Conserving evolutionary history does not result in greater diversity over geological time scales.

Alternative prioritization strategies have been proposed to safeguard biodiversity over macroevolutionary time scales. The first prioritizes the most distantly related species-maximizing phylogenetic diversity (PD)-in the hopes of capturing at least some lineages that will successfully diversify into the future. The second prioritizes lineages that are currently speciating, in the hopes that successful lineages will continue to generate species into the future. These contrasting schemes also map onto contrasting predictions about the role of slow diversifiers in the production of biodiversity over palaeontological time scales. We consider the performance of the two schemes across 10 dated species-level palaeo-phylogenetic trees ranging from Foraminifera to dinosaurs. We find that prioritizing PD for conservation generally led to fewer subsequent lineages, while prioritizing diversifiers led to modestly more subsequent diversity, compared with random sets of lineages. Importantly for conservation, the tree shape when decisions are made cannot predict which scheme will be most successful. These patterns are inconsistent with the notion that long-lived lineages are the source of new species. While there may be sound reasons for prioritizing PD for conservation, long-term species production might not be one of them.

Influence of tree shape and evolutionary time-scale on phylogenetic diversity metrics.

During the last decades, describing, analysing and understanding the phylogenetic structure of species assemblages has been a central theme in both community ecology and macro-ecology. Among the wide variety of phylogenetic structure metrics, three have been predominant in the literature: Faith's phylogenetic diversity (PDFaith), which represents the sum of the branch lengths of the phylogenetic tree linking all species of a particular assemblage, the mean pairwise distance between all species in an assemblage (MPD) and the pairwise distance between the closest relatives in an assemblage (MNTD). Comparisons between studies using one or several of these metrics are difficult because there has been no comprehensive evaluation of the phylogenetic properties each metric captures. In particular it is unknown how PDFaith relates to MDP and MNTD. Consequently, it is possible that apparently opposing patterns in different studies might simply reflect differences in metric properties. Here, we aim to fill this gap by comparing these metrics using simulations and empirical data. We first used simulation experiments to test the influence of community structure and size on the mismatch between metrics whilst varying the shape and size of the phylogenetic tree of the species pool. Second we investigated the mismatch between metrics for two empirical datasets (gut microbes and global carnivoran assemblages). We show that MNTD and PDFaith provide similar information on phylogenetic structure, and respond similarly to variation in species richness and assemblage structure. However, MPD demonstrate a very different behaviour, and is highly sensitive to deep branching structure. We suggest that by combining complementary metrics that are sensitive to processes operating at different phylogenetic depths (i.e. MPD and MNTD or PDFaith) we can obtain a better understanding of assemblage structure.

A family of null models to distinguish between environmental filtering and biotic interactions in functional diversity patterns.

QUESTIONS: Traditional null models used to reveal assembly processes from functional diversity patterns are not tailored for comparing different spatial and evolutionary scales. In this study, we present and explore a family of null models that can help disentangling assembly processes at their appropriate scales and thereby elucidate the ecological drivers of community assembly. LOCATION: French Alps. METHODS: Our approach gradually constrains null models by: (1) filtering out species not able to survive in the regional conditions in order to reduce the spatial scale, and (2) shuffling species only within lineages of different ages to reduce the evolutionary scale of the analysis. We first tested and validated this approach using simulated communities. We then applied it to study the functional diversity patterns of the leaf-height-seed strategy of plant communities in the French Alps. RESULTS: Using simulations, we found that reducing the spatial scale correctly detected a signature of competition (functional divergence) even when environmental filtering produced an overlaying signal of functional convergence. However, constraining the evolutionary scale did not change the identified functional diversity patterns. In the case study of alpine plant communities, investigating scale effects revealed that environmental filtering had a strong influence at larger spatial and evolutionary scales and that neutral processes were more important at smaller scales. In contrast to the simulation study results, decreasing the evolutionary scale tended to increase patterns of functional divergence. CONCLUSION: We argue that the traditional null model approach can only identify a single main process at a time and suggest to rather use a family of null models to disentangle intertwined assembly processes acting across spatial and evolutionary scales.