Species phylogenetic relatedness, priority effects, and ecosystem functioning

Tan, Jiaqi; Pu, Zhichao; Ryberg, Wade A.; Jiang, Lin

doi:10.1890/11-1557.1

Cited by 83 publications

(76 citation statements)

References 38 publications

(60 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Consequently, our results do not support interpretations that are generally offered for empirically observed patterns, i.e., that positive relationships between phylogenetic distance and nonnative establishment (as in Fig. 1B) are due to biotic resistance from related competitors and their natural enemies (30)(31)(32)(33)(34)(35)(36)(37), and that negative relationships (as in Fig. 1A) are due to environmental filtering (38)(39)(40)(41)(42)(43)(44).…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 92%

Revisiting Darwin's conundrum reveals a twist on the relationship between phylogenetic distance and invasibility

Jones

Nuismer

Gomulkiewicz³

2013

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A key goal of invasion biology is to identify the factors that favor species invasions. One potential indicator of invasiveness is the phylogenetic distance between a nonnative species and species in the recipient community. However, predicting invasiveness using phylogenetic information relies on an untested assumption: that both biotic resistance and facilitation weaken with increasing phylogenetic distance. We test the validity of this key assumption using a mathematical model in which a novel species is introduced into communities with varying ecological and phylogenetic relationships. Contrary to what is generally assumed, we find that biotic resistance and facilitation can either weaken or intensify with phylogenetic distance, depending on the mode of interspecific interactions (phenotype matching or phenotype differences) and the resulting evolutionary trajectory of the recipient community. Thus, we demonstrate that considering the mechanisms that drive phenotypic divergence between native and nonnative species can provide critical insight into the relationship between phylogenetic distance and invasibility.nvasive species are a major cause of concern due to their large ecological, social, and economic consequences (1-3). In principle, future invasions could be avoided by preventing introductions of potential invaders into susceptible communities. Thus, research has focused on identifying the characteristics that predispose species to becoming invasive (4-7) and the properties that make communities susceptible to invasion (8, 9). Although generalities have been elusive, one approach that has recently been gaining interest is using phylogenetic distance (time since cladogenesis) between nonnative species and species in the recipient community as an indicator of invasion potential.Darwin was the first to suggest that the probability of establishment by introduced species depends on their relatedness to native species (10). However, as Darwin noted, the ecological similarity of related species can have opposing effects on their potential for coexistence ("Darwin's naturalization conundrum"). On the one hand, establishment in regions with close relatives should be facilitated by favorable abiotic conditions and the presence of suitable prey, hosts, and mutualists (Fig. 1A). On the other hand, establishment in these regions should be inhibited by competition with the relatives themselves and exploitation by shared natural enemies (Fig. 1B). Citing observations by Alphonse de Candolle and Asa Gray that naturalized species are more frequently from nonnative genera, Darwin concluded that competition was the dominant factor and relatedness to native species should reduce establishment success ("Darwin's naturalization hypothesis").However, recent studies using statistical models, molecular phylogenetics, and experimental community assembly have revealed that the correlation between relatedness and establishment probability can be positive, negative, or zero (Table 1). These findings call into question the paramoun...

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 92%

Revisiting Darwin's conundrum reveals a twist on the relationship between phylogenetic distance and invasibility

Jones

Nuismer

Gomulkiewicz³

2013

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The analysis of the relative proportion of the different phyla/classes indicates that whatever the soil origin of the already-established D 1 and D 2 communities, re-inoculation by the community from soil B had a stronger effect than re-inoculation by the community from soil A (Figures 4b and c). These results illustrate the importance of historical contingency and priority effects in the dynamics of microbial communities (Fukami, 2015), that is, how the order in which species (or groups of species) colonize a substrate influences the assembly of communities (Chase, 2003), as previously revealed in simplistic experimental communities (Tan et al, 2012). Nevertheless, both Faith's PD and Simpson's reciprocal index along with species richness in D 3 microcosms increased significantly after re-inoculation with the less-diluted soil suspensions (Figure 5b, Supplementary Figures S7 and S8).…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 64%

Effectiveness of ecological rescue for altered soil microbial communities and functions

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Soil ecosystems worldwide are subjected to marked modifications caused by anthropogenic disturbances and global climate change, resulting in microbial diversity loss and alteration of ecosystem functions. Despite the paucity of studies, restoration ecology provides an appropriate framework for testing the potential of manipulating soil microbial communities for the recovery of ecosystem functioning. We used a reciprocal transplant design in experimentally altered microbial communities to investigate the effectiveness of introducing microbial communities in degraded soil ecosystems to restore N-cycle functioning. Microbial diversity loss resulted in alternative compositional states associated with impaired N-cycle functioning. Here, the addition of complex microbial communities to these altered communities revealed a pivotal role of deterministic community assembly processes. The diversity of some alternative compositional states was successfully increased but without significant restoration of soil N-cycle functioning. However, in the most degraded alternative state, the introduction of new microbial communities caused an overall decrease in phylogenetic diversity and richness. The successful soil colonization by newly introduced species for some compositional states indicates that priority effects could be overridden when attempting to manipulate microbial communities for soil restoration. Altogether, our result showed consistent patterns within restoration treatments with minor idiosyncratic effects. This suggests the predominance of deterministic processes and the predictability of restoration trajectories, which could be used to guide the effective management of microbial community assemblages for ecological restoration of soils

show abstract

“…Some work has even demonstrated the existence of "Humpty-Dumpty" communities (128), or communities that cannot be put back together with only the species that they contain (129), further supporting the role of assembly history in community structure. The role of priority effects on model microbial communities has been studied extensively (129)(130)(131)(132)(133)(134). Microbial systems have played a central role as a model system to generate, test, and refine general hypotheses on community assembly because the short generation time and other logistical ease associated with microbes make them convenient experimental tools (135)(136)(137).…”

Section: Temporal and Spatial Scalesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patterns and Processes of Microbial Community Assembly

Nemergut

Schmidt

Fukami

et al. 2013

Microbiol Mol Biol Rev

1,401

1,202

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARY Recent research has expanded our understanding of microbial community assembly. However, the field of community ecology is inaccessible to many microbial ecologists because of inconsistent and often confusing terminology as well as unnecessarily polarizing debates. Thus, we review recent literature on microbial community assembly, using the framework of Vellend (Q. Rev. Biol. 85 :183–206, 2010) in an effort to synthesize and unify these contributions. We begin by discussing patterns in microbial biogeography and then describe four basic processes (diversification, dispersal, selection, and drift) that contribute to community assembly. We also discuss different combinations of these processes and where and when they may be most important for shaping microbial communities. The spatial and temporal scales of microbial community assembly are also discussed in relation to assembly processes. Throughout this review paper, we highlight differences between microbes and macroorganisms and generate hypotheses describing how these differences may be important for community assembly. We end by discussing the implications of microbial assembly processes for ecosystem function and biodiversity.

show abstract

Species phylogenetic relatedness, priority effects, and ecosystem functioning

Cited by 83 publications

References 38 publications

Revisiting Darwin's conundrum reveals a twist on the relationship between phylogenetic distance and invasibility

Revisiting Darwin's conundrum reveals a twist on the relationship between phylogenetic distance and invasibility

Effectiveness of ecological rescue for altered soil microbial communities and functions

Patterns and Processes of Microbial Community Assembly

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About