Quantifying Phylogenetic Beta Diversity: Distinguishing between 'True' Turnover of Lineages and Phylogenetic Diversity Gradients

Type Article
Date 2012-08
Language English
Author(s) Leprieur Fabien1, Albouy CamilleORCID1, de Bortoli Julien1, Cowman Peter F.2, Bellwood David R.2, Mouillot David1, 2
Affiliation(s) 1 : Laboratoire Ecologie des Syste`mes Marins Coˆ tiers UMR 5119, Universite´ Montpellier 2, Montpellier, France
2 : Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies and School of Marine and Tropical Biology, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland, Australia
Source Plos One (1932-6203), 2012-08 , Vol. 7 , N. 8 , P. e42760 (1-12)
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0042760
WOS© Times Cited 178
Note Correction 8 Oct 2012: Leprieur F, Albouy C, De Bortoli J, Cowman PF, Bellwood DR, et al. (2012) Correction: Quantifying Phylogenetic Beta Diversity: Distinguishing between ‘True’ Turnover of Lineages and Phylogenetic Diversity Gradients. PLOS ONE 7(10): 10.1371/annotation/6fe0199e-7916-4bb9-9c9e-b854c5cee029. https://doi.org/10.1371/annotation/6fe0199e-7916-4bb9-9c9e-b854c5cee029
Abstract

he evolutionary dissimilarity between communities (phylogenetic beta diversity PBD) has been increasingly explored by ecologists and biogeographers to assess the relative roles of ecological and evolutionary processes in structuring natural communities. Among PBD measures, the PhyloSor and UniFrac indices have been widely used to assess the level of turnover of lineages over geographical and environmental gradients. However, these indices can be considered as ‘broad-sense’ measures of phylogenetic turnover as they incorporate different aspects of differences in evolutionary history between communities that may be attributable to phylogenetic diversity gradients. In the present study, we extend an additive partitioning framework proposed for compositional beta diversity to PBD. Specifically, we decomposed the PhyloSor and UniFrac indices into two separate components accounting for ‘true’ phylogenetic turnover and phylogenetic diversity gradients, respectively. We illustrated the relevance of this framework using simple theoretical and archetypal examples, as well as an empirical study based on coral reef fish communities. Overall, our results suggest that using PhyloSor and UniFrac may greatly over-estimate the level of spatial turnover of lineages if the two compared communities show contrasting levels of phylogenetic diversity. We therefore recommend that future studies use the ‘true’ phylogenetic turnover component of these indices when the studied communities encompass a large phylogenetic diversity gradient.

Full Text
File Pages Size Access
Publisher's official version 12 1 MB Open access
Figure S1. Simulated phylogenetic trees obtained by the Yule (a) and PDA (b) models. 202 KB Open access
Figure S2. Relationships between the PDB values obtained using two different phylogenetic trees (Yule vs. PDA model). 1 MB Open access
Table S1. Values of phylogenetic diversity (calculated as the total sum of branch length) and species richness of coral reef fish species belonging to the family of Labridae for each studied site. 1 203 KB Open access
File S1. R code for quantifying phylogenetic beta diversity and its ‘true’ turnover and phylogenetic diversity components (requires R; download R software from http://cran.r-project.org ). 9 KB Open access
File S2. R code to run the example illustrated in Table 1 and Figure 2 (requires R; download R software from http://cran.r-project.org ). 226 bytes Open access
File S3. Species occurrence matrix used in Table 1 and Figure 2 . 178 bytes Open access
File S4. Hypothetical phylogenetic tree used in Table 1 and Figure 2 . 76 bytes Open access
Top of the page