
AbstractHypotheses about phylogenetic relationships among species allow inferences about the mechanisms that affect species coexistence. Nevertheless, most studies assume that phylogenetic patterns identified are stable over time. We used data on monthly samples of fish from a single lake over 10 years to show that the structure in phylogenetic assemblages varies over time and conclusions depend heavily on the time scale investigated. The data set was organized in guild structures and temporal scales (grouped at three temporal scales). Phylogenetic distance was measured as the mean pairwise distances (MPD) and as mean nearest‐neighbor distance (MNTD). Both distances were based on counts of nodes. We compared the observed values of MPD and MNTD with values that were generated randomly using null model independent swap. A serial runs test was used to assess the temporal independence of indices over time. The phylogenetic pattern in the whole assemblage and the functional groups varied widely over time. Conclusions about phylogenetic clustering or dispersion depended on the temporal scales. Conclusions about the frequency with which biotic processes and environmental filters affect the local assembly do not depend only on taxonomic grouping and spatial scales. While these analyzes allow the assertion that all proposed patterns apply to the fish assemblages in the floodplain, the assessment of the relative importance of these processes, and how they vary depending on the temporal scale and functional group studied, cannot be determined with the effort commonly used. It appears that, at least in the system that we studied, the assemblages are forming and breaking continuously, resulting in various phylogeny‐related structures that makes summarizing difficult.
Original Research
Original Research
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 12 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% |
