Scale decisions can reverse conclusions on community assembly processes.

AIM Phylogenetic diversity patterns are increasingly being used to better understand the role of ecological and evolutionary processes in community assembly. Here, we quantify how these patterns are influenced by scale choices in terms of spatial and environmental extent and organismic scales. LOCATION European Alps. METHODS We applied 42 sampling strategies differing in their combination of focal scales. For each resulting sub-dataset, we estimated the phylogenetic diversity of the species pools, phylogenetic α-diversities of local communities, and statistics commonly used together with null models in order to infer non-random diversity patterns (i.e. phylogenetic clustering versus over-dispersion). Finally, we studied the effects of scale choices on these measures using regression analyses. RESULTS Scale choices were decisive for revealing signals in diversity patterns. Notably, changes in focal scales sometimes reversed a pattern of over-dispersion into clustering. Organismic scale had a stronger effect than spatial and environmental extent. However, we did not find general rules for the direction of change from over-dispersion to clustering with changing scales. Importantly, these scale issues had only a weak influence when focusing on regional diversity patterns that change along abiotic gradients. MAIN CONCLUSIONS Our results call for caution when combining phylogenetic data with distributional data to study how and why communities differ from random expectations of phylogenetic relatedness. These analyses seem to be robust when the focus is on relating community diversity patterns to variation in habitat conditions, such as abiotic gradients. However, if the focus is on identifying relevant assembly rules for local communities, the uncertainty arising from a certain scale choice can be immense. In the latter case, it becomes necessary to test whether emerging patterns are robust to alternative scale choices.

[1]  F. Mazel,et al.  A family of null models to distinguish between environmental filtering and biotic interactions in functional diversity patterns. , 2013, Journal of vegetation science : official organ of the International Association for Vegetation Science.

[2]  Rudolf P. Rohr,et al.  Ecophylogenetics: advances and perspectives , 2012, Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society.

[3]  M. Pärtel,et al.  Functional species pool framework to test for biotic effects on community assembly. , 2012, Ecology.

[4]  B. R. Ramesh,et al.  Phylogenetic turnover in tropical tree communities: impact of environmental filtering, biogeography and mesoclimatic niche conservatism , 2012 .

[5]  W. Willner,et al.  The Alps Vegetation Database - a geo-referenced community-level archive of all terrestrial plants occurring in the Alps. , 2012 .

[6]  David L. Erickson,et al.  Change in community phylogenetic structure during tropical forest succession: evidence from New Guinea , 2012 .

[7]  Stéphane Dray,et al.  Assessing the effects of spatial contingency and environmental filtering on metacommunity phylogenetics , 2012 .

[8]  Kyle G. Dexter,et al.  Using functional traits and phylogenetic trees to examine the assembly of tropical tree communities , 2012 .

[9]  Wilfried Thuiller,et al.  From diversity indices to community assembly processes: a test with simulated data , 2012 .

[10]  Werner Ulrich,et al.  Statistical challenges in null model analysis , 2012 .

[11]  J. Lessard,et al.  Strong influence of regional species pools on continent-wide structuring of local communities , 2012, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[12]  P. Nelson,et al.  Does phylogenetic distance aid in detecting environmental gradients related to species composition , 2011 .

[13]  J. L. Parra,et al.  Contrasting patterns of phylogenetic assemblage structure along the elevational gradient for major hummingbird clades , 2011 .

[14]  F. Jiguet,et al.  Beyond taxonomic diversity patterns: how do α, β and γ components of bird functional and phylogenetic diversity respond to environmental gradients across France? , 2011 .

[15]  T. Davies,et al.  Phylogenetic diversity as a window into the evolutionary and biogeographic histories of present-day richness gradients for mammals , 2011, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[16]  Martin Zobel,et al.  Dark diversity: shedding light on absent species. , 2011, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[17]  L. Iverson,et al.  Geography, topography, and history affect realized‐to‐potential tree species richness patterns in Europe , 2010 .

[18]  Pedro Peres-Neto,et al.  Metacommunity phylogenetics: separating the roles of environmental filters and historical biogeography. , 2010, Ecology letters.

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

[20]  W. Thuiller,et al.  Resolving Darwin’s naturalization conundrum: a quest for evidence , 2010 .

[21]  Marta Halina,et al.  Phylogenetic community structure in Minnesota oak savanna is influenced by spatial extent and environmental variation , 2009 .

[22]  J. L. Parra,et al.  Phylogenetic structure in tropical hummingbird communities , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[23]  Campbell O. Webb,et al.  Emerging patterns in the comparative analysis of phylogenetic community structure , 2009, Molecular ecology.

[24]  B. Emerson,et al.  Phylogenetic analysis of community assembly and structure over space and time. , 2008, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[25]  Olivier J. Hardy,et al.  Testing the spatial phylogenetic structure of local communities: statistical performances of different null models and test statistics on a locally neutral community , 2008 .

[26]  L. Jost Partitioning diversity into independent alpha and beta components. , 2007, Ecology.

[27]  O. Hardy,et al.  Characterizing the phylogenetic structure of communities by an additive partitioning of phylogenetic diversity , 2007 .

[28]  J. Zimmerman,et al.  The problem and promise of scale dependency in community phylogenetics. , 2006, Ecology.

[29]  Jeannine Cavender-Bares,et al.  Phylogenetic structure of Floridian plant communities depends on taxonomic and spatial scale. , 2006, Ecology.

[30]  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.

[31]  Jonathan M. Chase,et al.  The metacommunity concept: a framework for multi-scale community ecology , 2004 .

[32]  Benjamin Gilbert,et al.  Neutrality, niches, and dispersal in a temperate forest understory. , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[33]  T. Garland,et al.  Tempo and mode in evolution: phylogenetic inertia, adaptation and comparative methods , 2002 .

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

[35]  M. Bertness,et al.  Positive interactions in communities. , 1994, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[36]  J. Diamond,et al.  Ecology and Evolution of Communities , 1976, Nature.

[37]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .

[38]  W. Thuiller,et al.  Building megaphylogenies for macroecology: taking up the challenge. , 2013, Ecography.