Abstract
Ecological differences may be related to community component divisions between Oriental (west) and Sino-Japanese (east) realms, and such differences may result in weak geographical breaks in migratory species that are highly mobile. Here, we conducted comparative phylogenetic and functional structure analyses of wintering waterbird communities in southern China across two realms and subsequently examined possible climate drivers of the observed patterns. An analysis based on such highly migratory species is particularly telling because migration is bound to reduce or completely eliminate any divergence between communities. Phylogenetic and functional structure of eastern communities showed over-dispersion while western communities were clustered. Basal phylogenetic and functional turnover of western communities was significant lower than that of eastern communities. The break between eastern and western communities was masked by these two realms. Geographic patterns were related to mean temperature changes and temperature fluctuations, suggesting that temperature may filter waterbird lineages and traits, thus underlying geographical community divisions. These results suggest phylogenetic and functional divisions in southern China, coinciding with biogeography. This study shows that temperature fluctuations constitute an essential mechanism shaping geographical divisions that have largely gone undetected previously, even under climate change.
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
In a recent large-scale biogeographical analysis, Holt et al. identified a distinct Sino-Japanese realm extending from Tibet in the west to the major Japanese archipelago in the east1. According to Holt et al., the new Sino-Japanese realm lies between c. 25°N and 40° N in East Asia. In southern China, the Oriental/Sino-Japanese boundary lies between c. 113°–114° E contributing to the east part of southern China as Sino-Japanese and the western part of southern China as Oriental.
Multiple drivers have shaped the biogeographical regions of the world2. Generally, sharp changes in climatic conditions determine extant biogeographical boundaries2,3,4. Limited divergences occur in areas with abrupt climatic transitions5. Indeed, climate is a major determinant of present-day limits of species distributions6 and ecological turnover is higher between regions with dissimilar climatic features7,8. To predict responses to climate change, ecologists must understand the patterns of temperature variation, the mechanisms by which animals cope with this variation, and demographic and fitness consequences9,10. Because geographic breaks depend on environmental variation and how this affects species interactions, the joint study of environmental variation and community structure has the potential to provide a mechanistic bridge for linking geographical breaks and community structures under different scenarios of environmental change11,12.
To understand the nature of a geographical break or ecological differences, it may be relevant to examine the phylogenetic and functional structure of communities that are distributed across this spatial context. Phylogenetic studies mostly focus on divergence among co-occurring species13,14. Phylogenetic structure represents variation in evolutionary history among species, and is based on the evolutionary distance between species in a phylogeny15. Functional structure reflects variability in ecological attributes among species or individuals16. Functional studies mostly focus on the ecological niche because they arose in a given environment, associated with particular selective pressures. Phylogenetic fields are likely to be related to specific traits that reflect variation in large-scale habitat or climatic preferences17,18. Climatic tolerances are not randomly distributed across phylogenies. Species sensitivities to climate change are expected to be clustered across the phylogeny19. This phylogenetic cluster may be associated with a clustered functional structure with reduced functional alpha and beta diversity if the habitat is filtering a subset of functional traits20. This could occur either if functional traits have a phylogenetic signal21. Thus, the joint study of phylogenetic and functional structures is necessary to provide a mechanistic approach for determining co-occurrence.
By comparing the phylogenetic and functional structure of wintering waterbird communities, disentangling drivers of patterns, we address two questions: (1) Whether phylogenetic and functional geographical breaks can be demonstrated in southern China; and (2) how phylogenetic and functional structures associate with temperature dynamics. This study contributes to an understanding of the evolution of controversial geographical regions in East Asian and its associated factors.
Results
Phylogenetic structures across geographical regions
Phylogenetic structures of wintering waterbird communities showed clear geographical differences across regions. The trends shifted from cluster towards overdispersion from west to east (Fig. 1(a,b)). Specifically, SES (MPD) and SES (MNTD) were significantly different between west and east (both Padj < 0.01, Table S1), dominant phylogenetic groups shifted from west to east, Charadriidae and Scolopacidae dominating in the west, Charadriidae, Scolopacidae and Anatidae dominating in the central part and Anatidae dominating in the east (see Supplementary Figs S1,S2).
The basal phylogenetic turnover (D′pw) differed significantly between regions (Padj < 0.01, Fig. 1(c) and Table S1). The pattern of phylogenetic beta diversity also differed between west and the center when analyzing D′nn (Padj = 0.02, Fig. 1(d), Table S1).
Functional structures across geographical regions
Analyses of trait evolution showed that despite exhibiting a phylogenetic signal, traits tended to be evolutionarily labile because the resemblance between species was generally lower than expected under Brownian motion evolution (Table S2).
There were also shifts in dominant functional groups from west to east. Functional structure of waterbird communities also showed clear geographical trends across regions (Fig. 2). Specifically, Trait SES (MPD) increased towards overdispersion from west to east with a weak trend (Fig. 2(a)). Trait SES (MNTD) differed significantly between west and east, indicating that community functional structure shifted towards overdispersion from west to east (Fig. 2(b)).
Trait D′pw was lower in the west than in both center and east (both Padj < 0.001, Fig. 2(c), while beta diversity did not differ from west to east when using trait D′nn (Padj = 0.19, Fig. 2(d)).
Drivers of phylogenetic and functional patterns
When relating temperature factors to waterbird community dissimilarity, factors related to temperature fluctuation emerged as most important. Specially, WSTF (P = 0.05) was the most important factors for D′pw (Fig. 3(a)). ATF, WSTF, WTF and AWTF (All P ≤ 0.01) were the most important factors for D′nn (Fig. 3(b)). ATF, WSFT and AWTF (All P ≤ 0.02) were the most important factor for trait D′pw (Fig. 3(c)). ATF, WTF, WSTF and AWTF (All P ≤ 0.01) were the most important factors for trait D′nn (Fig. 3(d)).
