DOCSLIB.ORG

Community Phylogenetics – Review/Quiz A. This Pattern Represents ______And Is a Consequent of ______

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Community Phylogenetics – Review/Quiz A. This Pattern Represents ______And Is a Consequent of ______ Community phylogenetics – review/quiz A. This pattern represents ______ and is a consequent of _________. Most likely to observe this at _______ phylogenetic scales. B. This pattern represents ______ and is a consequent of _________. Most likely to observe this at _______ phylogenetic scales. In order for the limiting similarity to generate phylogenetic overdispersion it is necessary for the species in the phylogeny to exhibit ______________ in the traits that underlie species niches. So, we should also test for this before interpreting phylogenetic community structure. Graham et al. (2009) Phylogenetic structure of 189 hummingbird communities in Ecuador Hummingbirds: Compete strongly for nectar, and have striking phenotypes that influence foraging capacity and diet choice across different environments Of 189 hummingbird communities, 134 (71%) had positive net relatedness index (NRI) indicating phylogenetic clustering NRI is a measure of how closely related the hummers are in a single community. It is calculated using a null model that includes information on the relatedness of all hummers in the study. Positive NRI – hummers are more closely related than expected. Blue and red are significant departures from null expectation Clear elevational gradient in NRI Break down pattern in NRI by clade Clade: bee, brilliant, coquette, emerald, hermit, mangoe etc… “benign” environments – wet lowlands E and W of Andes. y axis is proportion of communities where the clade is represented. Numbers on bar are number of taxa/clade Overdispersion here (potentially) represents interspecific competition for shared nectar resources. Clustering occurs in challenging environments – high elevation (C) or in arid habitats (D) Results consistent with other work that suggests that harsh environments are a stronger filter on species traits. If traits are phylogenetically conserved then communities will show clustering. Conclusions: Habitat filtering and biotic interactions can act together to assemble communities. Phylogenetic approaches can help to partition these two effects Evidence for interspecific competition as a driver of overdispersion however is mixed (see Wednesday discussion papers). Phylogenetic patterns also tend to be scale dependent Regional scale: environmental filtering leads to clustering Local scale: competitive exclusion/limiting similarity may lead to overdispersion. Island Biogeography Species-area relationship - well described by a power law S = cAz where c and z are constants Species-island relationship for land-bird species richness in the West Indies LogS = 0.94 + 0.11 log(A) However, species richness on island is also limited by proximity to a mainland species pool (note scale is huge here!) Diamond (1972) compared species richness on islands with that expected for an island ‘near’ (<500 km) from a mainland source Mainland = New Guinea Islands = Tropical Pacific ‘Equilibrium theory of Island Biogeography’ (Munroe 1948, MacArthur and Wilson 1963,1967). (See Gotelli (2001) for good description) What is the most parsimonious model that might be able to account for island size and island isolation effects on species richness? MacArthur-Wilson theory of Island Biogeography is really a NON- EQUILIBRIUM THEORY An equilibrium theory would be one in which local community interactions are completely played out (reaches an endpoint – like outcome of competition in R* model) ‘MacArthur-Wilson theory of Island Biogeography’ Species number on an island represents a dynamic balance between recurrent immigration of new species onto an island and recurrent extinction of existing species. Key assumption of the model: There is a permanent mainland source of species somewhere, P, from which colonists arrive. The source and island determines: Immigration rate λs = number of new species colonizing per unit time The island determines: Extinction rate µs = number of species going extinct per unit time dS/dt = λs - µs Determinants of immigration rate: Maximum immigration rate (I) occurs when island is empty and decreases as more species are added (so that fewer species remain in the source pool as potential colonists) Once all the potential colonists are on the island then S (species richness on the island) = P (mainland source pool) and immigration rate must = 0 Immigration rate λs = Intercept - slope(S) = I -(I/P)S Determinants of extinction rate (µS ) Should increase with S (more species=greater the rate that they can disappear…Maximum extinction rate (E) occurs when all species from the source pool are on the island (when S = P), and must be zero when no species are present Intercept = 0, therefore extinction rate = slope * S µS = (E/P)*S Substitute in linear terms for immigration and extinction into formula for rate of change in species richness: dS/dt = I-(I/P)S - (E/P)S Solve for equilibrium species richness: S* = IP/(I+E) determined by size of source pool and max. immigration and extinction rates... S* is point at which rate of arrival of species is exactly matched by rate of extinction. S* has a characteristic T* - the rate of turnover of species per unit time at equilibrium Turnover is a key feature of this model: there is no fixed stable composition of species - species composition changes but species number is constant Notice on previous graph that T*/S* = E/P T* = S*E/P Substituting back the term for S* T* = ((IP/I+E)*E)/P T* = IE/(I+E) or turnover rate depends only on the maximum immigration and extinction rates (NOT on the species pool size) Now we are ready to examine how island size affects S* Two more assumptions to add to the model: 1. Larger islands support larger population sizes of individual species 2. Island size will therefore _____ the extinction rate Consider two islands of different size but equal distance from pool Es max. extinction rate on small island > El rate on large island Immigration curve same for both islands as both are the same distance away from the mainland species pool Can also account for lower S* on more distant islands of the same size by changing immigration rate: In = immigration rate for islands close to species pool > rate for far island If Turnover rate of species lower for far island No biology in this theory!! Species richness determined solely by area of the island (stochastic extinction) and distance from mainland (immigration)... Species are ecologically equivalent What are the assumptions of the theory? 