Phylogenetic Relatedness Limits Co-Occurrence at Fine Spatial Scales: Evidence from the Schoenoid Sedges (Cyperaceae: Schoeneae) of the Cape Floristic Region, South Africa

Slingsby,; Verboom,

doi:10.2307/3844672

Cited by 73 publications

(129 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

121

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Only four data sets, from three studies, fall into the Darwin–Hutchinson zone by this definition: Mouillot et al . 's (2005) study of parasites on individual roach, Slingsby & Verboom's (2006) study of schoenoid sedges in South African fynbos, and Cavender‐Bares et al . 's (2004, 2006) study of Florida oaks.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Three of these were conducted on plant communities (Cavender‐Bares et al . 2006; Slingsby & Verboom 2006; Swenson et al . 2006) and revealed similar patterns: as taxonomic scale became finer, there was increasing evidence for evenness.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Steers 2001; Cavender‐Bares et al . 2004; Slingsby & Verboom 2006), the sign of this relationship can be assessed.…”

Section: Methods Base Measure Intrasample Metric Intersample Metric Simentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Emerging patterns in the comparative analysis of phylogenetic community structure

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The analysis of the phylogenetic structure of communities can help reveal contemporary ecological interactions, as well as link community ecology with biogeography and the study of character evolution. The number of studies employing this broad approach has increased to the point where comparison of their results can now be used to highlight successes and deficiencies in the approach, and to detect emerging patterns in community organization. We review studies of the phylogenetic structure of communities of different major taxa and trophic levels, across different spatial and phylogenetic scales, and using different metrics and null models. Twenty-three of 39 studies (59%) find evidence for phylogenetic clustering in contemporary communities, but terrestrial and/or plant systems are heavily over-represented among published studies. Experimental investigations, although uncommon at present, hold promise for unravelling mechanisms underlying the phylogenetic community structure patterns observed in community surveys. We discuss the relationship between metrics of phylogenetic clustering and tree balance and explore the various emerging biases in taxonomy and pitfalls of scale. Finally, we look beyond one-dimensional metrics of phylogenetic structure towards multivariate descriptors that better capture the variety of ecological behaviours likely to be exhibited in communities of species with hundreds of millions of years of independent evolution.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Emerging patterns in the comparative analysis of phylogenetic community structure

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…2002; Cavender‐Bares et al . 2004, 2006; Kembel & Hubbell 2006; Horner‐Devine & Bohannan 2006; Slingsby & Verboom 2006; Hardy & Senterre 2007; Helmus et al . 2007a,b), and computer programs were developed to test community phylogenetic structure (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Testing the spatial phylogenetic structure of local communities: statistical performances of different null models and test statistics on a locally neutral community

Hardy¹

2008

Journal of Ecology

263

368

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary 1.Analyzing the phylogenetic structure of natural communities may illuminate the processes governing the assembly and coexistence of species. For instance, an association between species cooccurrence in local communities and their phylogenetic proximity may reveal the action of habitat filtering, niche conservatism and/or competitive exclusion. 2. Different methods were recently proposed to test such community-wide phylogenetic patterns, based on the phylogenetic clustering or overdispersion of the species in a local community. This provides a much needed framework for addressing long standing questions in community ecology as well as the recent debate on community neutrality. The testing procedures are based on (i) a metric measuring the association between phylogenetic distance and species co-occurrence, and (ii) a data set randomization algorithm providing the distribution of the metric under a given 'null model'. However, the statistical properties of these approaches are not well-established and their reliability must be tested against simulated data sets. 3. This paper reviews metrics and null models used in previous studies. A 'locally neutral' subdivided community model is simulated to produce data sets devoid of phylogenetic structure in the spatial distribution of species. Using these data sets, the consistency of Type I error rates of tests based on 10 metrics combined with nine null models is examined. 4. This study shows that most tests can become liberal (i.e. tests rejecting too often the null hypothesis that only neutral processes structured spatially the local community) when the randomization algorithm breaks down a structure in the original data set unrelated to the null hypothesis to test. Hence, when overall species abundances are distributed non-randomly across the phylogeny or when local abundances are spatially autocorrelated, better statistical performances were achieved by randomization algorithms preserving these structural features. The most reliable randomization algorithm consists of permuting species with similar abundances among the tips of the phylogenetic tree. One metric, R PD-DO , also proved to be robust under most simulated conditions using a variety of null models. 5. Synthesis . Given the suboptimal performances of several tests, attention must be paid to the testing procedures used in future studies. Guidelines are provided to help choosing an adequate test.

show abstract

“…niche dimensionality) present (Table ). Community size may influence the probability of observing significant relationships between phylogenetic distance and niche overlap (Rezende et al., ; Slingsby & Verboom, ). Moreover, Blomberg et al.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Community level niche overlap and broad scale biogeographic patterns of bee communities are driven by phylogenetic history

Sydenham

Eldegard

Hegland

et al. 2017

Journal of Biogeography

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim Because the ecological similarity between species is expected to increase with relatedness and that speciation is a local process, phylogeny may provide a common measure for the influence of ecological and biogeographic processes on community assembly. We tested if similarities in floral visitation patterns within communities and the phylogenetic beta‐diversity among communities were related to the position of bees within the bee phylogeny. Location Global. Methods We combined a genus level phylogeny with within‐genera phylogenies for the bee species occurring within 18 globally distributed bee‐flower networks. Networks consisted of a matrix of bee and plant species and information on whether or not a bee species had been observed visiting flowers of a given plant species. For each network, we used Abouheif's Cmean to test if the similarity in floral associations (niche similarity) between bees and the number of plant species visited displayed a significant phylogenetic signal. To test if biogeography influenced the relatedness among species within networks we tested if the phylogenetic beta‐diversity increased with geographical distance and dissimilarity in climatic conditions among networks. Results We found a phylogenetic signal for niche similarity in only 50% of the bee‐flower networks. However, network size influenced the likelihood of observing a phylogenetic signal and for seven of the eight bee‐flower networks with >20 species it was statistically significant. On a global scale, the phylogenetic beta‐diversity increased with geographical distances and with climatic dissimilarity between sites. Main conclusions Bee communities are structured by processes of speciation and migration so that regional species pools are dominated by a subset of the global phylogenetic clades, resulting in increasing phylogenetic beta‐diversity with geographical distance. Moreover, ecological filtering processes operating at both local (floral resource use) and continental (climatic constraints) scale determine the distribution of species among resources and geographical regions. The assembly of bee communities should therefore be understood as a product of both biogeographic and community ecological processes.

show abstract

Phylogenetic Relatedness Limits Co-Occurrence at Fine Spatial Scales: Evidence from the Schoenoid Sedges (Cyperaceae: Schoeneae) of the Cape Floristic Region, South Africa

Cited by 73 publications

References 0 publications

Emerging patterns in the comparative analysis of phylogenetic community structure

Emerging patterns in the comparative analysis of phylogenetic community structure

Testing the spatial phylogenetic structure of local communities: statistical performances of different null models and test statistics on a locally neutral community

Community level niche overlap and broad scale biogeographic patterns of bee communities are driven by phylogenetic history

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About