4.4 Article

Phylogenetically Poor Plant Communities Receive More Alien Species, Which More Easily Coexist with Natives

期刊

AMERICAN NATURALIST
卷 177, 期 5, 页码 668-680

出版社

UNIV CHICAGO PRESS
DOI: 10.1086/659059

关键词

alien species; community assembly; functional traits; invasions; phylogenetic diversity; species richness

资金

  1. Estonian Science Foundation [7610, 8613]
  2. European Union through Frontiers in Biodiversity Research Centre of Excellence
  3. Estonian-French, PARROT
  4. Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique
  5. Biodiversity and Climate Research Centre (BIK-F)
  6. Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Alien species can be a major threat to ecological communities, but we do not know why some community types allow the entry of many more alien species than do others. Here, for the first time, we suggest that evolutionary diversity inherent to the constituent species of a community may determine its present receptiveness to alien species. Using recent large databases from observational studies, we find robust evidence that assemblage of plant community types from few phylogenetic lineages (in plots without aliens) corresponds to higher receptiveness to aliens. Establishment of aliens in phylogenetically poor communities corresponds to increased phylogenetic dispersion of recipient communities and to coexistence with rather than replacement of natives. This coexistence between natives and distantly related aliens in recipient communities of low phylogenetic dispersion may reflect patterns of trait assembly. In communities without aliens, low phylogenetic dispersion corresponds to increased dispersion of most traits, and establishment of aliens corresponds to increased trait concentration. We conclude that if quantified across the tree of life, high biodiversity correlates with decreasing receptiveness to aliens. Low phylogenetic biodiversity, in contrast, facilitates coexistence between natives and aliens even if they share similar trait states.

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

4.4
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