1. Species have similar colonization and extinction probabilities 2. Population sizes scale with island size (is this reasonable?) 3. Immigration rate inversely proportional to distance (any arguments?) 4. Probability of extinction is inversely proportional to population size 5. Probability of immigration and extinction is independent of species composition on the island (is this reasonable?). Model may be relatively robust to some assumptions (e.g. assumptions 1 and 4). Why? Model predictions are fairly robust to non- linear extinction and immigration functions and were incorporated into the original model More problematic assumptions 1. Isolation does not affect the extinction rate on an island _____________ 2. Size does not affect the immigration rate _____________ Rescue effect: higher rates of continued immigration of individuals on near versus far islands will result in higher population sizes (or more patches of populations) and potentially greater genetic diversity. Both factors may reduce extinction rates (Brown and Kodric-Brown 1977). Lower extinction rate for near islands will result in lower than expected species turnover rate: (Extinction rate without rescue effect) Increase in S* due to rescue (Lower extinction rate for near island reduces predicted T*) Target effect: Island size also likely to influence immigration rate. Large islands present larger targets to which immigration can successfully occur. Results in prediction of greater turnover rate on large islands. Immigration rate with target effect Immigration rate no target effect Increase in S* due to Target effect Target effect raises question of whether one might expect to see higher species richness on large islands simply because of higher colonization (with no need to invoke lower extinction rates). Coleman (1982) “passive sampling model” - relates probability of occupancy of a species to the relative area of a given island in an archipelago of islands. Species disperse to islands and accumulate (no extinction or T) Unlike M-W, also predicts which species are abundant on large islands: Those that are common the mainland. Species that are rare on the mainland would be rare or absent on small islands How well supported are the assumptions and predictions of the MacArthur-Wilson theory? 1. Variation in immigration and extinction rates: What evidence is there that they vary at all with S? Does extinction rate increase with S? Are immigration rates higher when island S is low? Not many measurements of immigration/extinction rates in published literature: Williamson (1981) analyzed data on bird populations in a plot within 16 ha oak wood in UK (Eastern Wood) censused annually 1947-1975. Looked at extinction/ immigration as a function of species breeding each yr. Extinction rate tended to increase with species richness (but not significant) Immigration rate did decline with increasing species richness Extinctions and immigrations are not equiprobable. ‘Core’ group of 14 spp breed in the wood every year. Extinctions and immigrations occur among a group of 11 species with transient populations Williamson (1981) Plant colonization to
Load more

Recommended publications
  • "Species Richness: Small Scale". In: Encyclopedia of Life Sciences (ELS)
    Species Richness: Small Advanced article Scale Article Contents . Introduction Rebecca L Brown, Eastern Washington University, Cheney, Washington, USA . Factors that Affect Species Richness . Factors Affected by Species Richness Lee Anne Jacobs, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA . Conclusion Robert K Peet, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA doi: 10.1002/9780470015902.a0020488 Species richness, defined as the number of species per unit area, is perhaps the simplest measure of biodiversity. Understanding the factors that affect and are affected by small- scale species richness is fundamental to community ecology. Introduction diversity indices of Simpson and Shannon incorporate species abundances in addition to species richness and are The ability to measure biodiversity is critically important, intended to reflect the likelihood that two individuals taken given the soaring rates of species extinction and human at random are of the same species. However, they tend to alteration of natural habitats. Perhaps the simplest and de-emphasize uncommon species. most frequently used measure of biological diversity is Species richness measures are typically separated into species richness, the number of species per unit area. A vast measures of a, b and g diversity (Whittaker, 1972). a Di- amount of ecological research has been undertaken using versity (also referred to as local or site diversity) is nearly species richness as a measure to understand what affects, synonymous with small-scale species richness; it is meas- and what is affected by, biodiversity. At the small scale, ured at the local scale and consists of a count of species species richness is generally used as a measure of diversity within a relatively homogeneous area.
