Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

Capturing Richness-Independent Phylogenetic Diversity and Testing Surrogates in Woody Plant Communities


Affiliations
1 Centre for Ecological Sciences, Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru - 560012, India
 

Phylogenetic diversity (PD) indices quantify the evolutionary history of a community. Studies have shown how decoupling between taxon richness (TR) and PD provides useful insights into biodiversity. The present study on three dry deciduous forest patches (Nandi, Savandurga and Devarayandurga) shows such decoupling patterns. Our analysis of unique (endemic) taxa revealed that whereas the high PD in Nandi was contributed largely by its unique taxa which were composed of different evolutionary lineages, unique taxa in Savandurga contributed negatively due to highly shared lineages. Also, the use of higher-level TR did not provide an adequate surrogate for PD. We, therefore, propose the use of an integrative approach (both TR and PD) to quantify biodiversity for gaining better insights into the composition and evolutionary history of a community.

Keywords

Biodiversity, Community Phylogenetics, Conservation, Deciduous Forest.
User
Notifications
Font Size

  • Hawksworth, D. L., Biodiversity: Measurement and Estimation, Springer Science and Business Media, 1995.
  • Benn, J., UNEP, What is biodiversity? United Nations Environment Program.
  • Brooks, T. M. et al., Global biodiversity conservation priorities. Science, 2006, 313, 58–61.
  • Maclaurin, J. and Sterelny, K., What is Biodiversity? University of Chicago Press, 2008.
  • Magurran, A. E., Why diversity? In Ecological Diversity and its Measurement, Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 1–5.
  • Whittaker, R. H., Evolution and measurement of species diversity. Taxon, 1972, 21, 213–251.
  • Petchey, O. L., Hector, A. and Gaston, K. J., How do different measures of functional diversity perform? Ecology, 2004, 85, 847– 857.
  • Faith, D. P., Conservation evaluation and phylogenetic diversity. Biol. Conserv., 1992, 61, 1–10.
  • Colwell, R. K., Biodiversity: concepts, patterns, and measurement. In The Princeton Guide to Ecology, Princeton University Press, 2009, pp. 257–263.
  • May, R. M., Taxonomy as destiny. Nature, 1990, 347, 129–130.
  • Tilman, D., Knops, J., Wedin, D., Reich, P., Ritchie, M. and Siemann, E., The influence of functional diversity and composition on ecosystem processes. Science, 1997, 277, 1300–1302.
  • Ganeshaiah, K., Chandrashekara, K. and Kumar, A., Avalanclne index: a new measure of biodiversity based on biological leterogeneity of the communities. Curr. Sci., 1997, 73.
  • Williams, P. H. and Humphries, C. J., Comparing character diversity among biotas. In Biodiversity: A Biology of Numbers and Differences, Blackwell Science, Oxford, 1996, pp. 54–76.
  • Cavender-Bares, J., Kozak, K. H., Fine, P. V. and Kembel, S. W., The merging of community ecology and phylogenetic biology. Ecol. Lett., 2009, 12, 693–715.
  • Polasky, S., Csuti, B., Vossler, C. A. and Meyers, S. M., A comparison of taxonomic distinctness versus richness as criteria for setting conservation priorities for North American birds. Biol. Conserv., 2001, 97, 99–105.
  • Rodrigues, A. S. and Gaston, K. J., Maximising phylogenetic diversity in the selection of networks of conservation areas. Biol. Conserv., 2002, 105, 103–111.
  • Barker, G. M., Phylogenetic diversity: a quantitative framework for measurement of priority and achievement in biodiversity conservation. Biol. J. Linn. Soc., 2002, 76, 165–194.
  • Faith, D. P., Reid, C. and Hunter, J., Integrating phylogenetic diversity, complementarity, and endemism for conservation assessment. Conserv. Biol., 2004, 18, 255–261.
  • Forest, F. et al., Preserving the evolutionary potential of floras in biodiversity hotspots. Nature, 2007, 445, 757–760.
  • Davies, T. J. and Buckley, L. B., Phylogenetic diversity as a window into the evolutionary and biogeographic histories of present-day richness gradients for mammals. Philos. Trans. R Soc. London, Ser. B, 2011, 366, 2414–2425.
  • Schweiger, O., Klotz, S., Durka, W. and Kuhn, I., A comparative test of phylogenetic diversity indices. Oecologia, 2008, 157, 485– 495.
  • Webb, C. O., Exploring the phylogenetic structure of ecological communities: an example for rain forest trees. Am. Nat., 2000, 156, 145–155.
  • Rodrigues, A., Brooks, T. M. and Gaston, K. J., Integrating phylogenetic diversity in the selection of priority areas for conservation: does it make a difference. Phylogeny Conserv., 2005, 8, 101–119.
  • Pascal, J., Sunder, S. S. and Homji, V. M., Forest map of south India, 1/250,000 scale, sheet Belgaum–Dharwar–Panaji, the Karnataka Forest Department and the French Institute, Pondicherry, 1984.
