Premium
Using species abundance and phylogeny conjointly to approach vegetation classification: A case study on Macaronesia’s woody vegetation
Author(s) -
Capelo Jorge
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
journal of vegetation science
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.1
H-Index - 115
eISSN - 1654-1103
pISSN - 1100-9233
DOI - 10.1111/jvs.12886
Subject(s) - phylogenetic tree , vegetation (pathology) , vegetation classification , ecology , similarity (geometry) , taxon , archipelago , biogeography , taxonomic rank , biology , vicariance , phylogenetics , phylogenetic nomenclature , geography , clade , computer science , medicine , biochemistry , pathology , artificial intelligence , gene , image (mathematics)
Questions Can co‐occurrence and phylogenetic resemblance of taxa in plots be integrated into a single composite numerical framework so that vegetation classification expresses both in a unique system? How should phylogenetic similarity of vicariant taxa, in synvicariant communities, be dealt with for use in vegetation classifications? Is this meaningful to Vegetation Science and Biogeography? Is Macaronesia's woody vegetation an adequate paradigm to test a methodological workflow for phylogenetically informed classification? Location Macaronesia: the Azores, Madeira, Canaries, and Cape Verde archipelagos. Methods We used both (a) co‐occurrence‐only and (b) phylogenetic Bray–Curtis similarity indexes in straightforward classification algorithms: Ward's method clustering and isopam divisive classification. Phylogenetic distances for (b) were taken from an ad hoc phylogenetic tree. The tree was obtained by grafting/pruning subtrees from DNA sequence alignments of rcbL , ITS and matK into a subset of an available megaphylogeny. Results Co‐occurrence‐only similarity is not a reliable predictor of phylogenetic similarity. Two distinct approaches to similarity imply significant differences in classifications. As groups in both classifications may be equated to woody‐vegetation classes, alternative arrangements of such will appear. Vegetation classes are quasi‐specific to each archipelago if accounting for co‐occurrence‐only. Conversely, larger units spanning several archipelagos emerge when phylogeny is considered. Conclusion We recognise the usefulness of incorporating phylogeny in the definition of formal vegetation units so that the concept of syntaxon may include it. Supra‐class units issuing from phylogenetically informed similarity originate, for the most, from vegetation synvicariance rather than from sharing of species. Therefore, these units correspond preferably to biogeographical concepts ( phytochoria ), not to phytocoenological units. Regarding “Macaronesia” being a consistent biogeographical unit, if compositional and ecological vegetation patterns are preferred, we support the separation of Macaronesia in several biomes and thus into several Regions within two Kingdoms. Contrariwise, if common ancestry of taxa and synvicariance in syntaxa is to be emphasised, then the one‐Macaronesia Region model re‐appears.