Does phylogenetic relatedness influence the strength of competition among vascular plants?

A widely assumed but largely untested hypothesis central to ecology and evolutionary biology has been Charles Darwin's suggestion that closely related species will be more ecologically similar, and thus will compete more strongly with each other than they will with more distantly related specie...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Perspectives in plant ecology, evolution and systematics evolution and systematics, 2008-03, Vol.10 (1), p.41-50
Hauptverfasser: Cahill, James F., Kembel, Steven W., Lamb, Eric G., Keddy, Paul A.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 50
container_issue 1
container_start_page 41
container_title Perspectives in plant ecology, evolution and systematics
container_volume 10
creator Cahill, James F.
Kembel, Steven W.
Lamb, Eric G.
Keddy, Paul A.
description A widely assumed but largely untested hypothesis central to ecology and evolutionary biology has been Charles Darwin's suggestion that closely related species will be more ecologically similar, and thus will compete more strongly with each other than they will with more distantly related species. We provide one of the first direct tests of the “competition-relatedness hypothesis” by combining two data sets: the relative competitive ability of 50 vascular plant species competing against 92 competitor species measured in five multi-species experiments, and measures of the phylogenetic relatedness of these species. In contrast to Darwin's assertion, there were weak relationships between the strength of competition and phylogenetic relatedness. Across all species studied, the competition-relatedness relationship was weak and not significant. This overall lack of pattern masked different responses of monocot and eudicot focal (phytometer) species. When monocots served as the focal (phytometer) species, the intensity of competition increased with the phylogenetic distance separating species, while competition decreased with phylogenetic distance for eudicot phytometers. These results were driven by the monocot-eudicot evolutionary split, such that monocots were poor competitors against eudicots, while eudicots are most strongly suppressed by other eudicots. There was no relationship between relatedness and competition for eudicots competing with other eudicots, while monocots did compete more intensely with closely related monocots than with distantly related monocots. Overall, the relationships between competition intensity and relatedness were weak compared to the strong and consistent relationships between competitive ability and functional traits such as plant size that have been reported by other studies. We suggest that Darwin's assertion that competition will be strongest among closely related species is not supported by empirical data, at least for the 142 vascular plant species in this study.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.ppees.2007.10.001
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_19722756</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S1433831907000479</els_id><sourcerecordid>19722756</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c334t-313ccc55bdec3794e3e0fcc8928f4bf123acc1ced7be81c011e7cdaec952e1bb3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kD1PwzAQhi0EEqXwC1g8saXYcdIkA0KofEqVWGBhsZzLpXWV2MF2KvXf41Bmpjudnvd09xByzdmCM7683S2GAdEvUsaKOFkwxk_IjC95mbBMFKexz4RISsGrc3Lh_Y5FkOXZjHw9WvR02B46u0GDQQN12KmAjUHvqTZtN6IBpGGL1AeHZhO21LYUbD9EPGhrqOqt2dC98jB2ytGhUyb4-0ty1qrO49VfnZPP56eP1Wuyfn95Wz2sExAiC4ngAgDyvG4QRFFlKJC1AGWVlm1WtzwVCoADNkWNJQfGORbQKIQqT5HXtZiTm-PewdnvEX2QvfaAXbwC7eglr4o0LfJlBMURBGe9d9jKweleuYPkTE4e5U7-epSTx2kYPcbU3TGF8Ye9Ric96ElJox1CkI3V_-Z_ACDagEk</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>19722756</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Does phylogenetic relatedness influence the strength of competition among vascular plants?</title><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete</source><creator>Cahill, James F. ; Kembel, Steven W. ; Lamb, Eric G. ; Keddy, Paul A.</creator><creatorcontrib>Cahill, James F. ; Kembel, Steven W. ; Lamb, Eric G. ; Keddy, Paul A.</creatorcontrib><description>A widely assumed but largely untested hypothesis central to ecology and evolutionary biology has been Charles Darwin's suggestion that closely related species will be more ecologically similar, and thus will compete more strongly with each other than they will with more distantly related species. We provide one of the first direct tests of the “competition-relatedness hypothesis” by combining two data sets: the relative competitive ability of 50 vascular plant species competing against 92 competitor species measured in five multi-species experiments, and measures of the phylogenetic relatedness of these species. In contrast to Darwin's assertion, there were weak relationships between the strength of competition and phylogenetic relatedness. Across all species studied, the competition-relatedness relationship was weak and not significant. This overall lack of pattern masked different responses of monocot and eudicot focal (phytometer) species. When monocots served as the focal (phytometer) species, the intensity of competition