An Integrated Framework To Improve The Concept Of Resource Specialisation.

Resource specialisation, although a fundamental component of ecological theory, is employed in disparate ways. Most definitions derive from simple counts of resource species. We build on recent advances in ecophylogenetics and null model analysis to propose a concept of specialisation that comprises affinities among resources as well as their co-occurrence with consumers. In the distance-based specialisation index (DSI), specialisation is measured as relatedness (phylogenetic or otherwise) of resources, scaled by the null expectation of random use of locally available resources. Thus, specialists use significantly clustered sets of resources, whereas generalists use over-dispersed resources. Intermediate species are classed as indiscriminate consumers. The effectiveness of this approach was assessed with differentially restricted null models, applied to a data set of 168 herbivorous insect species and their hosts. Incorporation of plant relatedness and relative abundance greatly improved specialisation measures compared to taxon counts or simpler null models, which overestimate the fraction of specialists, a problem compounded by insufficient sampling effort. This framework disambiguates the concept of specialisation with an explicit measure applicable to any mode of affinity among resource classes, and is also linked to ecological and evolutionary processes. This will enable a more rigorous deployment of ecological specialisation in empirical and theoretical studies.

Scale decisions can reverse conclusions on community assembly processes.

AIM: Phylogenetic diversity patterns are increasingly being used to better understand the role of ecological and evolutionary processes in community assembly. Here, we quantify how these patterns are influenced by scale choices in terms of spatial and environmental extent and organismic scales. LOCATION: European Alps. METHODS: We applied 42 sampling strategies differing in their combination of focal scales. For each resulting sub-dataset, we estimated the phylogenetic diversity of the species pools, phylogenetic α-diversities of local communities, and statistics commonly used together with null models in order to infer non-random diversity patterns (i.e. phylogenetic clustering versus over-dispersion). Finally, we studied the effects of scale choices on these measures using regression analyses. RESULTS: Scale choices were decisive for revealing signals in diversity patterns. Notably, changes in focal scales sometimes reversed a pattern of over-dispersion into clustering. Organismic scale had a stronger effect than spatial and environmental extent. However, we did not find general rules for the direction of change from over-dispersion to clustering with changing scales. Importantly, these scale issues had only a weak influence when focusing on regional diversity patterns that change along abiotic gradients. MAIN CONCLUSIONS: Our results call for caution when combining phylogenetic data with distributional data to study how and why communities differ from random expectations of phylogenetic relatedness. These analyses seem to be robust when the focus is on relating community diversity patterns to variation in habitat conditions, such as abiotic gradients. However, if the focus is on identifying relevant assembly rules for local communities, the uncertainty arising from a certain scale choice can be immense. In the latter case, it becomes necessary to test whether emerging patterns are robust to alternative scale choices.

Phylogenetic signal and major ecological shifts in the ecomorphological structure of stream fish in two river basins in Brazil

Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq)