The role of edaphic environment and climate in structuring phylogenetic pattern in seasonally dry tropical plant communities.

Seasonally dry tropical plant formations (SDTF) are likely to exhibit phylogenetic clustering owing to niche conservatism driven by a strong environmental filter (water stress), but heterogeneous edaphic environments and life histories may result in heterogeneity in degree of phylogenetic clustering. We investigated phylogenetic patterns across ecological gradients related to water availability (edaphic environment and climate) in the Caatinga, a SDTF in Brazil. Caatinga is characterized by semiarid climate and three distinct edaphic environments - sedimentary, crystalline, and inselberg -representing a decreasing gradient in soil water availability. We used two measures of phylogenetic diversity: Net Relatedness Index based on the entire phylogeny among species present in a site, reflecting long-term diversification; and Nearest Taxon Index based on the tips of the phylogeny, reflecting more recent diversification. We also evaluated woody species in contrast to herbaceous species. The main climatic variable influencing phylogenetic pattern was precipitation in the driest quarter, particularly for herbaceous species, suggesting that environmental filtering related to minimal periods of precipitation is an important driver of Caatinga biodiversity, as one might expect for a SDTF. Woody species tended to show phylogenetic clustering whereas herbaceous species tended towards phylogenetic overdispersion. We also found phylogenetic clustering in two edaphic environments (sedimentary and crystalline) in contrast to phylogenetic overdispersion in the third (inselberg). We conclude that while niche conservatism is evident in phylogenetic clustering in the Caatinga, this is not a universal pattern likely due to heterogeneity in the degree of realized environmental filtering across edaphic environments. Thus, SDTF, in spite of a strong shared environmental filter, are potentially heterogeneous in phylogenetic structuring. Our results support the need for scientifically informed conservation strategies in the Caatinga and other SDTF regions that have not previously been prioritized for conservation in order to take into account this heterogeneity.

Are fire, soil fertility and toxicity, water availability, plant functional diversity, and litter decomposition related in a Neotropical savanna?

Understanding how biodiversity and ecosystem functioning respond to changes in the environment is fundamental to the maintenance of ecosystem function. In realistic scenarios, the biodiversity-ecosystem functioning path may account for only a small share of all factors determining ecosystem function. Here, we investigated the strength to which variations in environmental characteristics in a Neotropical savanna affected functional diversity and decomposition. We sought an integrative approach, testing a number of pairwise hypotheses about how the environment, biodiversity, and functioning were linked. We used structural equation modelling to connect fire frequency, soil fertility, exchangeable Al, water availability, functional diversity of woody plants, tree density, tree height, and litter decomposition rates in a causal chain. We found significant effects of soil nutrients, water availability, and Al on functional diversity and litter decomposition. Fire did not have a significant direct effect on functional diversity or litter decomposition. However, fire was connected to both variables through soil fertility. Functional diversity did not influence rates of litter decomposition. The mediated effects that emerged from pairwise interactions are encouraging not only for predicting the functional consequences of changes in environmental variables and biodiversity, but also to caution against predictions based on only environmental or only biodiversity change.

Diversidades filogenética e funcional: novas abordagens para a Ecologia de comunidades / Phylogenetic and functional diversities: new approaches to community Ecology

Embora a diversidade pareça ser o conceito ecológico mais intuitivo, nenhuma definição consensual foi formulada. As medidas tradicionais de diversidade, que levam em conta apenas o número de espécies e suas contribuições relativas, têm se mostrado estimativas pouco preditivas da estrutura e do funcionamento das comunidades. Medidas de diversidade que incorporem informações sobre as relações filogenéticas das espécies ou suas características funcionais podem ser melhores do que as medidas tradicionais para muitas finalidades. Apresentamos uma pequena revisão das propriedades e aplicações de algumas medidas de diversidade. Enfatizamos aqui duas abordagens recentes e promissoras, as diversidades filogenética e funcional, que têm se mostrado mais sensíveis para detectar respostas das comunidades às mudanças ambientais. Na diversidade filogenética, as relações de parentesco entre as espécies são levadas em conta, enquanto que na diversidade funcional traços que devem ter relações com o funcionamento das comunidades são considerados. Discutimos ainda os desafios e as perspectivas para o uso dessas duas abordagens na ecologia.

Although diversity seems to be the most intuitive ecological concept, no consensual definition has been stated. Traditional diversity measures, which take into account only the number of species and their relative contribution, have little predictive power about the functioning of communities. Diversity measures that include information on phylogenetic relationships among species or their functional traits should be better than the traditional measures. We present a short review of the properties and applications of some diversity measures, emphasizing two recent and promising approaches, the phylogenetic and functional diversities, which have been shown to be more sensitive to detect responses of communities to environmental changes. In phylogenetic diversity, species relatedness is taken into account, whereas in functional diversity traits related with community functioning are considered. We also discuss challenges and perspectives for the use of these two approaches in ecology.