increased with the phylogenetic distance separating species, while competition decreased with phylogenetic distance for eudicot phytometers. These results were driven by the monocot-eudicot evolutionary split, such that monocots were poor competitors against eudicots, while eudicots are most strongly suppressed by other eudicots. There was no relationship between relatedness and competition for eudicots competing with other eudicots, while monocots did compete more intensely with closely related monocots than with distantly related monocots. Overall, the relationships between competition intensity and relatedness were weak compared to the strong and consistent relationships between competitive ability and functional traits such as plant size that have been reported by other studies. We suggest that Darwin's assertion that competition will be strongest among closely related species is not supported by empirical data, at least for the 142 vascular plant species in this study.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1433-8319</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1618-0437</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.ppees.2007.10.001</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Elsevier GmbH</publisher><subject>Comparative analysis ; Competitive effect ; Evolution of competitive ability ; Phylogeny ; Phytometer</subject><ispartof>Perspectives in plant ecology, evolution and systematics, 2008-03, Vol.10 (1), p.41-50</ispartof><rights>2007 Rübel Foundation, ETH Zürich</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c334t-313ccc55bdec3794e3e0fcc8928f4bf123acc1ced7be81c011e7cdaec952e1bb3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c334t-313ccc55bdec3794e3e0fcc8928f4bf123acc1ced7be81c011e7cdaec952e1bb3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1433831907000479$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3537,27901,27902,65306</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Cahill, James F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kembel, Steven W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lamb, Eric G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Keddy, Paul A.</creatorcontrib><title>Does phylogenetic relatedness influence the strength of competition among vascular plants?</title><title>Perspectives in plant ecology, evolution and systematics</title><description>A widely assumed but largely untested hypothesis central to ecology and evolutionary biology has been Charles Darwin's suggestion that closely related species will be more ecologically similar, and thus will compete more strongly with each other than they will with more distantly related species. We provide one of the first direct tests of the “competition-relatedness hypothesis” by combining two data sets: the relative competitive ability of 50 vascular plant species competing against 92 competitor species measured in five multi-species experiments, and measures of the phylogenetic relatedness of these species. In contrast to Darwin's assertion, there were weak relationships between the strength of competition and phylogenetic relatedness. Across all species studied, the competition-relatedness relationship was weak and not significant. This overall lack of pattern masked different responses of monocot and eudicot focal (phytometer) species. When monocots served as the focal (phytometer) species, the intensity of competition increased with the phylogenetic distance separating species, while competition decreased with phylogenetic distance for eudicot phytometers. These results were driven by the monocot-eudicot evolutionary split, such that monocots were poor competitors against eudicots, while eudicots are most strongly suppressed by other eudicots. There was no relationship between relatedness and competition for eudicots competing with other eudicots, while monocots did compete more intensely with closely related monocots than with distantly related monocots. Overall, the relationships between competition intensity and relatedness were weak compared to the strong and consistent relationships between competitive ability and functional traits such as plant size that have been reported by other studies. We suggest that Darwin's assertion that competition will be strongest among closely related species is not supported by empirical data, at least for the 142 vascular plant species in this study.</description><subject>Comparative analysis</subject><subject>Competitive effect</subject><subject>Evolution of competitive ability</subject><subject>Phylogeny</subject><subject>Phytometer</subject><issn>1433-8319</issn><issn>1618-0437</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2008</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kD1PwzAQhi0EEqXwC1g8saXYcdIkA0KofEqVWGBhsZzLpXWV2MF2KvXf41Bmpjudnvd09xByzdmCM7683S2GAdEvUsaKOFkwxk_IjC95mbBMFKexz4RISsGrc3Lh_Y5FkOXZjHw9WvR02B46u0GDQQN12KmAjUHvqTZtN6IBpGGL1AeHZhO21LYUbD9EPGhrqOqt2dC98jB2ytGhUyb4-0ty1qrO49VfnZPP56eP1Wuyfn95Wz2sExAiC4ngAgDyvG4QRFFlKJC1AGWVlm1WtzwVCoADNkWNJQfGORbQKIQqT5HXtZiTm-PewdnvEX2QvfaAXbwC7eglr4o0LfJlBMURBGe9d9jKweleuYPkTE4e5U7-epSTx2kYPcbU3TGF8Ye9Ric96ElJox1CkI3V_-Z_ACDagEk</recordid><startdate>20080301</startdate><enddate>20080301</enddate><creator>Cahill, James F.