    [Show full text]
  • The Influence of Species Di7ersity on Ecosystem Producti7ity: How, Where
    FORUM is intended for new ideas or new ways of interpreting existing information. It FORUM provides a chance for suggesting hypotheses and for challenging current thinking on FORUM ecological issues. A lighter prose, designed to attract readers, will be permitted. Formal research reports, albeit short, will not be accepted, and all contributions should be concise FORUM with a relatively short list of references. A summary is not required. The influence of species di7ersity on ecosystem producti7ity: how, where, and why? Jason D. Fridley, Dept of Biology, CB 3280, Uni7. of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3280, USA ([email protected]). The effect of species diversity on ecosystem productivity is cism based upon their experimental methodology controversial, in large part because field experiments investigat- (Huston 1997, Hodgson et al. 1998, Wardle 1999), ing this relationship have been fraught with difficulties. Unfortu- analyses (Aarssen 1997, Huston et al. 2000), and gen- nately, there are few guidelines to aid researchers who must overcome these difficulties and determine whether global species eral conclusions (Grime 1998, Wardle et al. 2000). As a losses seriously threaten the ecological and economic bases of result, the nature of the relationship between species terrestrial ecosystems. In response, I offer a set of hypotheses diversity and ecosystem productivity remains unclear. that describe how diversity might influence productivity in plant communities based on three well-known mechanisms: comple- One cause of the diversity-productivity debate, and mentarity, facilitation, and the sampling effect. Emphasis on a reason that this relationship remains controversial, these mechanisms reveals the sensitivity of any diversity-produc- is the lack of clear hypotheses to guide experimental tivity relationship to ecological context (i.e., where this relation- ship should be found); ecological context includes characteristics hypothesis testing.
    [Show full text]
  • Delineating Probabilistic Species Pools in Ecology and Biogeography
    GlobalGlobal Ecology Ecology and and Biogeography, Biogeography, (Global (Global Ecol. Ecol. Biogeogr.) Biogeogr.)(2016)(2016)25, 489–501 MACROECOLOGICAL Delineating probabilistic species pools in METHODS ecology and biogeography Dirk Nikolaus Karger1,2*, Anna F. Cord3, Michael Kessler2, Holger Kreft4, Ingolf Kühn5,6,7,SvenPompe5,8, Brody Sandel9, Juliano Sarmento Cabral4,7, Adam B. Smith10, Jens-Christian Svenning9, Hanna Tuomisto1, Patrick Weigelt4,11 and Karsten Wesche12,7 1Department of Biology, University of Turku, ABSTRACT Turku, Finland, 2Institute of Systematic Aim To provide a mechanistic and probabilistic framework for defining the Botany, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland, 3Department of Computational species pool based on species-specific probabilities of dispersal, environmental Landscape Ecology, Helmholtz Centre for suitability and biotic interactions within a specific temporal extent, and to show Environmental Research – UFZ, Leipzig, how probabilistic species pools can help disentangle the geographical structure of Germany, 4Biodiversity, Macroecology and different community assembly processes. Conservation Biogeography Group, University Innovation Probabilistic species pools provide an improved species pool defini- of Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany, tion based on probabilities in conjunction with the associated species list, which 5Department of Community Ecology, explicitly recognize the indeterminate nature of species pool membership for a Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research given focal unit of interest and
    [Show full text]
  • The Relationship Between Productivity and Species Richness
    P1: FNE/FGO P2: FLI/FDR September 15, 1999 17:9 Annual Reviews AR093-10 Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 1999. 30:257–300 Copyright c 1999 by Annual Reviews. All rights reserved THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PRODUCTIVITY AND SPECIES RICHNESS R. B. Waide1,M.R.Willig2, C. F. Steiner3, G. Mittelbach4, L. Gough5,S.I.Dodson6,G.P.Juday7, and R. Parmenter8 1LTER Network Office, Department of Biology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87131-1091; e-mail: [email protected]; 2Program in Ecology and Conservation Biology, Department of Biological Sciences & The Museum, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas 79409-3131; e-mail: [email protected]; 3Kellogg Biological Station and the Department of Zoology, Michigan State University, Hickory Corners, Michigan 49060; e-mail: [email protected]; 4Kellogg Biological Station and the Department of Zoology, Michigan State University, Hickory Corners, Michigan 49060; e-mail: [email protected]; 5Department of Biological Sciences, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487-0344; e-mail: [email protected]; 6Department of Zoology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin 53706; e-mail: [email protected]; 7Forest Sciences Department, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska 99775-7200; e-mail: [email protected]; 8Department of Biology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87131-1091; e-mail: [email protected] Key Words primary productivity, biodiversity, functional groups, ecosystem processes ■ Abstract Recent overviews have suggested that the relationship between species richness and productivity (rate of conversion of resources to biomass per unit area per unit time) is unimodal (hump-shaped). Most agree that productivity affects species richness at large scales, but unanimity is less regarding underlying mechanisms.
