The use of phylogenies in ecology is increasingly common and has broadened our understanding of biological diversity. Ecological sub‐disciplines, particularly conservation, community ecology and macroecology, all recognize the value of evolutionary relationships but the resulting development of phylogenetic approaches has led to a proliferation of phylogenetic diversity metrics. The use of many metrics across the sub‐disciplines hampers potential meta‐analyses, syntheses, and generalizations of existing results. Further, there is no guide for selecting the appropriate metric for a given question, and different metrics are frequently used to address similar questions. To improve the choice, application, and interpretation of phylo‐diversity metrics, we organize existing metrics by expanding on a unifying framework for phylogenetic information.Generally, questions about phylogenetic relationships within or between assemblages tend to ask three types of question: how much; how different; or how regular? We show that these questions reflect three dimensions of a phylogenetic tree: richness, divergence, and regularity. We classify 70 existing phylo‐diversity metrics based on their mathematical form within these three dimensions and identify ‘anchor’ representatives: for α‐diversity metrics these are PD (Faith's phylogenetic diversity), MPD (mean pairwise distance), and VPD (variation of pairwise distances). By analysing mathematical formulae and using simulations, we use this framework to identify metrics that mix dimensions, and we provide a guide to choosing and using the most appropriate metrics. We show that metric choice requires connecting the research question with the correct dimension of the framework and that there are logical approaches to selecting and interpreting metrics. The guide outlined herein will help researchers navigate the current jungle of indices.

No abstract

International audience* Ecosystem functioning relies heavily on below-ground processes, which are largely regulated by plant fine-roots and their functional traits. However, our knowledge of fine-root trait distribution relies to date on local- and regional-scale studies with limited numbers of species, growth forms and environmental variation. * We compiled a world-wide fine-root trait dataset, featuring 1115 species from contrasting climatic areas, phylogeny and growth forms to test a series of hypotheses pertaining to the influence of plant functional types, soil and climate variables, and the degree of manipulation of plant growing conditions on species fine-root trait variation. Most particularly, we tested the competing hypotheses that fine-root traits typical of faster return on investment would be most strongly associated with conditions of limiting versus favourable soil resource availability. We accounted for both data source and species phylogenetic relatedness. * We demonstrate that: (i) Climate conditions promoting soil fertility relate negatively to fine-root traits favouring fast soil resource acquisition, with a particularly strong positive effect of temperature on fine-root diameter and negative effect on specific root length (SRL), and a negative effect of rainfall on root nitrogen concentration; (ii) Soil bulk density strongly influences species fine-root morphology, by favouring thicker, denser fine-roots; (iii) Fine-roots from herbaceous species are on average finer and have higher SRL than those of woody species, and N2-fixing capacity positively relates to root nitrogen; and (iv) Plants growing in pots have higher SRL than those grown in the field. * Synthesis. This study reveals both the large variation in fine-root traits encountered globally and the relevance of several key plant functional types and soil and climate variables for explaining a substantial part of this variation. Climate, particularly temperature, and plant functional types were the two strongest predictors of fine-root trait variation. High trait variation occurred at local scales, suggesting that wide-ranging below-ground resource economics strategies are viable within most climatic areas and soil conditions

In the face of the biodiversity crisis, it is argued that we should prioritize species in order to capture high functional diversity (FD). Because species traits often reflect shared evolutionary history, many researchers have assumed that maximizing phylogenetic diversity (PD) should indirectly capture FD, a hypothesis that we name the “phylogenetic gambit”. Here, we empirically test this gambit using data on ecologically relevant traits from >15,000 vertebrate species. Specifically, we estimate a measure of surrogacy of PD for FD. We find that maximizing PD results in an average gain of 18% of FD relative to random choice. However, this average gain obscures the fact that in over one-third of the comparisons, maximum PD sets contain less FD than randomly chosen sets of species. These results suggest that, while maximizing PD protection can help to protect FD, it represents a risky conservation strategy.

The b-null deviation measure, developed as a null model for b-diversity, is increasingly used in empirical studies to detect the underlying structuring mechanisms in communities (e.g. niche versus neutral and stochastic versus deterministic). Despite growing use, the ecological interpretation of the presence/absence and abundance-based versions of the b-null diversity measure have not been tested against communities with known assembly mechanisms, and thus have not been validated as an appropriate tool for inferring assembly mechanisms. Using a mechanistic model with known assembly mechanisms, we simulated replicate metacommunities and examined b-null deviation values 1) across a gradient of niche (species-sorting) to neutrally structured metacommunities, 2) through time, and 3) we compared the effect of changes in assembly mechanism on the performance of the b-null deviation measures. The impact of stochasticity on assembly outcomes was also considered. b-null deviation measures proved to be interpretable as a measure of niche or neutral assembly. However, the presence/absence version of the b-null deviation measure could not differentiate between niche and neutral metacommunities if demographic stochasticity were present. The abundance-based b-null deviation measure was successful in distinguishing between niche and neutral metacommunities and was robust to the presence of stochasticity, changes through time, and changing assembly mechanisms. However, we suggest that it is not robust to changing abundance evenness distributions or sampling of communities, and so its interpretation still requires some care. We encourage the testing of the assumptions behind null models for ecology and care in their application.

Niche differences are key to understanding the distribution and structure of biodiversity. To examine niche differences, we must first characterize how species occupy niche space, and two approaches are commonly used in the ecological literature. The first uses species traits to estimate multivariate trait space (so-called functional trait diversity, FD); the second quantifies the amount of time or evolutionary history captured by a group of species (phylogenetic diversity, PD). It is often-but controversially-assumed that these putative measures of niche space are at a minimum correlated and perhaps redundant, since more evolutionary time allows for greater accumulation of trait changes. This theoretical expectation remains surprisingly poorly evaluated, particularly in the context of multivariate measures of trait diversity. We evaluated the relationship between phylogenetic diversity and trait diversity using analytical and simulation-based methods across common models of trait evolution. We show that PD correlates with FD increasingly strongly as more traits are included in the FD measure. Our results indicate that phylogenetic diversity can be a useful surrogate for high-dimensional trait diversity, but we also show that the correlation weakens when the underlying process of trait evolution includes variation in rate and optima.

The order of species arrival during community assembly can greatly affect species coexistence, but the strength of these effects, known as priority effects, appears highly variable across species and ecosystems. Furthermore, the causes of this variation remain unclear despite their fundamental importance in understanding species coexistence. Here, we show that one potential cause is environmental variability. In laboratory experiments using nectarinhabiting microorganisms as a model system, we manipulated spatial and temporal variability of temperature, and examined consequences for priority effects. If species arrived sequentially, multiple species coexisted under variable temperature, but not under constant temperature. Temperature variability prevented extinction of late-arriving species that would have been excluded owing to priority effects if temperature had been constant. By contrast, if species arrived simultaneously, species coexisted under both variable and constant temperatures. We propose possible mechanisms underlying these results using a mathematical model that incorporates contrasting effects of microbial species on nectar pH and amino acids. Overall, our findings suggest that understanding consequences of priority effects for species coexistence requires explicit consideration of environmental variability.

will.pearse@gmail.com.