholar
GRAHAM, G. L. 1990. Bats versus birds: comparisons among Peruvian volant vertebrate faunas along an elevational gradient. Journal of Biogeography 17:657668.Google Scholar
GRUBB, P. J. 1977. Control of forest growth and distribution on wet tropical mountains: with special reference to mineral nutrition. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 8:83107.Google Scholar
GRYTNES, J.-A. & MCCAIN, C M. 2007. Elevational trends in biodiversity. Pp. 18 in Levin, S.A. (ed.). Encyclopedia of biodiversity, Academic Press, Waltham.Google Scholar
HEANEY, L. R. 2001. Small mammal diversity along elevational gradients in the Philippines: an assessment of patterns and hypotheses. Global Ecology and Biogeography 10:1539.Google Scholar
HEMP, A. 2006. Continuum or zonation? Altitudinal gradients in the forest vegetation of Mt. Kilimanjaro. Plant Ecology 184:2742.Google Scholar
HERNANDEZ-ALCANTARA, P., SALAS-DE LEON, D. A., SOLIS-WEISS, V. & MONREAL-GOMEZ, M. A. 2014. Bathymetric patterns of polychaete (Annelida) species richness in the continental shelf of the Gulf of California, Eastern Pacific. Journal of Sea Research 91:7987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
HILLEBRAND, H. 2004. On the generality of the latitudinal diversity gradient. American Naturalist 163:192211.Google Scholar
HOFER, U., BERSIER, L-F. & BORCARD, D. 1999. Spatial organization of a herpetofauna on an elevational gradient revealed by null model tests. Ecology 80:976988.Google Scholar
HOFER, U., BERSIER, L-F. & BORCARD, D. 2000. Ecotones and gradient as determinants of hepetofaunal community structure in the primary forest of Mount Kupe, Cameroon. Journal of Tropical Ecology 16:517533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
HOLYOAK, M., LEIBOLD, M. A. & HOLT, R. D. 2005. Metacommunities: spatial dynamics and ecological communities. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 513 pp.Google Scholar
HUSTON, M. A. 1997. Hidden treatments in ecological experiments: re-evaluating the ecosystem function of biodiversity. Oecologia 110:449460.Google Scholar
JANKOWSKI, J. E., CIECKA, A. L., MEYER, N. Y. & RABENOLD, K. N. 2009. Beta diversity along environmental gradients: implications of habitat specialization in tropical montane landscapes. Journal of Animal Ecology 78:315327.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
JANZEN, D. H. 1967. Why mountain passes are higher in the tropics. American Naturalist 101:233249.Google Scholar
KATTAN, G. H. & FRANCO, P. 2004. Bird diversity along elevational gradients in the Andes of Colombia: area and mass effects. Global Ecology and Biogeography 123:451458.Google Scholar
KESSLER, M. 2000. Elevational gradients in species richness and endemism of selected plant groups in the central Bolivian Andes. Plant Ecology 149:181193.Google Scholar
KIKKAWA, J. & WILLIAMS, W. T. 1971. Altitudinal distribution of land birds in New Guinea. Search 2:6465.Google Scholar
KITAYAMA, K. 1992. An altitudinal transect study of the vegetation on Mount Kinabalu, Borneo. Vegetatio 102:149171.Google Scholar
KÖRNER, C. 2003. Alpine plant life. (Second edition). Springer, New York. 349 pp.Google Scholar
LEIBOLD, M. A. & MIKKELSON, G. M. 2002. Coherence, species turnover, and boundary clumping: elements of meta-community structure. Oikos 97:237250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LEIBOLD, M. A., HOLYOAK, M., MOUQUET, N., AMARASEKARE, P., CHASE, J. M., HOOPES, M. F., HOLT, R. D., SHURIN, J. B., LAW, R., TILMAN, D., LOREAU, M. & GONZALEZ, A. 2004. The metacommunity concept: a framework for multi-scale community ecology. Ecology Letters 7:601613.Google Scholar
