Phylogenetic Patterns of Colonization and Extinction in Experimentally Assembled Plant Communities

Evolutionary history has provided insights into the assembly and functioning of plant communities, yet patterns of phylogenetic community structure have largely been based on non-dynamic observations of natural communities. We examined phylogenetic patterns of natural colonization, extinction and biomass production in experimentally assembled communities.We used plant community phylogenetic patterns two years after experimental diversity treatments (1, 2, 4, 8 or 32 species) were discontinued. We constructed a 5-gene molecular phylogeny and statistically compared relatedness of species that colonized or went extinct to remaining community members and patterns of aboveground productivity. Phylogenetic relatedness converged as species-poor plots were colonized and speciose plots experienced extinctions, but plots maintained more differences in composition than in phylogenetic diversity. Successful colonists tended to either be closely or distantly related to community residents. Extinctions did not exhibit any strong relatedness patterns. Finally, plots that increased in phylogenetic diversity also increased in community productivity, though this effect was inseparable from legume colonization, since these colonists tended to be phylogenetically distantly related.We found that successful non-legume colonists were typically found where close relatives already existed in the sown community; in contrast, successful legume colonists (on their own long branch in the phylogeny) resulted in plots that were colonized by distant relatives. While extinctions exhibited no pattern with respect to relatedness to sown plotmates, extinction plus colonization resulted in communities that converged to similar phylogenetic diversity values, while maintaining differences in species composition

Revealing natural relationships among arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi: culture line BEG47 represents Diversispora epigaea, not Glomus versiforme

Background: Understanding the mechanisms underlying biological phenomena, such as evolutionarily conservative trait inheritance, is predicated on knowledge of the natural relationships among organisms. However, despite their enormous ecological significance, many of the ubiquitous soil inhabiting and plant symbiotic arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF, phylum Glomeromycota) are incorrectly classified. Methodology/Principal Findings: Here, we focused on a frequently used model AMF registered as culture BEG47. This fungus is a descendent of the ex-type culture-lineage of Glomus epigaeum, which in 1983 was synonymised with Glomus versiforme. It has since then been used as ‘G. versiforme BEG47’. We show by morphological comparisons, based on type material, collected 1860–61, of G. versiforme and on type material and living ex-type cultures of G. epigaeum, that these two AMF species cannot be conspecific, and by molecular phylogenetics that BEG47 is a member of the genus Diversispora. Conclusions: This study highlights that experimental works published during the last >25 years on an AMF named ‘G. versiforme’ or ‘BEG47’ refer to D. epigaea, a species that is actually evolutionarily separated by hundreds of millions of years from all members of the genera in the Glomerales and thus from most other commonly used AMF ‘laboratory strains’. Detailed redescriptions substantiate the renaming of G. epigaeum (BEG47) as D. epigaea, positioning it systematically in the order Diversisporales, thus enabling an evolutionary understanding of genetical, physiological, and ecological traits, relative to those of other AMF. Diversispora epigaea is widely cultured as a laboratory strain of AMF, whereas G. versiforme appears not to have been cultured nor found in the field since its original description

Reply to: “Global Conservation of Phylogenetic Diversity Captures More Than Just Functional Diversity”

Academic biologists have long advocated for conserving phylogenetic diversity (PD), often (but not exclusively) on the basis that PD is a useful proxy for “feature diversity”, defined as the variety of forms and functions represented in set of organisms (see below for an extended discussion of this definition). In a recent paper, we assess the extent to which this proxy (which we coined the “phylogenetic gambit”) holds in three empirical datasets (terrestrial mammals, birds, and tropical marine fishes) when using functional traits and functional diversity (FD) to operationalize feature diversity. Owen et al. offer a criticism of our methods for quantifying feature diversity with FD and disagree with our conclusions. We are grateful that Owen et al. have engaged thoughtfully with our work, but we believe there are more points of agreement than Owen et al. imply

Prioritizing Phylogenetic Diversity Captures Functional Diversity Unreliably

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 \u3e15,000 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

Using Phylogenetic, Functional and Trait Diversity to Understand Patterns of Plant Community Productivity

BACKGROUND:Two decades of research showing that increasing plant diversity results in greater community productivity has been predicated on greater functional diversity allowing access to more of the total available resources. Thus, understanding phenotypic attributes that allow species to partition resources is fundamentally important to explaining diversity-productivity relationships. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS:Here we use data from a long-term experiment (Cedar Creek, MN) and compare the extent to which productivity is explained by seven types of community metrics of functional variation: 1) species richness, 2) variation in 10 individual traits, 3) functional group richness, 4) a distance-based measure of functional diversity, 5) a hierarchical multivariate clustering method, 6) a nonmetric multidimensional scaling approach, and 7) a phylogenetic diversity measure, summing phylogenetic branch lengths connecting community members together and may be a surrogate for ecological differences. Although most of these diversity measures provided significant explanations of variation in productivity, the presence of a nitrogen fixer and phylogenetic diversity were the two best explanatory variables. Further, a statistical model that included the presence of a nitrogen fixer, seed weight and phylogenetic diversity was a better explanation of community productivity than other models. CONCLUSIONS:Evolutionary relationships among species appear to explain patterns of grassland productivity. Further, these results reveal that functional differences among species involve a complex suite of traits and that perhaps phylogenetic relationships provide a better measure of the diversity among species that contributes to productivity than individual or small groups of traits

On the Relationship Between Phylogenetic Diversity and Trait Diversity

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

Nothing lasts forever: Dominant species decline under rapid environmental change in global grasslands

1. Dominance often indicates one or a few species being best suited for resource capture and retention in a given environment. Press perturbations that change availability of limiting resources can restructure competitive hierarchies, allowing new species to capture or retain resources and leaving once dominant species fated to decline. However, dominant species may maintain high abundances even when their new environments no longer favour them due to stochastic processes associated with their high abundance, impeding deterministic processes that would otherwise diminish them. 2. Here, we quantify the persistence of dominance by tracking the rate of decline in dominant species at 90 globally distributed grassland sites under experimentally elevated soil nutrient supply and reduced vertebrate consumer pressure. 3. We found that chronic experimental nutrient addition and vertebrate exclusion caused certain subsets of species to lose dominance more quickly than in control plots. In control plots, perennial species and species with high initial cover maintained dominance for longer than annual species and those with low initial cover respectively. In fertilized plots, species with high initial cover maintained dominance at similar rates to control plots, while those with lower initial cover lost dominance even faster than similar species in controls. High initial cover increased the estimated time to dominance loss more strongly in plots with vertebrate exclosures than in controls. Vertebrate exclosures caused a slight decrease in the persistence of dominance for perennials, while fertilization brought perennials' rate of dominance loss in line with those of annuals. Annual species lost dominance at similar rates regardless of treatments. 4. Synthesis. Collectively, these results point to a strong role of a species' historical abundance in maintaining dominance following environmental perturbations. Because dominant species play an outsized role in driving ecosystem processes, their ability to remain dominant—regardless of environmental conditions—is critical to anticipating expected rates of change in the structure and function of grasslands. Species that maintain dominance while no longer competitively favoured following press perturbations due to their historical abundances may result in community compositions that do not maximize resource capture, a key process of system responses to global change.EEA Santa CruzFil: Wilfahrt, Peter A. University of Minnesota. Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior; Estados UnidosFil: Seabloom, Eric William. University of Minnesota. Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior; Estados UnidosFil: Bakker, Jonathan D. University of Washington. School of Environmental and Forest Sciences; Estados Unidos.Fil: Biederman, Lori A. Iowa State University. Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Organismal Biology; Estados UnidosFil: Bugalho, Miguel N. University of Lisbon. Centre for Applied Ecology “Prof. Baeta Neves” (CEABN-InBIO). School of Agriculture; Portugal.Fil: Cadotte, Marc W. University of Toronto Scarborough. Department of Biological Sciences; Canadá.Fil: Caldeira, Maria C. University of Lisbon. Forest Research Centre. School of Agriculture; Portugal.Fil: Catford, Jane A. King’s College London. Department of Geography; Reino UnidoFil: Catford, Jane A. University of Melbourne. School of Agriculture, Food and Ecosystem Sciences; Australia.Fil: Chen, Qingqing. Peking University. College of Urban and Environmental Science; China.Fil: Chen, Qingqing. German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv). Halle-Jena-Leipzig; AlemaniaFil: Donohue, Ian. Trinity College Dublin. School of Natural Sciences. Department of Zoology; IrlandaFil: Peri, Pablo Luis. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Santa Cruz; Argentina.Fil: Peri, Pablo Luis. Universidad Nacional de la Patagonia Austral.; Argentina.Fil: Peri, Pablo Luis. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina.Fil: Borer, Elizabeth T. University of Minnesota. Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior; Estados Unido

Opposing community assembly patterns for dominant and non-dominant plant species in herbaceous ecosystems globally

Biotic and abiotic factors interact with dominant plants—the locally most frequent or with the largest coverage—and nondominant plants differently, partially because dominant plants modify the environment where nondominant plants grow. For instance, if dominant plants compete strongly, they will deplete most resources, forcing nondominant plants into a narrower niche space. Conversely, if dominant plants are constrained by the environment, they might not exhaust available resources but instead may ameliorate environmental stressors that usually limit nondominants. Hence, the nature of interactions among nondominant species could be modified by dominant species. Furthermore, these differences could translate into a disparity in the phylogenetic relatedness among dominants compared to the relatedness among nondominants. By estimating phylogenetic dispersion in 78 grasslands across five continents, we found that dominant species were clustered (e.g., co-dominant grasses), suggesting dominant species are likely organized by environmental filtering, and that nondominant species were either randomly assembled or overdispersed. Traits showed similar trends for those sites (<50%) with sufficient trait data. Furthermore, several lineages scattered in the phylogeny had more nondominant species than expected at random, suggesting that traits common in nondominants are phylogenetically conserved and have evolved multiple times. We also explored environmental drivers of the dominant/nondominant disparity. We found different assembly patterns for dominants and nondominants, consistent with asymmetries in assembly mechanisms. Among the different postulated mechanisms, our results suggest two complementary hypotheses seldom explored: (1) Nondominant species include lineages adapted to thrive in the environment generated by dominant species. (2) Even when dominant species reduce resources to nondominant ones, dominant species could have a stronger positive effect on some nondominants by ameliorating environmental stressors affecting them, than by depleting resources and increasing the environmental stress to those nondominants. These results show that the dominant/nondominant asymmetry has ecological and evolutionary consequences fundamental to understand plant communities.EEA Santa CruzFil: Arnillas, Carlos Alberto. University of Toronto Scarborough. Department of Physical and Environmental Sciences; Canadá.Fil: Borer, Elizabeth T. University of Minnesota; Estados UnidosFil: Seabloom, Eric W. University of Minnesota; Estados UnidosFil: Alberti, Juan. Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata. Instituto de Investigaciones Marinas y Costeras; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Instituto de Investigaciones Marinas y Costeras; Argentina.Fil: Baez, Selene. Escuela Politécnica Nacional. Department of Biology; Ecuador.Fil: Bakker, Jonathan D. University of Washington. School of Environmental and Forest Sciences; Estados UnidosFil: Boughton, Elizabeth H. Archbold Biological Station. Venus, Florida; Estados UnidosFil: Buckley, Yvonne M. Trinity College Dublin. School of Natural Sciences, Zoology; IrlandaFil: Bugalho, Miguel Nuno. University of Lisbon. Centre for Applied Ecology Prof. Baeta Neves (CEABN-InBIO). School of Agriculture; Portugal.Fil: Donohue, Ian. Trinity College Dublin. School of Natural Sciences, Zoology; IrlandaFil: Dwyer, John. University of Queensland. School of Biological Sciences; Australia.Fil: Firn, Jennifer. Queensland University of Technology (QUT); Australia.Fil: Peri, Pablo Luis. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Santa Cruz; Argentina.Fil: Peri, Pablo Luis. Universidad Nacional de la Patagonia Austral; Argentina.Fil: Peri, Pablo Luis. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina.Fil: Cadotte, Marc W. University of Toronto Scarborough. Department of Biological Sciences; Canadá.Fil: Cadotte, Marc W. University of Toronto. Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology; Canadá