    [Show full text]
  • The Relative Importance of the Species Pool
    Journal of Ecology 2008, 96, 937–946 doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2745.2008.01420.x TheBlackwell Publishing Ltd relative importance of the species pool, productivity and disturbance in regulating grassland plant species richness: a field experiment Timothy L. Dickson* and Bryan L. Foster Ecology and Evolutionary Biology; The University of Kansas; Lawrence, KS 66045; USA Summary 1. Ecologists have generally focused on how species interactions and available niches control species richness. However, the number of species in the regional species pool may also control richness. Moreover, the relative influence of the species pool and species interactions on plant richness may change along productivity and disturbance gradients. 2. We test the hypothesis that many species from the propagule pool will colonize into habitats of moderate productivity and moderate disturbance, and the number of species in the pool will, therefore, primarily control plant species richness in such habitats. The hypothesis also states that few species from the propagule pool will colonize into habitats of high productivity and minimal disturbance because competitive species interactions primarily control plant richness in such habitats. 3. To test this hypothesis, we experimentally varied resource availability via fertilization and irrigation, the size of the available propagule pool via sowing the seeds of 49 species and disturbance via vegetation clipping. 4. A larger propagule pool increased species richness 80% in the absence of fertilization and the presence of clipping but had no significant effect on richness in the presence of fertilization and the absence of clipping (significant fertilization × clipping × seed addition interaction). Irrigation increased species richness primarily in the absence of fertilization and the presence or clipping (significant fertilization × clipping × irrigation interaction).
    [Show full text]
  • Effects of Niche Differentiation on Coexistence and Community Structure
    From trait patterns to species lifetimes: Effects of niche differentiation on coexistence and community structure by Rafael D’Andrea Rocha A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Ecology and Evolutionary Biology) in The University of Michigan 2016 Doctoral Committee: Associate Professor Annette M. Ostling, Chair Professor Bradley Cardinale Professor Deborah E. Goldberg Professor Mercedes Pascual c Rafael D’Andrea Rocha 2016 All Rights Reserved Acknowledgements Annette Ostling, who tirelessly coached and supported me as a PhD student. Annette made a point to be always available for feedback on my work, even when she had tons of other things to do, which was all the time. She pushed me on when I faltered but was always friendly and never talked down to me. We collaborated closely—and intensely—on the papers we co-wrote. Her academic and financial support made possible my participation at numerous events that advanced my PhD career, including nine conferences, two courses and workshops, and two visits during her sabbatical year. She hired me twice as a GSI for her General Ecology class, which was an important learning experience, and also great fun. She introduced me to other ecologists, including James O’Dwyer, whose lab I will be joining after completing my PhD. Besides being there as my mentor and advisor, Annette doubled down as a friend and confidante. I am immensely grateful for the considerable amount of time and effort Annette dedicated to helping me during my five or six years at EEB. I would not be here without her.
    [Show full text]
  • Integrating Species Traits Into Species Pools Marko J
    Washington University in St. Louis Washington University Open Scholarship Biology Faculty Publications & Presentations Biology 6-2018 Integrating species traits into species pools Marko J. Spasojevic Christopher P. Catano Joseph A. LaManna Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/bio_facpubs Part of the Biology Commons, and the Population Biology Commons Recommended Citation Spasojevic, Marko J.; Catano, Christopher P.; and LaManna, Joseph A., "Integrating species traits into species pools" (2018). Biology Faculty Publications & Presentations. 162. https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/bio_facpubs/162 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Biology at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Biology Faculty Publications & Presentations by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CONCEPTS & SYNTHESIS EMPHASIZING NEW IDEAS TO STIMULATE RESEARCH IN ECOLOGY Ecology, 99(6), 2018, pp. 1265–1276 © 2018 by the Ecological Society of America Integrating species traits into species pools 1,3 2 2 2 MARKO J. S PASOJEVIC, CHRISTOPHER P. C ATANO , JOSEPH A. LAMANNA, AND JONATHAN A. MYERS 1Department of Evolution, Ecology, and Organismal Biology, University of California Riverside, Riverside, California 92521 USA 2Department of Biology and Tyson Research Center, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri 63130 USA Abstract. Despite decades of research on the species-pool concept and the recent explosion of interest in trait-based frameworks in ecology and biogeography, surprisingly little is known about how spatial and temporal changes in species-pool functional diversity (SPFD) influence biodiversity and the processes underlying community assembly.