LIEBERMAN, D., LIEBERMAN, M., PERALTA, R. & HARTSHORN, G. S. 1996. Tropical forest structure and composition on a large-scale altitudinal gradient in Costa Rica. Journal of Ecology 84:137152.Google Scholar
LIEW, T.-S., SCHILTHUIZEN, M. & BIN LAKIM, M. 2010. The determinants of land snail diversity along a tropical elevational gradient: insularity, geometry and niches. Journal of Biogeography 37:10711078.Google Scholar
LOMOLINO, M. V., RIDDLE, B. R., WHITTAKER, R. J. & BROWN, J. H. 2010. Biogeography. (Fourth edition). Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA. 560 pp.Google Scholar
LÓPEZ-GONZÁLEZ, C., PRESLEY, S. J., LOZANO, A., STEVENS, R. D. & HIGGINS, C. L. 2012. Metacommunity analysis of Mexican bats: environmentally mediated structure in an area of high geographic and environmental complexity. Journal of Biogeography 39:177192.Google Scholar
MACARTHUR, R. H. 1972. Geographical ecology: patterns in the distributions of species. Princeton University Press, Princeton. 288 pp.Google Scholar
MACARTHUR, R. H. & WILSON, E. O. 1963. An equilibrium theory of insular zoogeography. Evolution 17:373387.Google Scholar
MARTIN, P. H., SHERMAN, R. E. & FAHEY, T. J. 2007. Tropical montane forest ecotones: climate gradients, natural disturbance, and vegetation zonation in the Cordillera Central, Dominican Republic. Journal of Biogeography 34:17921806.Google Scholar
MARTÍNEZ-MORALES, M. A. 2005. Nested species assemblages as a tool to detect sensitivity to forest fragmentation: the case of cloud forest birds. Oikos 108:634642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MASON, N. W. H., LANOISELÉE, C., MOUILLOT, D. & ARGILLIER, C. 2007. Functional characters combined with null models reveal inconsistency in mechanisms of species turnover in lacustrine fish communities. Oecologia 153:441452.Google Scholar
MCCAIN, C. M. 2005. Elevational gradients in diversity of small mammals. Ecology 86:366372.Google Scholar
MCCAIN, C. M. 2009. Global analysis of bird elevational diversity. Global Ecology and Biogeography 18:346360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MCCAIN, C. M. & COLWELL, R. K. 2011. Assessing the threat to montane biodiversity from discordant shifts in temperature and precipitation in a changing climate. Ecology Letters 14:12361245.Google Scholar
MCCAIN, C. M. & GRYTNES, J.-A. 2010. Elevational gradients in species richness. Pp.110 in Encyclopedia of life sciences. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken.Google Scholar
MEYBECK, M., GREEN, P. & VÖRÖSMARTY, C. 2001. A new typology for mountains and other relief classes. An application to global continental water resources and population distribution. Mountain Research and Development 21:3445.Google Scholar
MILLER, G. T. & SPOOLMAN, S. 2011. Living in the environment: principles, connections, and solutions. (Seventeenth edition.). Brooks Cole, Belmont. 800 pp.Google Scholar
MITTELBACH, G. G., STEINER, C. F., SCHEINER, S. M., GROSS, K. L., REYNOLDS, H. L., WAIDE, R. B., WILLIG, M. R., DODSON, S. I. & GOUGH, L. 2001. What is the observed relationship between species richness and productivity? Ecology 82:23812396.Google Scholar
MORITZ, C., PATTON, J. L., CONROY, C. J., PARRA, J. L., WHITE, G. C. & BEISSINGER, S. R. 2008. Impact of a century of climate change on small-mammal communities in Yosemite National Park, USA. Science 322:261264.Google Scholar
NANIWADEKAR, R. & VASUDEVAN, K. 2007. Patterns in diversity of anurans along an elevational gradient in the Western Ghats, South India. Journal of Biogeography 34:842853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NOR, S. M. D. 2001. Elevational diversity patterns of small mammals on Mount Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia. Global Ecology and Biogeography 10:4162.Google Scholar
