Experimental evidence that evolutionary relatedness does not affect the ecological mechanisms of coexistence in freshwater green algae.

The coexistence of competing species depends on the balance between their fitness differences, which determine their competitive inequalities, and their niche differences, which stabilise their competitive interactions. Darwin proposed that evolution causes species' niches to diverge, but the influence of evolution on relative fitness differences, and the importance of both niche and fitness differences in determining coexistence have not yet been studied together. We tested whether the phylogenetic distances between species of green freshwater algae determined their abilities to coexist in a microcosm experiment. We found that niche differences were more important in explaining coexistence than relative fitness differences, and that phylogenetic distance had no effect on either coexistence or on the sizes of niche and fitness differences. These results were corroborated by an analysis of the frequency of the co-occurrence of 325 pairwise combinations of algal taxa in > 1100 lakes across North America. Phylogenetic distance may not explain the coexistence of freshwater green algae.

[1]  D. Posada.  jModelTest: phylogenetic model averaging. , 2008, Molecular biology and evolution.

[2]  Awwa,et al.  Standard Methods for the examination of water and wastewater , 1999 .

[3]  A. E. Greenberg,et al.  Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater : supplement to the sixteenth edition , 1988 .

[4]  Thomas W. Schoener,et al.  Nonsynchronous Spatial Overlap of Lizards in Patchy Habitats , 1970 .

[5]  V. Volterra.  Variations and Fluctuations of the Number of Individuals in Animal Species living together , 1928 .

[6]  G. Gauze.  The struggle for existence, by G. F. Gause. , 1934 .

[7]  John-Arvid Grytnes,et al.  Niche conservatism as an emerging principle in ecology and conservation biology. , 2010, Ecology letters.

[8]  R. Macarthur,et al.  The Limiting Similarity, Convergence, and Divergence of Coexisting Species , 1967, The American Naturalist.

[9]  F. Brinkman,et al.  Phylogenetic analysis. , 1998, Methods of biochemical analysis.

[10]  G. E. Hutchinson,et al.  The Balance of Nature and Human Impact: The paradox of the plankton , 2013 .

[11]  D. Faith.  Conservation evaluation and phylogenetic diversity , 1992 .

[12]  J. Klironomos,et al.  Influence of Phylogeny on Fungal Community Assembly and Ecosystem Functioning , 2007, Science.

[13]  N. Pierce.  Origin of Species , 1914, Nature.

[14]  Alexander Isaev,et al.  PyEvolve: a toolkit for statistical modelling of molecular evolution , 2004, BMC Bioinformatics.

[15]  Jonathan M. Chase,et al.  Ecological Niches: Linking Classical and Contemporary Approaches , 2003 .

[16]  J. Cavender-Bares,et al.  Phylogenetic Overdispersion in Floridian Oak Communities , 2004, The American Naturalist.

[17]  Roger M Nisbet,et al.  Niche and fitness differences relate the maintenance of diversity to ecosystem function. , 2011, Ecology.

[18]  Lin Jiang,et al.  An Experimental Test of Darwin’s Naturalization Hypothesis , 2010, The American Naturalist.

[19]  D. Kreeger,et al.  COMBO: a defined freshwater culture medium for algae and zooplankton , 1998, Hydrobiologia.

[20]  J. HilleRisLambers,et al.  Rethinking Community Assembly through the Lens of Coexistence Theory , 2012 .

[21]  G. F. Gause.  The struggle for existence , 1971 .

[22]  Janneke HilleRisLambers,et al.  The importance of niches for the maintenance of species diversity , 2009, Nature.

[23]  S. Hubbell,et al.  The unified neutral theory of biodiversity and biogeography at age ten. , 2011, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[24]  J. Klironomos,et al.  Phylogenetic and Trait-Based Assembly of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungal Communities , 2012, PloS one.

[25]  L. Gómez‐Aparicio,et al.  Phylogenetic relatedness as a tool in restoration ecology: a meta-analysis , 2012, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[26]  M. Mayfield,et al.  Opposing effects of competitive exclusion on the phylogenetic structure of communities. , 2010, Ecology letters.

