4.8 Review

Ecophylogenetics redux

期刊

ECOLOGY LETTERS
卷 24, 期 5, 页码 1073-1088

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ele.13682

关键词

Brownian motion; clustering; community assembly; competition; filtering; null models; over‐ dispersion; phylogenetic distance

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ecophylogenetics aims to reveal the process of community assembly through phylogenetic methods, but has faced controversies and challenges. Nonetheless, ecophylogenetic methods have made important advances in ecology, helping predict species relationships and guiding conservation and restoration efforts.
Species' evolutionary histories shape their present-day ecologies, but the integration of phylogenetic approaches in ecology has had a contentious history. The field of ecophylogenetics promised to reveal the process of community assembly from simple indices of phylogenetic pairwise distances - communities shaped by environmental filtering were composed of closely related species, whereas communities shaped by competition were composed of less closely related species. However, the mapping of ecology onto phylogeny proved to be not so straightforward, and the field remains mired in controversy. Nonetheless, ecophylogenetic methods provided important advances across ecology. For example the phylogenetic distances between species is a strong predictor of pest and pathogen sharing, and can thus inform models of species invasion, coexistence and the disease dilution/amplification effect of biodiversity. The phylogenetic structure of communities may also provide information on niche space occupancy, helping interpret patterns of facilitation, succession and ecosystem functioning - with relevance for conservation and restoration - and the dynamics among species within foodwebs and metacommunities. I suggest leveraging advances in our understanding of the process of evolution on phylogenetic trees would allow the field to progress further, while maintaining the essence of the original vision that proved so seductive.

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

4.8
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