2012
DOI: 10.1111/j.1466-8238.2011.00742.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Phylogenetic turnover in tropical tree communities: impact of environmental filtering, biogeography and mesoclimatic niche conservatism

Abstract: AimWe addressed the roles of environmental filtering, historical biogeography and evolutionary niche conservatism on the phylogenetic structure of tropical tree communities with the following questions. (1) What is the impact of mesoclimatic gradients and dispersal limitation on phylogenetic turnover and species turnover?(2) How does phylogenetic turnover between continents compare in intensity with the turnover driven by climatic gradients at a regional scale? (3) Are independent phylogenetic reconstructions … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

16
116
1
1

Year Published

2012
2012
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 96 publications
(134 citation statements)
references
References 31 publications
16
116
1
1
Order By: Relevance
“…We tested for phylogenetic signal to determine whether we could use phylogenetic turnover to make ecological inferences in our system, and to determine the most appropriate metric of phylogenetic turnover. We found significant phylogenetic signal, but only across relatively short phylogenetic distances (Figure 2), consistent with previous work (Andersson et al, 2010;Diniz-Filho et al, 2010;Hardy et al, 2012;Stegen et al, 2012). It is therefore most appropriate to quantify phylogenetic turnover among closest relatives (Stegen et al, 2012).…”
Section: Analytical Framework Developmentsupporting
confidence: 91%
“…We tested for phylogenetic signal to determine whether we could use phylogenetic turnover to make ecological inferences in our system, and to determine the most appropriate metric of phylogenetic turnover. We found significant phylogenetic signal, but only across relatively short phylogenetic distances (Figure 2), consistent with previous work (Andersson et al, 2010;Diniz-Filho et al, 2010;Hardy et al, 2012;Stegen et al, 2012). It is therefore most appropriate to quantify phylogenetic turnover among closest relatives (Stegen et al, 2012).…”
Section: Analytical Framework Developmentsupporting
confidence: 91%
“…The analogous procedure was used to estimate OTU niche values for water elevation. The niche values estimate the depth and the water elevation where each OTU is most abundant, thereby characterizing two axes of each OTU's niche in terms of the habitats where it occurs (for similar approaches in plant and microbial ecology, see Andersson et al, 2010;Pei et al, 2011;Hardy et al, 2012). For each niche axis, between-OTU niche differences were related to between-OTU phylogenetic distances.…”
Section: Phylogenetic Signalmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Drawing on established evolutionary theory (specifically Haldane, 1932;Wiedenbeck and Cohan, 2011), we predicted that a positive relationship between bacterial ecological differences and phylogenetic distances should only occur among close relatives. Our results and previous work in bacterial systems are consistent with this expectation: beyond B13-15% of the maximum phylogenetic distance observed between any two OTUs, there was no systematic relationship between ecological difference and phylogenetic distance (Figure 3).…”
Section: Phylogenetic Signal In Ecological Nichesmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations