4.8 Article

Phylogenetic limiting similarity and competitive exclusion

Journal

ECOLOGY LETTERS
Volume 14, Issue 8, Pages 782-787

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2011.01644.x

Keywords

Community phylogenetics; competitive ability; functional trait; interspecific competition; niche conservatism; niche difference; phylogenetic dispersion; phylogenetic relatedness; species coexistence; species extinction

Categories

Funding

  1. Georgia Tech
  2. US NSF [DEB-0640416]
  3. National Science Foundation [0922267]
  4. Division Of Environmental Biology
  5. Direct For Biological Sciences [0922267, 0922306] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  6. Division Of Environmental Biology
  7. Direct For Biological Sciences [0921940] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

One of the oldest ecological hypotheses, proposed by Darwin, suggests that the struggle for existence is stronger between more closely related species. Despite its long history, the validity of this phylogenetic limiting similarity hypothesis has rarely been examined. Here we provided a formal experimental test of the hypothesis using pairs of bacterivorous protist species in a multigenerational experiment. Consistent with the hypothesis, both the frequency and tempo of competitive exclusion, and the reduction in the abundance of inferior competitors, increased with increasing phylogenetic relatedness of the competing species. These results were linked to protist mouth size, a trait potentially related to resource use, exhibiting a significant phylogenetic signal. The likelihood of coexistence, however, was better predicted by phylogenetic relatedness than trait similarity of the competing species. Our results support phylogenetic relatedness as a useful predictor of the outcomes of competitive interactions in ecological communities.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available