The relationship of phylogeny to community structure: The cactus yeast community

American Naturalist

Volumn 164, Issue 6, 2004, Pages 709-721

  Anderson, T Michael ^a   Lachance, Marc André ^b   Starmer, William T ^a  

^a SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO   (Canada)

Author keywords

Assembly rules; Community ecology; Community structure; Phylogenetic distance; Phylogeny; Species abundance

Indexed keywords

ABUNDANCE; ASSEMBLY RULE; COMMUNITY STRUCTURE; PHYLOGENY; RELATEDNESS;

CACTACEAE; OPUNTIA;

EID: 11944274043     PISSN: 00030147     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1086/425372     Document Type: Article

References (59)

1. Abranches, J., W. T. Starmer, and A. N. Hagler. 2001. The yeast-yeast interactions in guava and tomato fruits. Microbial Ecology 42:186-192.
2. Ackerly, D. D. 2004. Adaptation, niche conservatism, and convergence: comparative studies of leaf evolution in the California chaparral. American Naturalist 163:654-671.
3. Barker, J. S. F., and W. T. Starmer. 1982. Ecological genetics and evolution: the cactus-yeast-Drosophila model system. Academic Press, Sydney.
4. Barraclough, T. G., J. E. Hogan, and A. P. Vogler. 1999. Testing whether ecological factors promote cladogenesis in a group of tiger beetles (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae). Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 266:1061-1067.
5. Bell, G. 2001. Neutral macroecology. Science 293:2413-2418.
6. Caswell, H. 1976. Community structure: a neutral model analysis. Ecological Monographs 46:327-354.
7. Cavender-Bares, J., D. D. Ackerly, D. A. Baum, and F. A. Bazzaz. 2004. Phylogenetic overdispersion in Floridian oak communities. American Naturalist 163:823-843.
8. Connor, E. F., and D. Simberloff. 1979. The assembly of species communities: chance or competition? Ecology 60:1132-1140.
9. Darwin, C. 1859. The origin of species by means of natural selection. J. Murray, London.
10. Diaz, S., M. Cabido, and F. Casanoves. 1999. Functional implications of trait-environment linkages in plant communities. Pages 338-362 in E. Weiher and P. Keddy, eds. Ecological assembly rules: perspectives, advances, and retreats. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
11. Edwards, W., and M. Westoby. 2000. Families with the highest proportions of rare species are not consistent between floras. Journal of Biogeography 27:733-740.
12. Elton, C. 1946. Competition and the structure of ecological communities. Journal of Animal Ecology 15:54-68.
13. Felsenstein, J. 1993. PHYLIP (phylogeny inference package), version 3.5c. Department of Genetics, University of Washington, Seattle.
14. Fogleman, J. C., and J. R. Abril. 1990. Ecological and evolutionary importance of host plant chemistry. Pages 121-143 in J. S. F. Barker, W. T. Starmer, and R. J. MacIntyre, eds. Ecological and evolutionary genetics of Drosophila. Plenum, New York.
15. Ganter, P. F., W. T. Starmer, M. A. Lachance, and H. J. Phaff. 1986. Yeast communities from host plants and associated Drosophila in southern Arizona: new isolations and analysis of the relative importance of hosts and vectors on community composition. Oecologia (Berlin) 70:386-392.
16. Gaston, K. 1994. Rarity. Chapman & Hall, New York.
17. Gibson, A. C., and P. S. Nobel. 1986. The cactus primer. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.
18. Gottelli, N. J., and G. R. Graves. 1996. Null models in ecology. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
19. Grace, J. B. 1999. The factors controlling species density in herbaceous plant communities: an assessment. Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 2:1-28.
20. Grandcolas, P. 1998. Phylogenetic analysis and the study of community structure. Oikos 82:397-400.
21. Grime, J. P. 1979. Plant strategies and vegetation processes. Wiley, Chichester.
22. Harvey, P. H., A. J. Leigh Brown, J. Maynard Smith, and S. Nee. 1996. New uses for new phylogenies. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
23. Heed, W. B. 1978. Ecology and genetics of Sonoran Desert Drosophila. Pages 109-126 in P. F. Brussard, ed. Ecological genetics: the interface. Springer, New York.
24. _. 1982. The origin of Drosophila in the Sonoran Desert. Pages 65-80 in J. S. F. Barker and W. T. Starmer, eds. Ecological genetics and evolution: the cactus-yeast-Drosophila model system. Academic Press, Sydney.
25. Hubbell, S. P. 2001. The unified neutral theory of biodiversity and biogeography. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.
26. Hutchinson, G. E. 1959. Homage to Santa Rosalia or why are there so many kinds of animals? American Naturalist 93:153-159.
27. Karlson, R. H., and H. V. Cornell. 1998. Scale-dependent variation in local vs. regional effects on coral species richness. Ecological Monographs 68:259-274.
28. Keddy, P., and E. Weiher. 1999. Introduction: the scope and goals of research on assembly rules. Pages 1-20 in E. Weiher and P. Keddy, eds. Ecological assembly rules: perspectives, advances, and retreats. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
