Testing the spatial phylogenetic structure of local communities: statistical performances of different null models and test statistics on a locally neutral community

By Olivier J. Hardy. 2008

300 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecological Modeling, Nature and Landscape Conservation, Paleontology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/098fb830011de23c15d590fdfd226f1ebc687436

How researchers see this paper

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

In Ecological Modeling

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

In Paleontology

Citations in the corpus

Dos and don'ts when inferring assembly rules from diversity patterns (2020, background): “For example, a high signal of phylogenetic α-diversity obtained from a null model randomizing the sites can indicate competition but also that the abundance distribution in the phylogenetic tree is non-random (testing implicitly another null hypothesis; Hardy, 2008).”
Woody Plant Diversity, Evolution, and Ecology in the Tropics: Perspectives from Seasonally Dry Tropical Forests (2009, methodology): “Community phylogenetics has been used to explain community diversity maintained by ecological filtering, competitive exclusion (e.g., Emerson & Gillespie 2008, Webb et al. 2002, Vamosi et al. 2009), or over ecological gradients (e.g., Graham & Fine 2008, Hardy 2008, Hardy & Senterre 2007).”
The merging of community ecology and phylogenetic biology. (2009, methodology): “To date there has been little quantitative evaluation of the relative strengths and weaknesses of these different approaches (but see Hardy 2008).”
Understanding co‐occurrence by modelling species simultaneously with a Joint Species Distribution Model (JSDM) (2014, methodology): “We plotted environmental and residual correlations from our model against values calculated from two co-occurrence indices commonly used in community ecology: Schoener’s Index and a modified version of Dice’s Index (Hardy 2008) using ‘species.”
A guide for using functional diversity indices to reveal changes in assembly processes along ecological gradients (2013, background): “In making these suggestions, we are none-the-less aware that null models randomizing species’ occurrences have for decades been the subject of intense debate (e.g. Connor & Simberloff 1979; Diamond & Gilpin 1982; Harvey et al. 1983; Gotelli 2000; Manly & Sanderson 2002; Hardy 2008).”
The community ecology of invasive species: where are we and what's next? (2017, unknown): “For example, in most instances randomizations of the species occurrence dataset were constrained in order to 1) maintain at the same time local richness in the sites and the total number of species occurrences in the study area (e.g. Gotelli’s ‘swap’ algorithm; Gotelli 2000, Hardy 2008).”
Demographic drivers of successional changes in phylogenetic structure across life-history stages in plant communities (2012, methodology): “Although permuting elements within the community data matrix is a more conservative method for avoiding Type I error (Hardy 2008), randomizing relatedness among species and/or individuals is a more appropriate null model in temporal analyses.”
Stochastic Community Assembly: Does It Matter in Microbial Ecology? (2017, background): “Besides the above-described models of taxonomic assembly, 3 types of null models were reported to randomize phylogenetic relationships among taxa, including (i) shuffling the names of taxa (so-called phylogeny shuffle) (62, 68, 211, 218), (ii) abundance-constrained phylogeny shuffling (223), and (ii”
Contrasting changes in taxonomic, phylogenetic and functional diversity during a long‐term succession: insights into assembly processes (2013, methodology): “MPDPa and MPD T a are the mean phylogenetic and functional distance between distinct species sampled from different communities.”
Rhizosphere-associated bacterial network structure and spatial distribution differ significantly from bulk soil in wheat crop fields (2017, unknown): “2 (Hardy, 2008).”
Correlations between phylogenetic and functional diversity: mathematical artefacts or true ecological and evolutionary processes? (2013, methodology): “Using each real assemblage, random assemblages were obtained by permuting abundances among present species (model 1s in Hardy 2008).”
Change in community phylogenetic structure during tropical forest succession: evidence from New Guinea (2012, methodology): “Abundance-weighted swapping is comparable to the 3x null model of Hardy (2008) and is interpreted in terms of phylogenetic structure among individuals rather than among species (Kembel et al. 2010).”
Phylogenetic turnover in tropical tree communities: impact of environmental filtering, biogeography and mesoclimatic niche conservatism (2012, methodology): “Phylogenetic turnover was assessed using the PST statistic defined by Hardy & Senterre, (2007). PST is defined as 1 – MPDw/MPDa where MPDw and MPDa represent the mean phylogenetic distance between distinct species sampled within plots and between plots, respectively.”
Phylogenetic patterns are not proxies of community assembly mechanisms (they are far better) (2015, unknown): “There are multiple methodological approaches that may help identifying the effect of lineage-pools of habitats (Hardy 2008) and there are others permitting to filter them out (Hardy & Senterre 2007, Baraloto et al. 2012).”