Refine
Document Type
- Article (3)
Language
- English (3)
Has Fulltext
- yes (3)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (3)
Keywords
- range size (3) (remove)
Success of invasive species has been frequently estimated as the present distribution range size in the introduced region. However, the present distribution range is only a picture of the invasion for a given time step and do not inform on the potential distribution range of the species. Based on niche-based models we used climatic, geographic and landscape information on the present distribution range for 78 major plant invaders in Spain to estimate and map their potential distribution range. We found a positive relationship between present and potential distribution of species. Most of the species have not yet occupied half of their potential distribution range. Sorghum halepense and Amaranthus retroflexus have the widest potential distribution range. Sorghum halepense and Robinia pseudoacacia have the highest relative occupancy (i.e. proportion of potential distribution range currently occupied). Species with a larger minimum residence time have, on average, higher relative occupancy. Our study warns managers that it might be only a matter of time that currently localized invasive species reach their potential area of distribution.
We aimed to assess the utility of the Global Compendium of Weeds (GCW) as an indicator of plant invasiveness, by relating it to invasiveness at smaller scales. We correlated two global measures of invasiveness for alien plant species taken from the GCW (the total number of references for each species and the number of continental areas they are reported from), against distribution data from 18 regions (countries and continents). To investigate relationships between correlation strength and region size and spatial resolution (size of distribution units), we conducted meta-analyses. Finally, invasiveness measures were correlated against the number of habitats occupied by alien plant species and their median abundance in those habitats, in fine-scale vegetation plots in the Czech Republic and the state of Montana (USA). The majority of Spearman’s rho coefficients between GCW-derived invasiveness and regional distributions were less than 0.4. Correlation strength was positively related to region size and resolution. Correlations were weaker when the number of habitats occupied by a species, and species abundances within occupied habitats, were considered. We suggest that the use of the GCW as an invasiveness measure is most appropriate for hypotheses posed at coarse, large scales. An exhaustive synthesis of existing regional distributions should provide a more accurate index of the global invasiveness of species.
The use of phylogenies in ecology is increasingly common and has broadened our understanding of biological diversity. Ecological sub-disciplines, particularly conservation, community ecology and macroecology, all recognize the value of evolutionary relationships but the resulting development of phylogenetic approaches has led to a proliferation of phylogenetic diversity metrics. The use of many metrics across the sub-disciplines hampers potential meta-analyses, syntheses, and generalizations of existing results. Further, there is no guide for selecting the appropriate metric for a given question, and different metrics are frequently used to address similar questions. To improve the choice, application, and interpretation of phylo-diversity metrics, we organize existing metrics by expanding on a unifying framework for phylogenetic information.
Generally, questions about phylogenetic relationships within or between assemblages tend to ask three types of question: how much; how different; or how regular? We show that these questions reflect three dimensions of a phylogenetic tree: richness, divergence, and regularity. We classify 70 existing phylo-diversity metrics based on their mathematical form within these three dimensions and identify ‘anchor’ representatives: for α-diversity metrics these are PD (Faith's phylogenetic diversity), MPD (mean pairwise distance), and VPD (variation of pairwise distances). By analysing mathematical formulae and using simulations, we use this framework to identify metrics that mix dimensions, and we provide a guide to choosing and using the most appropriate metrics. We show that metric choice requires connecting the research question with the correct dimension of the framework and that there are logical approaches to selecting and interpreting metrics. The guide outlined herein will help researchers navigate the current jungle of indices.