4.8 Article

Species colonisation, not competitive exclusion, drives community overdispersion over long-term succession

期刊

ECOLOGY LETTERS
卷 18, 期 9, 页码 964-973

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ele.12476

关键词

Buell-Small Successional Study; colonisation; community assembly; extinction; phylogenetic community ecology

类别

资金

  1. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada [386151]
  2. National Science Foundation of the USA [DEB-0424605, DEB-1257858, DEB-1342754]
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31361123001, U1201233]
  4. China Scholarship Council (CSC)
  5. Direct For Biological Sciences
  6. Division Of Environmental Biology [1342754] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  7. Direct For Biological Sciences
  8. Division Of Environmental Biology [1257858] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ecological communities often transition from phylogenetic and functional clustering to overdispersion over succession as judged by space-for-time substitution studies. Such a pattern has been generally attributed to the increase in competitive exclusion of closely related species with similar traits through time, although colonisation and extinction have rarely been examined. Using 44 years of uninterrupted old-field succession in New Jersey, USA, we confirmed that phylogenetic and functional clustering decreased as succession unfolded, but the transition was largely driven by colonisation. Early colonists were closely related and functionally similar to residents, while later colonists became less similar to the species present. Extirpated species were generally more distantly related to residents than by chance, or exhibited random phylogenetic/functional patterns, and their relatedness to residents was not associated with time. These results provide direct evidence that the colonisation of distant relatives, rather than extinction of close relatives, drives phylogenetic and functional overdispersion over succession.

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