4.2 Article

Species versus genotypic diversity of a nitrogen-fixing plant functional group in a metacommunity

期刊

POPULATION ECOLOGY
卷 52, 期 2, 页码 337-345

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1007/s10144-009-0184-y

关键词

Functional group; Legume; Microsatellite; Metacommunity; South-West Australian Floristic Region

类别

资金

  1. Australian Research Council [DP0556767]
  2. Australian Research Council [DP0556767] Funding Source: Australian Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Exploring species and genetic diversity interactions provides new opportunities for furthering our understanding of the ecology and evolution of population and community dynamics, and for predicting responses of ecosystems to environmental change. Theory predicts that species diversity within communities and genetic diversity within populations will covary positively, because either species and genetic diversity interact synergistically or they respond in parallel fashion to common habitat conditions. We tested the hypothesis of positive covariation between species and genotypic diversity in a metacommunity of the species-rich southwest Australian flora. We hypothesised that the connection between genotypic diversity and species diversity is strong within functional groups, but weak or non-existent if the species considered extend beyond the functional group. We show that allelic richness of Daviesia triflora, an ant-dispersed pea, covaries positively with the species richness of six co-occurring nitrogen-fixing legume species. No pattern can be detected between allelic richness of D. triflora and species richness of ant-dispersed species when four non-legumes are added. We also show that genetic diversity of D. triflora is not governed by the same environmental factors that determine the presence of a group of large-shrub/small-tree species in the same metacommunity. This study shows that species and genetic diversity covariation are more likely to be confined to within, rather than between, plant functional groups.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据