OLSON, D. M. 1994. The distribution of leaf litter invertebrates along a Neotropical altitudinal gradient. Journal of Tropical Ecology 10:129150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
PALIN, O. F., EGGLETON, P., MALHI, Y., GIRARDIN, C. A. J., ROZAS-DÁVILA, A. & PARR, C. L. 2011. Termite diversity along an Amazon–Andes elevation gradient, Peru. Biotropica 43:100107.Google Scholar
PATTERSON, B. D. 1982. Pleistocene vicariance, montane islands, and the evolutionary divergence of some chipmunks (genus Eutamias). Journal of Mammalogy 63:387398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
PATTERSON, B. D. & ATMAR, A. 1986. Nested subsets and the structure of insular mammalian faunas and archipelagos. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 28:6582.Google Scholar
PATTERSON, B. D., STOTZ, D. F., SOLARI, S. & FITZPATRICK, J. W. 1998. Contrasting patterns of elevational zonation for birds and mammals in the Andes of southeastern Peru. Journal of Biogeography 25:593607.Google Scholar
PAVOINE, S. & BONSALL, M. B. 2011. Measuring biodiversity to explain community assembly: a unified approach. Biological Reviews 86:792812.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
PETCHEY, O. L. & GASTON, K. J. 2006. Functional diversity: back to basics and looking forward. Ecology Letters 9:741758.Google Scholar
PETCHEY, O. L., EVANS, K. L., FISHBURN, I. S. & GASTON, K. J. 2007. Low functional diversity and no redundancy in British avian assemblages. Journal of Animal Ecology 76:977985.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
PICKETT, S. T. A., KOLASA, J. & JONES, C. G. 1994. Ecological understanding. Academic Press, San Diego. 206 pp.Google Scholar
PINEDA, E. & HALFFTER, G. 2004. Species diversity and habitat fragmentation: frogs in a tropical montane landscape in Mexico. Biological Conservation 117:499508.Google Scholar
PRESLEY, S. J., HIGGINS, C. L., LÓPEZ-GONZÁLEZ, C. & STEVENS, R. D. 2009. Elements of metacommunity structure of Paraguayan bats: multiple gradients require analysis of multiple ordination axes. Oecologia 160:781793.Google Scholar
PRESLEY, S. J., HIGGINS, C. L. & WILLIG, M. R. 2010. A comprehensive framework for the evaluation of metacommunity structure. Oikos 119:908917.Google Scholar
PRESLEY, S. J., WILLIG, M. R., BLOCH, C. P., CASTRO-ARELLANO, I., HIGGINS, C. L. & KLINGBEIL, B. T. 2011. A complex metacommunity structure for gastropods along an elevational gradient. Biotropica 43:480488.Google Scholar
PRESLEY, S. J., CISNEROS, L. M., PATTERSON, B. D. & WILLIG, M. R. 2012. Vertebrate metacommunity structure along an extensive elevational gradient in the tropics: a comparison of bats, rodents and birds. Global Ecology and Biogeography 21:968976.Google Scholar
RAHBEK, C. 1995. The elevational gradient of species richness: a uniform pattern? Ecography 18:200205.Google Scholar
RAHBEK, C. 1997. The relationship among area, elevation, and regional species richness in Neotropical birds. American Naturalist 149:875902.Google Scholar
REX, M. A. 1981. Community structure in the deep-sea benthos. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 12:331353.Google Scholar
RICHARDSON, B. A. & RICHARDSON, M. J. 2005. Litter-based invertebrate communities in forest floor and bromeliad microcosms along an elevational gradient in Puerto Rico. Ecological Bulletins 54:101116.Google Scholar
RICHARDSON, B. A., RICHARDSON, M. J. & SOTO-ADAMES, F. N. 2005. Separating the effects of forest type and elevation on the diversity of litter invertebrate communities in a humid tropical forest in Puerto Rico. Journal of Animal Ecology 74:926936.Google Scholar
ROSENZWEIG, M. L. 1995. Species diversity in space and time. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 436 pp.Google Scholar
ROSENZWEIG, M. L. & SANDLIN, E. A. 1997. Species diversity and latitude: listening to area's signal. Oikos 80:172176.Google Scholar
ROWE, R. J. 2007. Legacies of land use and recent climatic change: the small mammal fauna in the mountains of Utah. American Naturalist 170:242257.Google Scholar
SAFI, K., CIANCIARUSO, M. V., LOYOLA, R. D., BRITO, D., ARMOUR-MARSHALL, K. & DINIZ-FILHO, J. A. F. 2011. Understanding global patterns of mammalian functional and phylogenetic diversity. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society London. Series B. Biological Science 366:25362544.Google Scholar
SÁNCHEZ-CORDERO, V. 2001. Elevation gradients of diversity for rodents and bats in Oaxaca, Mexico. Global Ecology and Biogeography 10:6376.Google Scholar
SCHEINER, S. M. & WILLIG, M. R. 2005. Developing unified theories in ecology as exemplified with diversity gradients. American Naturalist 166:458469.Google Scholar
SCHEINER, S. M., CHIARUCCI, A., FOX, G. A., HELMUS, M. R., MCGLINN, D. J. & WILLIG, M. R. 2011. The underpinnings of the relationship of species richness with space and time. Ecological Monographs 81:195213.Google Scholar
SCHLUTER, D. & RICKLEFS, R. E. 1993. Species diversity: an introduction to the problem. Pp. 110 in Ricklefs, R. E. and Schluter, D. (eds.). Species diversity in ecology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
SIMPSON, B. B. 1974. Glacial migrations of plants: island biogeographic evidence. Science 185:698700.Google Scholar
SMITH, S. A., MONTES DE OCA, A. N., REEDER, T. W. & WIENS, J. J. 2007. A phylogenetic perspective on elevational species richness patterns in Middle American treefrogs: why so few species in lowland tropical rainforests? Evolution 61:11881207.Google Scholar
SPASOJEVIC, M. J. & SUDING, K. N. 2012. Inferring community assembly mechanisms from functional diversity patterns: the importance of multiple assembly processes. Journal of Ecology 100:652661.Google Scholar
SPEAKMAN, J. R. & THOMAS, D. W. 2003. Physiological ecology and energetics of bats. Pp. 430490 in Kunz, T. H. & Fenton, M. B. (eds.). Bat ecology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
SRIVASTAVA, D. S. & LAWTON, J. H. 1998. Why more productive sites have more species: an experimental test of theory using tree-hole communities. American Naturalist 152:510529.Google Scholar
STEVENS, R. D. & WILLIG, M. R. 2002. Geographical ecology at the community level: perspectives on the diversity of New World bats. Ecology 83:545560.Google Scholar
STEVENS, R. D., COX, S. B., STRAUSS, R. E. & WILLIG, M. R. 2003. Patterns of functional diversity across an extensive environmental gradient: vertebrate consumers, hidden treatments and latitudinal trends. Ecology Letters 6:10991108.Google Scholar
STEVENS, R. D., WILLIG, M. R. & STRAUSS, R. E. 2006. Latitudinal gradients in the phenetic diversity of New World bat communities. Oikos 112:4150.Google Scholar
STEVENS, R. D., GAVILANEZ, M. M., TELLO, J. S. & RAY, D. A. 2012. Phylogenetic structure illuminated the mechanistic role of environmental heterogeneity in community organization. Journal of Animal Ecology 81:455462.Google Scholar
SWENSON, N. G. & ENQUIST, B. J. 2009. Opposing assembly mechanisms in a Neotropical dry forest: implications for phylogenetic and functional community ecology. Ecology 90:21612170.Google Scholar