  • Menon, S. and Bawa, K. S., Applications of geographic information systems, remote-sensing, and a landscape ecology approach to biodiversity conservation in the Western Ghats. Curr. Sci., 1997, 73(2), 134–145.
  • Das, A., Krishnaswamy, J., Bawa, K. S., Kiran, M., Srinivas, V., Kumar, N. S. and Karanth, K. U., Prioritisation of conservation areas in the Western Ghats, India. Biol. Conserv., 2006, 133, 16– 31.
  • Bonn, A., Rodrigues, A. S. and Gaston, K. J., Threatened and endemic species: are they good indicators of patterns of biodiversity on a national scale? Ecol. Lett., 2002, 5, 733–741.
  • Crozier, R., Preserving the information content of species: genetic diversity, phylogeny, and conservation worth. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst., 1997, 28, 243–268.
  • Villasenor, J. L., Ibarra-Manriquez, G., Meave, J. A. and Ortiz, E., Higher taxa as surrogates of plant biodiversity in a megadiverse country. Conserv. Biol., 2005, 19, 232–238.
  • Linder, H. and Midgley, J., Taxonomy, compositional biodiversity and functional biodiversity of fynbos. S. Afr. J. Sci., 1994, 90, 329–332.
  • Gaston, K. J., Biodiversity: higher taxon richness. Prog. Phys. Geogr., 2000, 24, 117–128.
  • Thirumalachar, M., Khan, K. and Swamy, G., Some common flowering plants of Nandi Hills. Half–yearly J. Mysore Univ.: Sect. B, 1942, 3, 73–88.
  • Rao, R. and Sastry, A., Deciduous forests of Devarayadurga, Mysore state. Nelumbo, 1964, 6, 159–167.
  • Murali, K., Kavitha, A. and Harish, R., Spatial patterns of tree and shrub species diversity in Savanadurga state forest, Karnataka. Curr. Sci., 2003, 84(6), 808–813.
  • Balmford, A., Jayasuriya, A. H. and Green, M., Using highertaxon richness as a surrogate for species richness: II. Local applications. Proc. R Soc. London Ser. B: Biol. Sci., 1996, 263, 1571– 1575.
  • Hollingsworth, P. M. et al., A DNA barcode for land plants. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 2009, 106, 12794–12797.
  • Chase, M. W. et al., A proposal for a standardised protocol to barcode all land plants. Taxon, 2007, 56(2), 295–299.
  • Yu, J., Xue, J. H. and Zhou, S. L., New universal matK primers for DNA barcoding angiosperms. J. Syst. Evol., 2011, 49, 176– 181.
  • Schmitz-Linneweber, C., Maier, R. M., Alcaraz, J.-P., Cottet, A., Herrmann, R. G. and Mache, R., The plastid chromosome of spinach (Spinacia oleracea): complete nucleotide sequence and gene organization. Plant Mol. Biol., 2001, 45, 307–315.
  • Tamura, K., Peterson, D., Peterson, N., Stecher, G., Nei, M. and Kumar, S., Mega 5: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis using maximum likelihood, evolutionary distance, and maximum parsimony methods. Mol. Biol. Evol., 2011, 28, 2731–2739.
  • Soltis, D. E. et al., Angiosperm phylogeny: 17 genes, 640 taxa. Am. J. Bot., 2011, 98, 704–730.
  • Olmstead, R. G., Zjhra, M. L., Lohmann, L. G., Grose, S. O. and Eckert, A. J., A molecular phylogeny and classification of bignoniaceae. Am. J. Bot., 2009, 96, 1731–1743.
  • Wallander, E. and Albert, V. A., Phylogeny and classification of oleaceae based on rps16 and trnl-F sequence data. Am. J. Bot., 2000, 87, 1827–1841.
  • Swofford, D. L., PAUP*: Phylogenetic Analysis using Parsimony (* and other methods), version 4, Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts, 2002.
  • R Core Team, R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, 2015.
  • R Studio Team, R studio: Integrated development for R, R Studio, Inc, Boston, MA, 2015.
  • Paradis, E., Claude, J. and Strimmer, K., Ape: analyses of phylogenetics and evolution in R language. Bioinformatics, 2004, 20, 289–290.
  • Harmon, L. J., Weir, J. T., Brock, C. D., Glor, R. E. and Challenger, W., Geiger: investigating evolutionary radiations. Bioinformatics, 2008, 24, 129–131.
  • Kembel, S. W. et al., Picante: R tools for integrating phylogenies and ecology. Bioinformatics, 2010, 26, 1463–1464.
  • Swenson, N. G., Phylogenetic resolution and quantifying the phylogenetic diversity and dispersion of communities. PLoS ONE, 2009, 4, e4390.
  • Cadotte, M. W., Cavender-Bares, J., Tilman, D. and Oakley, T. H., Using phylogenetic, functional and trait diversity to understand patterns of plant community productivity. PLoS ONE, 2009, 4, e5695.
  • Flynn, D. F., Mirotchnick, N., Jain, M., Palmer, M. I. and Naeem, S., Functional and phylogenetic diversity as predictors of biodiversity– ecosystem-function relationships. Ecology, 2011, 92, 1573–1581.
  • Devictor, V., Mouillot, D., Meynard, C., Jiguet, F., Thuiller, W. and Mouquet, N., Spatial mismatch and congruence between taxonomic, phylogenetic and functional diversity: the need for integrative conservation strategies in a changing world. Ecol. Lett., 2010, 13, 1030–1040.

Abstract Views: 10

PDF Views: 1




  • Capturing Richness-Independent Phylogenetic Diversity and Testing Surrogates in Woody Plant Communities

Abstract Views: 10  |  PDF Views: 1

Authors

B. Divya
Centre for Ecological Sciences, Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru - 560012, India
K. Praveen Karanth
Centre for Ecological Sciences, Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru - 560012, India

Abstract


Phylogenetic diversity (PD) indices quantify the evolutionary history of a community. Studies have shown how decoupling between taxon richness (TR) and PD provides useful insights into biodiversity. The present study on three dry deciduous forest patches (Nandi, Savandurga and Devarayandurga) shows such decoupling patterns. Our analysis of unique (endemic) taxa revealed that whereas the high PD in Nandi was contributed largely by its unique taxa which were composed of different evolutionary lineages, unique taxa in Savandurga contributed negatively due to highly shared lineages. Also, the use of higher-level TR did not provide an adequate surrogate for PD. We, therefore, propose the use of an integrative approach (both TR and PD) to quantify biodiversity for gaining better insights into the composition and evolutionary history of a community.

Keywords


Biodiversity, Community Phylogenetics, Conservation, Deciduous Forest.

References





DOI: https://doi.org/10.18520/cs%2Fv115%2Fi5%2F910-919