Contrasting changes in taxonomic, phylogenetic and functional diversity during a long‐term succession: insights into assembly processes

351 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Is successional research nearing its climax? New approaches for understanding dynamic communities (2015, background): “Space-for-time substitution studies (e.g. Letcher 2010; Purschke et al. 2013) suggest that late successional communities are typi- cally phylogenetically over-dispersed, while early successional communities tend to be phylogenetically clustered or random (Fig.”
A guide to phylogenetic metrics for conservation, community ecology and macroecology (2016, background): “their ecological niche, than those that are more distantly related (Connolly et al., 2011; Gerhold et al., 2015; but see Narwani et al., 2013; Purschke et al., 2013; Violle et al., 2011).”
Phylogenetic patterns are not proxies of community assembly mechanisms (they are far better) (2015, background): “Spasojevic & Suding (2012) found also no correlation between phylogenetic and functional diversity along a stress-resource gradient (see also Purschke et al. 2013).”
Topography related habitat associations of tree species traits, composition and diversity in a Chinese tropical forest (2014, background): “Nowadays, functional diversity indices, including functional richness, functional evenness and functional divergence, are widely used to shed light on community assembly processes among different forest types (Villeger et al., 2008; Pakeman, 2011; Laliberté et al., 2013; Purschke et al., 2013), and ”