TERBORGH, J. 1971. Distribution on environmental gradients: theory and a preliminary interpretation of distributional patterns in the avifauna of the Cordillera Vilcabamba, Peru. Ecology 52:2340.Google Scholar
TERBORGH, J. 1977. Bird species diversity on an Andean elevational gradient. Ecology 58:10071019.Google Scholar
TERBORGH, J. 1985. The role of ecotones in the distribution of Andean birds. Ecology 66:12371246.Google Scholar
TILMAN, D. 1982. Resource competition and community structure. Princeton University Press, Princeton. 296 pp.Google ScholarPubMed
TILMAN, D., KNOPS, J., WEDIN, D., REICH, P., RITCHIE, M. & SIEMANN, E. 1997. The influence of functional diversity and composition on ecosystem processes. Science 277:13001302.Google Scholar
TURNER, M. G. 1989. Landscape ecology: the effect of pattern on process. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 20:171197.Google Scholar
TURNER, M. G., GARDNER, T. H. & O'NEILL, R. V. 2001. Landscape ecology in theory and practice: pattern and process. Springer, New York. 406 pp.Google Scholar
VANCE-CHALCRAFT, H. D., WILLIG, M. R., COX, S. B., LUGO, A. E. & SCATENA, F. N. 2010. Relationship between aboveground biomass and multiple measures of biodiversity in subtropical forest of Puerto Rico. Biotropica 42:290299.Google Scholar
VON HELVERSEN, O. & WINTER, Y. 2003. Glossophagine bats and their flowers: costs and benefits for plants and pollinators. Pp. 346397 in Kunz, T. H. & Fenton, M. B. (eds.). Bat ecology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
WAIDE, R. B., WILLIG, M. R., STEINER, C. F., MITTELBACH, G., GOUGH, L., DODSON, S. I., JUDAY, G. P. & PARMENTER, R. 1999. The relationship between productivity and species richness. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 30:257300.Google Scholar
WATSON, D. M. 2003. Long-term consequences of habitat fragmentation – highland birds in Oaxaca, Mexico. Biological Conservation 111:282303.Google Scholar
WATSON, D. M. & PETERSON, A. T. 1999. Determinants of diversity in a naturally fragmented landscape: humid montane forest avifaunas of Mesoamerica. Ecography 22:582589.Google Scholar
WEAVER, P. L. 1994. Bano de Oro Natural Area: Luquillo Mountains, Puerto Rico. General Technical Report SO–111. US Dept. of Agriculture. 55 pp.Google Scholar
WEAVER, P. L. & MURPHY, P. G. 1990. Forest structure and productivity in Puerto Rico's Luquillo Mountains. Biotropica 22:6982.Google Scholar
WEBB, C. O. 2000. Exploring the phylogenetic structure of ecological communities: an example for rain forest trees. American Naturalist 156:145155.Google Scholar
WEBB, C. O., ACKERLY, D. D., MCPEEK, M. A. & DONOGHUE, M. J. 2002. Phylogenies and community ecology. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 33:475505.Google Scholar
WEINS, J. J., PARRA-OLEA, G., GARCÍA-PARÍS, M. & WAKE, D. B. 2007. Phylogenetic history underlies elevational biodiversity patterns in tropical salamanders. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 274:919928.Google Scholar
WHITEMAN, C. D. 2000. Mountain meteorology. Oxford University Press, New York. 376 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
WHITTAKER, R. H. 1960. Vegetation of the Siskiyou Mountains, Oregon and California. Ecological Monographs 30:279338.Google Scholar
WILLIG, M. R., KAUFMAN, D. M. & STEVENS, R. D. 2003. Latitudinal gradients of biodiversity: pattern, process, scale, and synthesis. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 34:273309.Google Scholar
WILLIG, M. R., PRESLEY, S. J., BLOCH, C. P., CASTRO-ARELLANO, I., CISNEROS, L. M., HIGGINS, C. L. & KLINGBEIL, B. T. 2011. Tropical metacommunities and elevational gradients: effects of forest type and other environmental factors. Oikos 120:14971508.Google Scholar
