The trinity of ecological contrasts: a case study on rich insect assemblages by means of species, functional and phylogenetic diversity measures.
Community pattern analysis
Diversity metrics
Moths
Near-annual inundations
Riparian forest
Journal
BMC ecology
ISSN: 1472-6785
Titre abrégé: BMC Ecol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088674
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 05 2020
10 05 2020
Historique:
received:
02
08
2019
accepted:
04
05
2020
entrez:
12
5
2020
pubmed:
12
5
2020
medline:
5
9
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The 'classical' concept of species diversity was extended in the last decades into other dimensions focusing on the functional and phylogenetic diversity of communities. These measures are often argued to allow a deeper understanding of the mechanisms shaping community assembly along environmental gradients. Because of practical impediments, thus far only very few studies evaluated the performance of these diversity measures on large empirical data sets. Here, data on species-rich riparian moth communities under different flood regimes and from three different rivers has been used to compare the power of various diversity measures to uncover ecological contrasts. Contrary to the expectation, classical metrics of species diversity (Hill numbers N1, N2 and N Species diversity and evenness measures turned out to be the most powerful metrics and clearly reflected both investigated environmental contrasts. This poses the question when it is useful to compile the additional data necessary for the calculation of additional diversity measures, since assembling trait bases and community phylogenies often requires a high work load. Apart from these methodological issues, most of the diversity measures related to communities of terrestrial insects like moths increased in forests that still are subject to flooding dynamics. This emphasizes the high conservation value of riparian forests and the importance of keeping and restoring river dynamics as a means of fostering also terrestrial biodiversity in floodplain areas.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The 'classical' concept of species diversity was extended in the last decades into other dimensions focusing on the functional and phylogenetic diversity of communities. These measures are often argued to allow a deeper understanding of the mechanisms shaping community assembly along environmental gradients. Because of practical impediments, thus far only very few studies evaluated the performance of these diversity measures on large empirical data sets. Here, data on species-rich riparian moth communities under different flood regimes and from three different rivers has been used to compare the power of various diversity measures to uncover ecological contrasts.
RESULTS
Contrary to the expectation, classical metrics of species diversity (Hill numbers N1, N2 and N
CONCLUSIONS
Species diversity and evenness measures turned out to be the most powerful metrics and clearly reflected both investigated environmental contrasts. This poses the question when it is useful to compile the additional data necessary for the calculation of additional diversity measures, since assembling trait bases and community phylogenies often requires a high work load. Apart from these methodological issues, most of the diversity measures related to communities of terrestrial insects like moths increased in forests that still are subject to flooding dynamics. This emphasizes the high conservation value of riparian forests and the importance of keeping and restoring river dynamics as a means of fostering also terrestrial biodiversity in floodplain areas.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32389122
doi: 10.1186/s12898-020-00298-3
pii: 10.1186/s12898-020-00298-3
pmc: PMC7211340
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
29Références
Trends Ecol Evol. 2014 Feb;29(2):97-106
pubmed: 24315534
Trends Ecol Evol. 2017 Jun;32(6):429-437
pubmed: 28363350
Bioinformatics. 2014 May 1;30(9):1312-3
pubmed: 24451623
PLoS One. 2013 Nov 25;8(11):e80875
pubmed: 24282557
Proc Biol Sci. 2003 Feb 7;270(1512):313-21
pubmed: 12614582
Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2019 Jun;94(3):999-1022
pubmed: 30548743
Ecology. 2011 Aug;92(8):1573-81
pubmed: 21905424
Ecol Lett. 2008 Oct;11(10):995-1003
pubmed: 18673385
Nat Commun. 2018 Jul 23;9(1):2888
pubmed: 30038259
Mol Ecol Notes. 2007 May 1;7(3):355-364
pubmed: 18784790
Trends Ecol Evol. 2008 Nov;23(11):619-30
pubmed: 18823678
Trends Ecol Evol. 2013 Apr;28(4):199-204
pubmed: 23218499
Ecol Lett. 2011 Aug;14(8):782-7
pubmed: 21672121
PLoS Comput Biol. 2019 Apr 8;15(4):e1006650
pubmed: 30958812
Bioinformatics. 2010 Jun 1;26(11):1463-4
pubmed: 20395285
Annu Rev Entomol. 2017 Jan 31;62:265-283
pubmed: 27860521
BMC Evol Biol. 2015 Nov 21;15:260
pubmed: 26589618
Bioinformatics. 2015 Sep 1;31(17):2888-90
pubmed: 25948716
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009 Nov 17;106 Suppl 2:19673-8
pubmed: 19805042
PLoS One. 2013 Dec 17;8(12):e84518
pubmed: 24358363
Bioinformatics. 2019 Feb 1;35(3):526-528
pubmed: 30016406
Bioinformatics. 2009 Jun 1;25(11):1370-6
pubmed: 19369496
Am Nat. 2000 Aug;156(2):145-155
pubmed: 10856198
Science. 2006 Jul 7;313(5783):58-61
pubmed: 16825561
Proc Biol Sci. 2015 Feb 22;282(1801):20142620
pubmed: 25567651
PLoS One. 2007 Mar 14;2(3):e296
pubmed: 17375184
Mol Biol Evol. 2012 Jun;29(6):1695-701
pubmed: 22319168
Ecol Lett. 2009 Jul;12(7):693-715
pubmed: 19473217
Nat Ecol Evol. 2019 Jan;3(1):53-61
pubmed: 30532042