A guide through a family of phylogenetic dissimilarity measures among sites. Issue 12 (18th April 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Pavoine, Sandrine
• Is Part Of: Oikos. Volume 125:Issue 12(2016)
• Page Start: 1719
• Page End: 1732
• Publication Date: 2016-04-18
• Subjects: Ecology -- Periodicals; 570
• DOI: 10.1111/oik.03262
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0030-1299

Abstract

Abstract : Ecological studies have now gone beyond measures of species turnover towards measures of phylogenetic and functional dissimilarity. This change of perspective has a main objective: disentangling the processes that drive species distributions from local to broad scales. A fundamental difference between phylogenetic and functional analyses is that phylogeny is intrinsically dependent on a tree‐like structure whereas functional data can, most of time, only be forced to adhere a tree structure, not without some loss of information. When the branches of a phylogenetic tree have lengths, then each evolutionary unit on these branches can be considered as a basic entity on which dissimilarities among sites should be measured. Several of the recent measures of phylogenetic dissimilarities among sites thus are traditional dissimilarity indices where species are replaced by evolutionary units. The resulting indices were named PD‐dissimilarity indices, in reference to early work on the phylogenetic diversity (PD) measure. Here I review and compare indices and ordination approaches that, although first developed to analyse the differences in the species compositions of sites, can be adapted to describe PD‐dissimilarities among sites. Using simulations of species distributions along environmental gradients, I compare indices, associated with permutation tests and null models, in their ability to reveal existing phylogenetic patterns along the gradients. As an illustration, I show that the amount of bat PD‐dissimilarities along a disturbance gradient in Selva Lacandona of Chiapas, Mexico is dependent on whether species' abundance is considered, and on the PD‐dissimilarity index used. Overall, the family of PD‐dissimilarity indices has a critical potential for future analyses of phylogenetic diversity as it benefits from decades of research on the measure of species dissimilarity. I provide clues to help to choose among many potential indices, identifying which indices satisfy minimal basic properties, and analysing their sensitivity to abundance, size, diversity and joint absences.