WILLIG, M. R., PRESLEY, S. J., BLOCH, C. P. & ALVAREZ, J. 2013. Population, community, and metacommunity dynamics of terrestrial gastropods in the Luquillo Mountains: a gradient perspective. Pp. 117140 in González, G., Willig, M. R. & Waide, R. B. (eds.). Ecological gradient analyses in a tropical landscape, Ecological Bulletins, Vol. 54. Wiley, Oxford.Google Scholar
WILSEY, B. J., CHALCRAFT, D. R., BOWLES, C. M. & WILLIG, M. R. 2005. Relationships among indices suggest that richness is an incomplete surrogate for grassland biodiversity. Ecology 86:11781184.Google Scholar
WILSON, R. D., TRUEMAN, J. W. H., WILLIAMS, S. E. & YEATES, D. K. 2007. Altitudinally restricted communities of schizophoran flies in Queensland's wet tropics: vulnerability to climate change. Biodiversity and Conservation 16:31633177.Google Scholar
WOLDA, H. 1987. Altitude, habitat and tropical insect diversity. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 30:313323.Google Scholar
WOLDU, Z., FEOLI, E. & NIGATU, L. 1989. Partitioning an elevational gradient of vegetation from southeastern Ethiopia by probabilistic methods. Vegetatio 81:189198.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 1. Altitudinal variation in metrics of taxonomic biodiversity: species richness (a); incidence-based coverage estimator, ICE (b); richness of endemic species restricted to Costa Rica and Panama (c); richness of endemic species restricted to Central America (d); Simpson's reciprocal index of diversity (e); and Sørensen's similarity index (f) of birds along the Pacific versant of the Tilaran Mountains in Costa Rica. Empirical values of each metric are represented by black dots; a solid line represents an empirical second-order polynomial relationship. Coefficients from orthogonal polynomial regression analyses are indicated by b*1 and b*2 for linear and quadratic components, respectively. Plotted values for the zones on the x-axis are altitudinal mid-points. Green and white regions of the altitudinal gradient correspond to areas of cloud forest and rain-shadow forest, respectively, and are reflected in differences in bird species composition as well (Jankowski et al.2009).

Figure 1

Figure 2. Altitudinal variation in taxonomic biodiversity for bats (a), rodents (b) and passerines (c); phylogenetic biodiversity for bats (d), rodents (e) and passerines (f); and functional biodiversity for bats (g), rodents (h) and passerines (i) at Manu. Empirical values are represented by black dots. A solid line represents an empirical polynomial relationship. Dashed lines represent mean polynomial relationships derived from randomly drawn assemblages holding species richness equal to empirical values. Shaded regions correspond to altitudinally defined forest types: lowland rain forest (blue), montane rain forest (green), cloud forest (yellow), elfin forest (orange), and mixed grassland and elfin forest (red). Graphics modified from Cisneros et al. (2014) and Dreiss et al. (2015).

Figure 2

Table 1. Summary of empirical analyses of metacommunity structure or nested subsets along tropical altitudinal gradients. *, significant (P ≤ 0.05); NS, non-significant; NA, not applicable. The direction of deviations from random expectation are indicated by a + or −.

Figure 3

Figure 3. Distributional profiles of each species (black vertical bars) as ordered via reciprocal averaging for rodents (a), bats (b) and passerines (c). Placement of sites (identified by altitude) along the primary axis of correspondence exactly maintained altitudinal order after reciprocal averaging for rodents and birds and closely approximated it for bats (modified from Presley et al.2012).