Mostly, researchers use phylogenetic turnover calculations to compare phylogenies among communities, test hypothesis relied on enviromental heterogeneity (e.g. climate) among communities, biomes or different vegetation types.
But, I'm in a doubt whether it is wrong to calculate phylogenetic turnover to figure out phylogenetic distances amog species' categories (e.g. dead and surviving trees) within communities or vegetation types when investigating processes such as competition, facilition, density-dependence.
It is knew that these mentioned processes happen in neighbour scale. So, theorically makes no sense use phylobetadiversity (phylo turnover) like I described to assumpt about hypothesis testing such small scale processes. On the other hand, I didn't read any publication saying that this phylogenetic metric is applibable just comparing communities, types .. over differente spatial scales. Or if I could use also to calculate phylo distances between species' categories (e.g. dead and recruit trees) within vegetation types when infering about the mentioned processes.
Has someone an explanation, reading recommendation or clue about this?
Must I only to calculate all possible phylogenetic distance between species' categories (e.g. dead and recruit trees) within each subplot of each study site?
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Evolutionary Biology
- Phylogenetics