Alternative measures of trait-niche relationships: A test on dispersal traits in saproxylic beetles.
Bayesian joint species distribution model
community‐weighted mean trait values
deadwood
dispersal capacity
morphological traits
phylogeny
response trait
wing length
Journal
Ecology and evolution
ISSN: 2045-7758
Titre abrégé: Ecol Evol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101566408
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Oct 2023
Oct 2023
Historique:
received:
14
06
2023
revised:
11
09
2023
accepted:
22
09
2023
medline:
23
10
2023
pubmed:
23
10
2023
entrez:
23
10
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Functional trait approaches are common in ecology, but a lack of clear hypotheses on how traits relate to environmental gradients (i.e., trait-niche relationships) often makes uncovering mechanisms difficult. Furthermore, measures of community functional structure differ in their implications, yet inferences are seldom compared among metrics. Community-weighted mean trait values (CWMs), a common measure, are largely driven by the most common species and thus do not reflect community-wide trait-niche relationships per se. Alternatively, trait-niche relationships can be estimated across a larger group of species using hierarchical joint species distribution models (JSDMs), quantified by a parameter Γ. We investigated how inferences about trait-niche relationships are affected by the choice of metric. Using deadwood-dependent (saproxylic) beetles in fragmented Finnish forests, we followed a protocol for investigating trait-niche relationships by (1) identifying environmental filters (climate, forest age, and deadwood volume), (2) relating these to an ecological function (dispersal ability), and (3) identifying traits related to this function (wing morphology). We tested 18 hypothesized dispersal relationships using both CWM and Γ estimates across these environmental gradients. CWMs were more likely than Γ to show support for trait-niche relationships. Up to 13% of species' realized niches were explained by dispersal traits, but the directions of effects were consistent with fewer than 11%-39% of our 18 trait-niche hypotheses (depending on the metric used). This highlights the difficulty in connecting morphological traits and ecological functions in insects, despite the clear conceptual link between landscape connectivity and flight-related traits. Caution is thus warranted in hypothesis development, particularly where apparent trait-function links are less clear. Inferences differ when CWMs versus Γ estimates are used, necessitating the choice of a metric that reflects study questions. CWMs help explain the effects of environmental gradients on community trait composition, whereas the effects of traits on species' niches are better estimated using hierarchical JSDMs.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37869428
doi: 10.1002/ece3.10588
pii: ECE310588
pmc: PMC10585442
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e10588Informations de copyright
© 2023 The Authors. Ecology and Evolution published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. This article has been contributed to by U.S. Government employees and their work is in the public domain in the USA.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.
Références
Conserv Biol. 2019 Oct;33(5):1205-1207
pubmed: 31304990
Conserv Biol. 2018 Jun;32(3):535-545
pubmed: 29388249
Ecol Lett. 2017 May;20(5):561-576
pubmed: 28317296
Proc Biol Sci. 2017 May 17;284(1854):
pubmed: 28469020
Ecol Lett. 2010 Aug 1;13(8):969-79
pubmed: 20482577
Science. 2005 Jul 22;309(5734):570-4
pubmed: 16040698
Methods Ecol Evol. 2020 Mar;11(3):442-447
pubmed: 32194928
Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2019 Aug;94(4):1261-1281
pubmed: 30793489
PLoS Biol. 2013;11(5):e1001569
pubmed: 23723735
Trends Ecol Evol. 2016 May;31(5):382-394
pubmed: 26924737
Science. 2015 Aug 21;349(6250):819-22
pubmed: 26293953
PLoS One. 2011;6(6):e21345
pubmed: 21738640
J Anim Ecol. 2021 Aug;90(8):1934-1947
pubmed: 33942309
PLoS One. 2013 Aug 20;8(8):e72764
pubmed: 23977350
Environ Entomol. 2009 Oct;38(5):1411-22
pubmed: 19825296
PeerJ. 2015 Aug 25;3:e1219
pubmed: 26336648
Oecologia. 2015 Mar;177(3):911-920
pubmed: 25428787
Ecol Evol. 2019 Feb 16;9(5):2475-2486
pubmed: 30891194
Ecology. 2016 Mar;97(3):754-64
pubmed: 27197401
Proc Biol Sci. 2022 Apr 13;289(1972):20212689
pubmed: 35414236
Trends Ecol Evol. 2019 Aug;34(8):746-758
pubmed: 31104954
Nature. 2021 Sep;597(7874):77-81
pubmed: 34471275
Syst Biol. 2017 May 01;66(3):426-439
pubmed: 27798407
Trends Ecol Evol. 1999 May;14(5):172-174
pubmed: 10322528
Trends Ecol Evol. 1996 Jun;11(6):255-60
pubmed: 21237834
J Anim Ecol. 2012 Jan;81(1):174-84
pubmed: 21988561
Ecol Lett. 2009 Jan;12(1):22-33
pubmed: 19087109
Conserv Biol. 2013 Jun;27(3):605-14
pubmed: 23432190
Proc Biol Sci. 2016 Mar 30;283(1827):20152434
pubmed: 27030412
J Anim Ecol. 2018 Sep;87(5):1209-1220
pubmed: 29672855
Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2011 Nov;86(4):792-812
pubmed: 21155964
Ecol Evol. 2013 Sep;3(9):2958-75
pubmed: 24101986
Science. 2006 Nov 3;314(5800):812-4
pubmed: 17023613
J Evol Biol. 2017 Jan;30(1):4-12
pubmed: 27711984
Sci Adv. 2015 Mar 20;1(2):e1500052
pubmed: 26601154
Ecol Evol. 2015 Nov 17;5(23):5632-41
pubmed: 27069612
Nat Commun. 2021 Oct 12;12(1):5946
pubmed: 34642336
Ecol Evol. 2020 Sep 22;10(20):10937-10952
pubmed: 33144939
Funct Ecol. 2023 Jan;37(1):150-161
pubmed: 37064507
Conserv Biol. 2015 Apr;29(2):382-90
pubmed: 25429849
Proc Biol Sci. 2022 Aug 31;289(1981):20221123
pubmed: 35975441