    [Show full text]
  • Species Pool Distributions Along Functional Trade-Offs Shape
    www.nature.com/scientificreports OPEN Species pool distributions along functional trade-offs shape plant productivity–diversity relationships Received: 20 July 2017 Loïc Chalmandrier1,2, Camille Albouy1,2,3 & Loïc Pellissier1,2 Accepted: 19 October 2017 Grasslands deliver the resources for food production and are among the most biologically diverse Published: xx xx xxxx ecosystems. These characteristics are often in conflict as increasing yield through fertilization can lead to biodiversity loss. Thus, the challenge in grassland management is to sustain both yield and diversity. Biodiversity–ecosystem functioning experiments typically reveal a positive relationship between manipulated species diversity and productivity. In contrast, observations of the effect of increasing productivity via fertilization suggest a negative association with biodiversity. Using a mathematical model simulating species co-existence along a resource gradient, we show that trade- offs and species pool structure (size and trait distribution) determines the shape of the productivity- diversity relationship. At a constant resource level, over-yielding drives a positive relationship between biodiversity and productivity. In contrast, along a resource gradient, the shape of the productivity- diversity relationship is determined by the distribution of species along trade-off axes and often resulted in a bell-shaped relationship. In accordance to this theoretical result, we then explain the general trend of plant biodiversity loss with fertilisation in the European flora, by showing empirical evidence that trait distribution of plant species pools throughout Europe is biased toward species preferring poorer soils. Grasslands provide a wealth of ecosystem services to human society, supported by species diversity and functions1. Biomass production (hereafter productivity2) in grasslands delivers the raw resources for dairy and meat production, sustaining an economy worth hundreds of millions worldwide3.
    [Show full text]
  • The Restoration Species Pool for Restoring Tropical Landscapes: Assessment Of
    bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/568873; this version posted March 5, 2019. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license. 1 The restoration species pool for restoring tropical landscapes: assessment of 2 the largest Brazilian supply chain 3 4 Cristina Yuri Vidal 1, 2, *; Rafaela Pereira Naves3, Ricardo Augusto Gorne Viani4, 5 Ricardo Ribeiro Rodrigues2 6 7 *Address correspondence to C.Y.Vidal, email [email protected] 8 1 Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Biologia Vegetal, 9 Instituto de Biologia, Cidade Universitária Zeferino Vaz, 13.083-875, Campinas-SP, Brazil. 10 2 Departamento de Ciências Biológicas, Universidade de São Paulo, Escola Superior de 11 Agricultura “Luiz de Queiroz”, Av. Padua Dias, 11, 13.418-900, Piracicaba-SP, Brazil. 12 3 Departamento de Ciências Florestais, Universidade de São Paulo, Escola Superior de 13 Agricultura “Luiz de Queiroz”, Av. Padua Dias, 11, 13.418-900, Piracicaba-SP, Brazil. 14 4 Departamento de Biotecnologia e Produção Vegetal e Animal, Universidade Federal de São 15 Carlos, Centro de Ciências Agrárias, Rodovia Anhanguera, km 174, 13.600-091, Araras-SP, 16 Brazil. 17 18 Author contributions: ‘CYV and RRR conceived and designed the research. CYV performed 19 data compilation; CYV and RPN analyzed the data; CYV and RAGV led the writing of the 20 manuscript; all authors contributed to the drafts and gave final approval for publication.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 19 Metrics and Models of Community Phylogenetics
    Chapter 19 Metrics and Models of Community Phylogenetics William D. Pearse, Andy Purvis, Jeannine Cavender-Bares and Matthew R. Helmus Abstract Community phylogenetics combines ideas from community ecology and evolutionary biology, using species phylogeny to explore the processes underlying ecological community assembly. Here, we describe the development of the field’s comparative methods and their roots in conservation biology, biodi- versity quantification, and macroevolution. Next, we review the multitude of community phylogenetic structure metrics and place each into one of four classes: shape, evenness, dispersion, and dissimilarity. Shape metrics examine the structure of an assemblage phylogeny, while evenness metrics incorporate species abun- dances. Dispersion metrics examine assemblages given a phylogeny of species that could occupy those assemblages (the source pool), while dissimilarity metrics compare phylogenetic structure between assemblages. We then examine how metrics perform in simulated communities that vary in their phylogenetic struc- ture. We provide an example of model-based approaches and argue that they are a promising area of future research in community phylogenetics. Code to reproduce all these analyses is available in the Online Practical Material (http://www. mpcm-evolution.org). We conclude by discussing future research directions for the field as a whole. W. D. Pearse (&) Á J. Cavender-Bares Department Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior, University of Minnesota, 1987 Upper Buford Circle, Saint Paul, MN 55108, USA e-mail: [email protected] J. Cavender-Bares e-mail: [email protected] A. Purvis Department of Life Sciences, Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, UK e-mail: [email protected] M. R. Helmus Amsterdam Global Change Institute, Department of Animal Ecology, Vrije Universiteit, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands e-mail: [email protected] L.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessing the Relative Importance of Neutral Stochasticity in Ecological Communities
    i t o r ’ Oikos 123: 1420–1430, 2014 d s E doi: 10.1111/oik.01493 OIKOS ¢ 2014 Te Authors. Oikos ¢ 2014 Nordic Society Oikos C Subject Editor: Lonnie Aarssen. Editor-in-Chief: Dries Bonte. Accepted 26 July 2014 h o i c e Assessing the relative importance of neutral stochasticity in ecological communities Mark Vellend, Diane S. Srivastava, Kathryn M. Anderson, Carissa D. Brown, Jill E. Jankowski, Elizabeth J. Kleynhans, Nathan J. B. Kraft, Alathea D. Letaw, A. Andrew M. Macdonald, Janet E. Maclean, Isla H. Myers-Smith, Andrea R. Norris and Xinxin Xue M. Vellend ([email protected]), C. D. Brown and I. H. Myers-Smith, Dépt de Biologie, Univ. de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC, J1K 2R1, Canada. – D. S. Srivastava, K. M. Anderson, J. E. Jankowski, E. J. Kleynhans, N. J. B. Kraft, A. D. Letaw, A. A. M. Macdonald, J. E. Maclean, Dept of Zoology and Biodiversity Research Centre, Univ. of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z4, Canada. – A. R. Norris, Dept of Forest Sciences, Univ. of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z4, Canada. – X. Xue, Dept of Botany and Biodiversity Research Centre, Univ. of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z4, Canada. A central current debate in community ecology concerns the relative importance of deterministic versus stochastic processes underlying community structure. However, the concept of stochasticity presents several profound philosophical, theoretical and empirical challenges, which we address here. Te philosophical argument that nothing in nature is truly stochastic can be met with the following operational concept of neutral stochasticity in community ecology: change in the composition of a community (i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • Unifying Measures of Biodiversity: Understanding When Richness And
    Diversity and Distributions, (Diversity Distrib.) (2013) 1–10 BIODIVERSITY Unifying measures of biodiversity: RESEARCH understanding when richness and phylogenetic diversity should be congruent † Caroline M. Tucker1,2 and Marc W. Cadotte1,2*† 1Department of Biological Sciences, ABSTRACT University of Toronto, Scarborough, 1265 Aim Biogeographical theory and conservation valuation schemes necessarily Military Trail, Toronto, ON M1C 1A4, 2 involve assessing how biodiversity is distributed through space and ‘biodiversity’ Canada, Department of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology, University of Toronto, encapsulates many different aspects of biological organization and information. 25 Willcocks Street, Toronto, ON M5S 3B2, While biogeography may try to explain biodiversity patterns, successful conserva- Canada tion strategies should attempt to maximize different aspects of diversity. Ulti- mately, diversity patterns are the product of evolutionary history, and research and conservation efforts seek to understand the unequal distribution of evolu- tionary history. For conservation efforts, results have been inconsistent as to A Journal of Conservation Biogeography whether species richness (SR) provides sufficient surrogacy for evolutionary his- tory. Here, we provide a conceptual framework allowing for the direct compari- son of taxonomic richness and phylogenetic diversity (PD), both in terms of their mechanistic relationship and the relationship between their spatial distributions. Location Global. Methods We present a framework that relates regional
    [Show full text]