[27]  Matthew R. Pocock,et al.  The Bioperl toolkit: Perl modules for the life sciences. , 2002, Genome research.

[28]  Cyrille Violle,et al.  Phylogenetic limiting similarity and competitive exclusion. , 2011, Ecology letters.

[29]  J. H. Burns,et al.  More closely related species are more ecologically similar in an experimental test , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[30]  A. Rambaut,et al.  BEAST: Bayesian evolutionary analysis by sampling trees , 2007, BMC Evolutionary Biology.

[31]  R. Alford,et al.  Priority Effects in Experimental Pond Communities: Competition between Bufo and Rana , 1985 .

[32]  M. Wells,et al.  Variations and Fluctuations of the Number of Individuals in Animal Species living together , 2006 .

[33]  J. Stachowicz,et al.  Trait vs. phylogenetic diversity as predictors of competition and community composition in herbivorous marine amphipods. , 2013, Ecology letters.

[34]  J. Rougemont,et al.  A rapid bootstrap algorithm for the RAxML Web servers. , 2008, Systematic biology.

[35]  Naiara Rodríguez-Ezpeleta,et al.  Monophyly of Primary Photosynthetic Eukaryotes: Green Plants, Red Algae, and Glaucophytes , 2005, Current Biology.

[36]  Campbell O. Webb,et al.  Phylogenies and Community Ecology , 2002 .

[37]  J. Losos,et al.  Phylogenetic analysis of the evolution of the niche in lizards of the Anolis sagrei group. , 2006, Ecology.

[38]  C. Delwiche,et al.  PHYLOGENY OF THE CONJUGATING GREEN ALGAE BASED ON CHLOROPLAST AND MITOCHONDRIAL NUCLEOTIDE SEQUENCE DATA 1 , 2008, Journal of phycology.

[39]  A. Rescigno,et al.  On the competitive exclusion principle. , 1965, The Bulletin of mathematical biophysics.

[40]  Shahid Naeem,et al.  Functional and phylogenetic diversity as predictors of biodiversity--ecosystem-function relationships. , 2011, Ecology.

[41]  Campbell O. Webb,et al.  Exotic taxa less related to native species are more invasive. , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[42]  J. Losos.  Phylogenetic niche conservatism, phylogenetic signal and the relationship between phylogenetic relatedness and ecological similarity among species. , 2008, Ecology letters.

[43]  P. Chesson.  Mechanisms of Maintenance of Species Diversity , 2000 .

[44]  Robert C. Edgar,et al.  MUSCLE: a multiple sequence alignment method with reduced time and space complexity , 2004, BMC Bioinformatics.

[45]  Tadashi Fukami,et al.  Phylogenetic relatedness predicts priority effects in nectar yeast communities , 2012, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[46]  David Tilman,et al.  Tests of Resource Competition Theory Using Four Species of Lake Michigan Algae , 1981 .

[47]  D. Coomes,et al.  Competitive interactions between forest trees are driven by species' trait hierarchy, not phylogenetic or functional similarity: implications for forest community assembly. , 2012, Ecology letters.

[48]  G. van der Velde,et al.  Ecological niches. Linking classical and contemporary approaches , 2008 .

[49]  Todd H. Oakley,et al.  Evolutionary history and the effect of biodiversity on plant productivity , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[50]  G. F. Gause,et al.  EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS OF VITO VOLTERRA'S MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF THE STRUGGLE FOR EXISTENCE. , 1934, Science.

[51]  Peter B Adler,et al.  A niche for neutrality. , 2007, Ecology letters.

[52]  L. Revell,et al.  Phylogenetic signal, evolutionary process, and rate. , 2008, Systematic biology.

[53]  N. Swenson,et al.  Eco‐evolutionary differences in light utilization traits and distributions of freshwater phytoplankton , 2011 .

[54]  J. Cavender-Bares,et al.  The merging of community ecology and phylogenetic biology. , 2009, Ecology letters.

[55]  P. Keddy,et al.  Does phylogenetic relatedness influence the strength of competition among vascular plants , 2008 .