</creator><creator>Kembel, Steven W.</creator><creator>Lamb, Eric G.</creator><creator>Keddy, Paul A.</creator><general>Elsevier GmbH</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7UA</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>RC3</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20080301</creationdate><title>Does phylogenetic relatedness influence the strength of competition among vascular plants?</title><author>Cahill, James F. ; Kembel, Steven W. ; Lamb, Eric G. ; Keddy, Paul A.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c334t-313ccc55bdec3794e3e0fcc8928f4bf123acc1ced7be81c011e7cdaec952e1bb3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2008</creationdate><topic>Comparative analysis</topic><topic>Competitive effect</topic><topic>Evolution of competitive ability</topic><topic>Phylogeny</topic><topic>Phytometer</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Cahill, James F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kembel, Steven W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lamb, Eric G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Keddy, Paul A.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Water Resources Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Perspectives in plant ecology, evolution and systematics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Cahill, James F.</au><au>Kembel, Steven W.</au><au>Lamb, Eric G.</au><au>Keddy, Paul A.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Does phylogenetic relatedness influence the strength of competition among vascular plants?</atitle><jtitle>Perspectives in plant ecology, evolution and systematics</jtitle><date>2008-03-01</date><risdate>2008</risdate><volume>10</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>41</spage><epage>50</epage><pages>41-50</pages><issn>1433-8319</issn><eissn>1618-0437</eissn><abstract>A widely assumed but largely untested hypothesis central to ecology and evolutionary biology has been Charles Darwin's suggestion that closely related species will be more ecologically similar, and thus will compete more strongly with each other than they will with more distantly related species. We provide one of the first direct tests of the “competition-relatedness hypothesis” by combining two data sets: the relative competitive ability of 50 vascular plant species competing against 92 competitor species measured in five multi-species experiments, and measures of the phylogenetic relatedness of these species. In contrast to Darwin's assertion, there were weak relationships between the strength of competition and phylogenetic relatedness. Across all species studied, the competition-relatedness relationship was weak and not significant. This overall lack of pattern masked different responses of monocot and eudicot focal (phytometer) species. When monocots served as the focal (phytometer) species, the intensity of competition increased with the phylogenetic distance separating species, while competition decreased with phylogenetic distance for eudicot phytometers. These results were driven by the monocot-eudicot evolutionary split, such that monocots were poor competitors against eudicots, while eudicots are most strongly suppressed by other eudicots. There was no relationship between relatedness and competition for eudicots competing with other eudicots, while monocots did compete more intensely with closely related monocots than with distantly related monocots. Overall, the relationships between competition intensity and relatedness were weak compared to the strong and consistent relationships between competitive ability and functional traits such as plant size that have been reported by other studies. We suggest that Darwin's assertion that competition will be strongest among closely related species is not supported by empirical data, at least for the 142 vascular plant species in this study.</abstract><pub>Elsevier GmbH</pub><doi>10.1016/j.ppees.2007.10.001</doi><tpages>10</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1433-8319
ispartof Perspectives in plant ecology, evolution and systematics, 2008-03, Vol.10 (1), p.41-50
issn 1433-8319
1618-0437
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_19722756
source Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete
subjects Comparative analysis
Competitive effect
Evolution of competitive ability
Phylogeny
Phytometer
title Does phylogenetic relatedness influence the strength of competition among vascular plants?
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-11T20%3A00%3A50IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Does%20phylogenetic%20relatedness%20influence%20the%20strength%20of%20competition%20among%20vascular%20plants?&rft.jtitle=Perspectives%20in%20plant%20ecology,%20evolution%20and%20systematics&rft.au=Cahill,%20James%20F.&rft.date=2008-03-01&rft.volume=10&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=41&rft.epage=50&rft.pages=41-50&rft.issn=1433-8319&rft.eissn=1618-0437&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.ppees.2007.10.001&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E19722756%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=19722756&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_els_id=S1433831907000479&rfr_iscdi=true