A test of the abundant‐center hypothesis for stream fishes

The abundant‐center hypothesis (ACH) provides a conceptual model for predicting range‐wide distributions of species abundance, suggesting that abundance peaks in the center of the geographic range and declines towards range edges. Empirical studies testing the ACH and its subsequent derivations predominantly occurred in terrestrial systems and reported mixed support. Moreover, none of these models consider the possibility of multiple geographic areas of elevated abundance (which we refer to as ‘abundant cores'). Naturally dispersal limited species may exhibit multiple abundant cores, requiring refinement of the ACH. We used fish species abundances from 29 206 community monitoring surveys and weighted geospatial kernel density estimation to identify the number of abundant cores for 64 freshwater fish species. We regressed the number of abundant cores against range size and body size to test if larger geographic distributions and body sizes contain more abundant cores than smaller distributions and body sizes. The two predictors are surrogates for evolutionary age and dispersal ability, respectively, because older species are generally associated with larger ranges, and large‐bodied fishes have greater dispersal ability than small‐bodied fishes in dendritic networks. For studied species, 43 exhibited multi‐core distributions, and 21 exhibited a single‐core distribution. Species range size, but not body size, was significantly and positively associated with the number of abundant cores. The ACH was not a good descriptor of the abundance patterns of most stream fishes we studied, suggesting that an abundant center model may not be well‐suited for freshwater fishes. Recent geo‐climatic events in evolutionary time have isolated populations of the same species by a matrix of unsuitable habitat and/or hard dispersal barriers, providing the basis for multi‐core distributions. Biogeographic and ecological mechanisms likely underpin observed multi‐core patterns, and our work indicates that the ACH and related concepts still present opportunities for testing and refinement.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Ecography
Published
2025-05-27
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/ecog.07711
Primary Topic
Fish Ecology and Management Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

A test of the abundant‐center hypothesis for stream fishes

Julian D. Olden, Brandon K. Peoples, Lily M. Thompson, William K. Annis et al.
Ecography
Fish Ecology and Management Studies
article

A test of the abundant‐center hypothesis for stream fishes

Julian D. Olden, Brandon K. Peoples, Lily M. Thompson, William K. Annis, Stephen R. Midway, Matthew L. W. Zink
article en

Abstract

The abundant‐center hypothesis (ACH) provides a conceptual model for predicting range‐wide distributions of species abundance, suggesting that abundance peaks in the center of the geographic range and declines towards range edges. Empirical studies testing the ACH and its subsequent derivations predominantly occurred in terrestrial systems and reported mixed support. Moreover, none of these models consider the possibility of multiple geographic areas of elevated abundance (which we refer to as ‘abundant cores'). Naturally dispersal limited species may exhibit multiple abundant cores, requiring refinement of the ACH. We used fish species abundances from 29 206 community monitoring surveys and weighted geospatial kernel density estimation to identify the number of abundant cores for 64 freshwater fish species. We regressed the number of abundant cores against range size and body size to test if larger geographic distributions and body sizes contain more abundant cores than smaller distributions and body sizes. The two predictors are surrogates for evolutionary age and dispersal ability, respectively, because older species are generally associated with larger ranges, and large‐bodied fishes have greater dispersal ability than small‐bodied fishes in dendritic networks. For studied species, 43 exhibited multi‐core distributions, and 21 exhibited a single‐core distribution. Species range size, but not body size, was significantly and positively associated with the number of abundant cores. The ACH was not a good descriptor of the abundance patterns of most stream fishes we studied, suggesting that an abundant center model may not be well‐suited for freshwater fishes. Recent geo‐climatic events in evolutionary time have isolated populations of the same species by a matrix of unsuitable habitat and/or hard dispersal barriers, providing the basis for multi‐core distributions. Biogeographic and ecological mechanisms likely underpin observed multi‐core patterns, and our work indicates that the ACH and related concepts still present opportunities for testing and refinement.

EcographyVol. 2025(9)
Louisiana State University (US), University of Washington (US), Clemson University (US)
National Science Foundation, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Clemson University, National Institute of Food and Agriculture
Openalex Percentile: Top 88%
Fish Ecology and Management Studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.