Phylogenies and Community Ecology

By Campbell O. Webb, David D. Ackerly, M. McPeek, Michael J. Donoghue. 2002

4,402 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecological Modeling, Nature and Landscape Conservation, Paleontology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/491564094216076a147db6c9ec5fe26156facb05

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

Flower colour and phylogeny along an altitudinal gradient in the Himalayas of Nepal (2014, methodology): “We used the mean pair-wise phylogenetic distance (MPD) between species in each vegetation group as the metric of structure (Webb et al. 2002; McEwen & Vamosi 2010).”
Predicting phenology by integrating ecology, evolution and climate science (2011, background): “Importantly, predictions are senstive to the mode of trait evolution, for example, phylogenetic community structure might be absent if phylogentic signal in phenology is weak or if phenological traits are evolutionarily convergent (Webb et al., 2002).”
Plant functional diversity modulates global environmental change effects on grassland productivity (2018, methodology): “Results based on the nearest taxon index (NTI), another commonly used metric of phylogenetic diversity (Webb et al. 2002), were qualitatively similar.”
Change in community phylogenetic structure during tropical forest succession: evidence from New Guinea (2012, methodology): “Standardized eff ect sizes for MPD and MNTD are equivalent to the net relatedness index (NRI) and the nearest taxon index (NTI) multiplied by Ϫ1, respectively (Webb et al. 2002).”
On the origin of endemic species in the Red Sea (2016, background): “Red Sea coral reef fish communities can be viewed as having been ‘sampled’ from the phylogenies of major family groups (Webb et al., 2002; Emerson & Gillespie, 2008; Rabosky et al., 2011).”
Unifying Species Diversity, Phylogenetic Diversity, Functional Diversity, and Related Similarity and Differentiation Measures Through Hill Numbers (2014, background): “…have been incorporated into diversity analysis since the 1990s (Faith 1992; Warwick & Clarke 1995; McPeek & Miller 1996; Crozier 1997; Webb 2000; Webb et al. 2002, 2006; Helmus et al. 2007; Graham & Fine 2008; Cavender-Bares et al. 2009, 2012; Pavoine et al. 2009a, 2010; Ives &Helmus 2010,…”
Shocks to the system: community assembly of the oak savanna in a 40-year fire frequency experiment (2012, background): “…integrative information on shared ancestry and potentially on species functional similarity that can provide insights on the drivers of community structure and responses of communities to environmental change (Webb et al. 2002, Kraft et al. 2007, Cavender-Bares et al. 2009, Vamosi et al. 2009).”
Measuring specialization in species interaction networks (2006, methodology): “For known phylogenies, more advanced techniques for analyses with a particular evolutionary focus are available [ 41- 43 ].”
Moving beyond the guild concept: developing a practical functional trait framework for terrestrial beetles (2015, background): “For example, phylogenetic information coupled with trait data can help to explore whether communities are organised based on environmental filtering or competitive exclusion (Webb et al., 2002).”
Conspecific and phylogenetic density‐dependent survival differs across life stages in a tropical forest (2015, methodology): “Note that this index is identical to that used by Metz, Sousa & Valencia (2010), which differs slightly from the NRI of Webb et al. (2002) in that the observed phylogenetic distance is the mean distance of all neighbours to the focal seedling and not the mean of all pairwise distances.”
Phylogenetic relatedness and plant invader success across two spatial scales (2009, background): “It has been shown that at extremely small scales, communities tend to be phylogenetically overdispersed, likely because close relatives compete most intensely for shared resources (Webb, 2000; Webb et al., 2002; Cavender-Bares et al., 2006).”
Opposing effects of competitive exclusion on the phylogenetic structure of communities. (2010, methodology): “The frequent association of ecological traits with species position in a phylogeny supports this notion (Elton 1946; Webb et al. 2002; Ackerly 2003; Wiens & Graham 2005; niche conservatism is also the subject of recent debate: Losos 2008a,b; Wiens 2008).”
Body size, rarity, and phylogenetic community structure: insights from diving beetle assemblages of Alberta (2006, methodology): “The incorporation of phylogenetic relationships into the study of community assembly, or phylogenetic community ecology, is a relatively new subdiscipline predicated on the notion that species interact based on their phenotypic differences and similarities and, furthermore, that this phenotypic vari”