29. Kimura, M. 1980. A simple method for estimating evolutionary rate of base substitutions through comparative studies of nucleotide sequences. Journal of Molecular Evolution 16:111-120.
30. Kircher, H. 1982. Chemical composition of cacti and its relationship to Sonoran Desert Drosophila. Pages 143-158 in J. S. F. Barker and W. T. Starmer, eds. Ecological genetics and evolution: the cactus-yeast-Drosophila model system. Academic Press, Sydney.
31. Lachance, M. A., W. T. Starmer, and H. J. Phaff. 1988. Identification of yeasts found in decaying cactus tissue. Canadian Journal of Microbiology 34:1025-1036.
32. Latham, B. P. 1998. Yeast community persistence in a spatially structured environment. Microbial Ecology 36:60-65.
33. Legendre, P., and L. Legendre. 1998. Numerical ecology. 2d ed. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
34. Losos, J. B. 1996. Phylogenetic perspectives on community ecology. Ecology 77:1344-1354.
35. Losos, J. B., and F. R. Adler. 1995. Stumped by trees? a generalized null model for patterns of organismal diversity. American Naturalist 145:329-342.
36. MacArthur, R. H., and R. Levins. 1964. Competition, habitat selection and character displacement in a patchy environment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 51:1207-1210.
37. _. 1967. The limiting similarity, convergence, and divergence of coexisting species. American Naturalist 101:377-385.
38. May, R. M. 1975. Patterns of species abundance and diversity. Pages 81-120 in M. L. Cody and J. Diamond, eds. Ecology and evolution of communities. Belknap, Cambridge.
39. McPeek, M. A., and T. E. Miller. 1996. Evolutionary biology and community ecology. Ecology 77:1319-1320.
40. Murray, B. R., and M. Westoby. 2000. Properties of species in the tail of rank-abundance curves: the potential for increases in abundance. Evolutionary Ecology Research 2:583-592.
41. Nel, A., J. Nel, G. Masselot, and A. Thomas. 1998. An investigation into the application of the Wagner parsimony method in synecology. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 65:165-189.
42. Partel, M., M. Moora, and M. Zobel. 2001. Variation in species richness within and between calcareous (alvar) grassland stands: the role of core and satellite species. Plant Ecology 157:203-211.
43. Ricklefs, R. E. 1987. Community diversity: relative roles of local and regional processes. Science 235:167-171.
44. Schoener, T. W. 1983. Field experiments on interspecific competition. American Naturalist 122:240-285.
45. Schwartz, M. W., and D. Simberloff 2001. Taxon size predicts rates of rarity in vascular plants. Ecology Letters 4:464-469.
46. Silvertown, J., M. E. Dodd, D. J. G. Gowing, and J. O. Mountford. 1999. Hydrologically defined niches reveal a basis for species richness in plant communities. Nature 400:61-63.
47. Starmer, W. T. 1982. Analysis of the community structure of yeasts associated with the decaying stems of cactus I. Stenocereus gummosus. Microbial Ecology 8:71-81.
48. Starmer, W. T., and J. C. Fogleman. 1986. Coadaptation of Drosophila and yeasts in their natural habitat. Journal of Chemical Ecology 12:1035-1053.
49. Starmer, W. T., M. A. Lachance, H. J. Phaff, and W. B. Heed. 1990. The biogeography of yeasts associated with decaying cactus tissue in North America, the Caribbean and Northern Venezuela. Evolutionary Biology 24:253-296.
50. Starmer, W. T., J. C. Fogleman, and M.-A. Lachance. 1991. The yeast community of cacti. Pages 158-178 in J. H. Andrews and S. S. Hirano, eds. Microbial ecology of leaves. Springer, New York
51. Starmer, W. T., R. A. Schmedicke, and M. A. Lachance. 2003. The origin of the cactus-yeast community. FEMS Yeast Research 3:441-448.
52. Tilman, D. 1982. Resources competition and community structure. Monographs in Population Biology 17. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
53. van der Valk, A. G. 1981. Succession in wetlands: a Gleasonian approach. Ecology 62:688-696.
54. Webb, C. O. 2000. Exploring the phylogenetic structure of ecological communities: an example for rainforest trees. American Naturalist 156:145-155.
55. Webb, C. O., D. D. Ackerly, M. A. McPeek, and M. J. Donoghue. 2002. Phylogenies and community ecology. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 33:475-505.
56. Weiher, E., and P. Keddy. 1995. Assembly rules, null models, and trait dispersion: new questions from old patterns. Oikos 74:159-164.
57. _. 1999. Assembly rules as general constraints on community composition. Pages 251-271 in E. Weiher and P. Keddy, eds. Ecological assembly rules: perspectives, advances, and retreats. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
58. Whittaker, R. H. 1965. Dominance and diversity in land plant communities. Science 147:250-260.
59. Zobel, M. 1997. The relative role of species pools in determining plant species richness: an alternative explanation of species coexistence? Trends in Ecology & Evolution 12:266-269.