
doi: 10.1002/ecy.2349
pmid: 29782644
AbstractNiche differences are key to understanding the distribution and structure of biodiversity. To examine niche differences, we must first characterize how species occupy niche space, and two approaches are commonly used in the ecological literature. The first uses species traits to estimate multivariate trait space (so‐called functional trait diversity, FD); the second quantifies the amount of time or evolutionary history captured by a group of species (phylogenetic diversity, PD). It is often—but controversially—assumed that these putative measures of niche space are at a minimum correlated and perhaps redundant, since more evolutionary time allows for greater accumulation of trait changes. This theoretical expectation remains surprisingly poorly evaluated, particularly in the context of multivariate measures of trait diversity. We evaluated the relationship between phylogenetic diversity and trait diversity using analytical and simulation‐based methods across common models of trait evolution. We show that PD correlates with FD increasingly strongly as more traits are included in the FD measure. Our results indicate that phylogenetic diversity can be a useful surrogate for high‐dimensional trait diversity, but we also show that the correlation weakens when the underlying process of trait evolution includes variation in rate and optima.
trait evolution, Ecology, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Biodiversity, functional diversity, phylogeny, Phenotype, traits, Brownian motion, niche occupancy, Phylogeny
trait evolution, Ecology, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Biodiversity, functional diversity, phylogeny, Phenotype, traits, Brownian motion, niche occupancy, Phylogeny
| 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). | 183 | |
| 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 1% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 1% |
