Premium
Phylogeny contributes more than site characteristics and traits to the spatial distribution pattern of tropical tree populations
Author(s) -
Martins Valéria Forni,
Seger Guilherme Dubal dos Santos,
Wiegand Thorsten,
Santos Flavio Antonio Maës dos
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
oikos
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.672
H-Index - 179
eISSN - 1600-0706
pISSN - 0030-1299
DOI - 10.1111/oik.05142
Subject(s) - biology , biological dispersal , ecology , overdispersion , species distribution , abiotic component , spatial ecology , spatial distribution , context (archaeology) , phylogenetic tree , habitat , population , geography , poisson regression , paleontology , biochemistry , demography , remote sensing , sociology , gene
Dispersal mechanism, species height, sexual system, and wood density are potential drivers of the spatial distribution pattern of tropical tree populations. These traits are usually conserved among closely related species, thus populations of these species should have more similar spatial distribution patterns than populations of phylogenetically distant species. Additionally, variation in the abiotic and biotic environment might result in distinct spatial distribution patterns of local populations of the same species. We employed variation partitioning to determine the degree to which traits, shared evolutionary history, site characteristics, and their joint effects govern the degree of overdispersion or aggregation of tree populations at different spatial scales within fourteen 1‐ha plots of the Atlantic Rainforest in southeastern Brazil. We quantified the degree of overdispersion or aggregation with a new standardized index err ( r ) based on standardized effect sizes of the pair correlation function. Variation in err ( r ) was mostly explained by phylogenetic relationships among species (70–95%, depending on spatial scale), indicating that traits not included in our analysis are important drivers of the spatial distribution pattern. Site characteristics explained a smaller part of the variation, indicating context‐dependence. Finally, the traits studied here provided the smallest explanation of the variation, suggesting a minor role of seed dispersal. Residual variation in err ( r ) ranged from 5–29%, indicating that stochasticity and/or variables not included in the models (e.g. direct measures of post‐dispersal processes) also influence the spatial distribution pattern of the populations. Our results suggest that many ecological processes act in concert at the study site and that their importance changes with spatial scale. Additionally, the relative importance of these processes differs from that previously described for other tropical forests. Determining why a given ecological process is more important in some tropical tree communities than in others are promising venues for further research.