ESA 2013 Minneapolis, MN

Download ESA 2013 Minneapolis, MN

Post on 25-Jan-2015

135 views

Category:

Technology

1 download

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

The evolution of niche versus fitness differences

TRANSCRIPT

<ul><li> 1. As species of the same genus usually have some similarity in habits and structure, the struggle will generally be more severe between species of the same genus. C. Darwin 1859</li></ul> <p> 2. Competitive interactionsEnvironmental filteringVamosi et al. 2009 Mol EcolOver-dispersionUnder-dispersion Webb et al. 2002 Annu Rev Ecol Syst 3. Competitive interactionsEnvironmental filteringPhylogenetic dispersion patterns vary widely from study to study Vamosi et al. 2009 Mol EcolOver-dispersionUnder-dispersion Webb et al. 2002 Annu Rev Ecol Syst 4. Adler et al. 2006: Species differences both promote and deter coexistence NICHE DIFFERENCESPROMOTE COEXISTENCEFITNESS DIFFERENCES DETER COEXISTENCEAdler et al. 2006 Ecol Lett 5. Coexistence metric (/)Evolutionary trajectories of niche () to fitness () differencesCOEXISTENCE ZONE1 EXCLUSION ZONE Phylogenetic distance Mayfield and Levine 2010 Eco Lett 6. Evolutionary trajectories of niche () to fitness () differencesCoexistence metric (/)Exotics?COEXISTENCE ZONE1 EXCLUSION ZONE Phylogenetic distance Mayfield and Levine 2010 Eco Lett 7. How do species interactions and biogeography combine to regulate diversity? 8. I hypothesize that niche and fitness evolution depends on biogeographic origin Niche difference sympatric allopatricFitness difference 9. Bayesian tree Biogeographic origin California SpainBEAST ITS1/5.8S/ITS2 region relative time tree 10. Estimating niche and fitness differences Niche pots 20 pairwise combinations density ~70 individualsFitness pots each species grown alone at low densityAdler et al. 2006 Ecol Lett 11. Bayesian tree Biogeographic origin California SpainBEAST ITS1/5.8S/ITS2 region relative time treePairs of competitors selected to represent phylogenetic independent contrasts 12. Beverton-Holt annual plant model intrinsic growth rate in the absence of competitionintra- and interspecific competitionNiche difference = avg(ii/ij,jj/ji)Fitness difference = max(i,j)/min(i,j) 13. There is no relationship between niche difference and phylogenetic distance Cali vs Cali Cali vs SpainPhylo dist: F1,15 = 1.42, P = 0.252; Origin: F1,15 = 0.86, P = 0.370 14. Fitness differences scale with phylogenetic distance but not biogeographic origin Cali vs Cali Cali vs SpainPhylo dist: F1,13 = 4.87, P = 0.046; Origin: F1,13 = 0.001, P = 0.971 15. but, Spanish species have consistently higher fitness than Californian species Cali vs Cali Cali vs SpainPhylo dist: F1,13 = 4.87, P = 0.046; Origin: F1,13 = 0.001, P = 0.971 16. Pop. growth rates decrease by 43% when focal species are grown with exotic species F = 45.27, P &lt; 0.001 17. Summary 18. Implications for phylogenetic community assembly No reason to expect overdispersion via competition coexistence becomes less likely with phylogenetic distance factors other than competition may give rise to overdispersion in nature e.g., host-specific fungal pathogens Liu et al. 2012 Ecol Lett Species invasions and phylogeny Strauss et al.: exotic taxa less related to native species are more invasive Strauss et al. 2006 PNAS 19. Moving forward But, are these results incompatible with Webb et al.s original framework? fitness is shaped in part by the underlying environment coexistence may be possible if different species are favored in different environments Phylogenetic signal in the change in fitness across environments 20. Chris Blackford Alanna Leale Ally Mushka Rosemary Martin Yvonne Chan Alicia Hou Kevin Hawkshaw Mags NgoWebpage: rgermain.wordpress.com Email: rachel.germain@mail.utoronto.ca </p>

Recommended

View more >