Discussion
The effects of geographical differences on phylogenetic structures
Wintering waterbirds of southern China are a particularly valuable faunal assemblage that is suitable for testing general hypotheses about phylogenetic patterns and processes in mainland environments as a result of the unique geological and evolutionary history of the region. Using a comprehensive waterbird community dataset for southern China, we were able to demonstrate that phylogenetic patterns different between west and east. Overall, within-community waterbirds structure (SES (MPD) and SES (MNTD)) are significantly different between these two realms. The basal phylogenetic turnover (D′pw) of the western was significantly lower than that of the eastern part. Our results largely match the phylogenetic-based scheme of Holt et al.1, which suggest that the Sino-Japanese realm should be defined based on the phylogenetic distance that differ between Sino-Japanese and Oriental realms.
Even though Kreft & Jetz22 argued that only counts of branches, not their actual lengths, for quantifying dissimilarity will ignores considerable differences in the ages of clades and regions. Thus they recommended new approaches that account for all species in a single quantitative framework and that estimate branch lengths and uncertainty22. We investigated phylogenetic structures with distance-based metrics examining and contrasting the pairwise phylogenetic distances between species or distances for the nearest phylogenetic neighbor23. Those novel approaches can produce alternative, even refined, insights into the phylogenetic structure of assemblages. Accordingly, we confirm these geographical differences based on quality of data and choice of algorithm used.
Effects of temperature fluctuations on phylogenetic and functional structures
The borders of biomes can readily be predicted from environmental variables24. Our regional study confirms the importance of environmentally determined differences. Thus, this separation should be described as an environmentally determined difference. Average temperature fluctuations compared to average temperatures emerged as sensitive determinants of phylogenetic and functional patterns in general. However, Ficetola et al. suggested that temperature heterogeneity is the strongest correlate of differences among these regions2.
Patterns of significant phylogenetic clustering and lower basal turnover (D′pw) in western waterbirds in the wetlands with greater temperature fluctuations suggest relatively harsher environmental conditions in parts of the west (Fig. S3). Climate fluctuation is acting as an ecological filter, only allowing a subset of species to colonize and survive. In the western region, an absence of Anatidae in most communities contributed to its clustering. Climatic tolerance variesy among species, causing some species to be more vulnerable to climate change than others10. The decline in beta diversity (D′pw) was associated with the decline in alpha diversity, because the same subset of species should be found in spatially disparate regions with temperature fluctuations25.
We also found shifts in the dominant functional trend across regions, with atransition from the west with Charadriidae with small body mass to the east with Anatidae with large body mass. Previous studies revealed that large species were the most clustered in broad-scaled bird co-occurrence patterns over evolutionary timescales19. Furthermore, environmental fluctuations filter for particular properties of size distributions whiles smaller organisms tend to be favored under warmer conditions26,27. As each individual must meet its metabolic demands, larger organisms will suffer disproportionately under rising temperatures because of their higher per capita metabolic rate28. Larger, longer-lived organisms with slower life cycles are most likely to face local extinction, because acute effects are the strongest when manifested within a single generation29. Increasing temperature fluctuations were alsoimportant as the increasing harshness of climatic conditions towards higher elevations is the most plausible explanation for the decrease in species richness at higher elevations30,31.
Incorporating temperature fluctuation into our understanding of wintering waterbird community structure and turnover has already been shown to further our understanding about the drivers for geographical patterns. Therefore, temperature fluctuations can be important when predicting the geographical distribution of all birds.
The relationships between phylogenetic and functional structures
Our findings indicate that traits tended to be evolutionarily labile with a significant phylogenetic signal. Furthermore, phylogenetic basal diversity (D′pw) and functional basal diversity (trait D′pw) were positively correlated, and this pattern seems to be driven by taxon diversity: the relationship between D′pw and trait D′pw was not significant when we controlled for taxon diversity (TD, Table S4). However, this is in agreement with the results for phylogenetic signal, which displayed similar weak niche conservatism across regions. Consequently, a weak correlation between D′pw and trait D′pw is expected15. Thus environmental conditions among geographic regions that promoted different rates of trait evolution and speciation32,33.
However, the mechanism that drives the consistent relationship between phylogeny and function across geographic regions remains unclear. It is possible that the same result could occur in different regions independent of the mechanism. For instance, the stress-gradient hypothesis34 states that regional phylogenetic or functional diversity is filtered to a greater degree in local communities located in abiotically harsher than in benign habitats. If harsh conditions are not filtering phylogenetic or functional diversity components at the same rates, the relationship between phylogeny and function would be untenable.
Conclusions
Using a novel phylogenetic perspective, we provide evidence that geographical patterns differd between wintering waterbirds. Geographical patterns exhibited consistent deviations that suggest the existence of structuring mechanisms, with structure being clustered in the west and overdispersion in the east. Less temperature fluctuations in the east may create more expansive niche space that can support viable populations and may allow for greater niche differentiation in these habitats. In contrast, the western part has less structural complexity, and represents inhospitable and stressful conditions, which could result in physiological constraints leading to competitive exclusion in which better adapted clades out compete other clades for limited resources.
Methods
Study area
This study was carried out in southern China prefecture (21°30′ N, 111°00′ E to 23°50′ N, 116°59′ E) located across the geographical break of the Oriental/Sino-Japanese realms. This area is also located within the East Asian-Australasian Flyway and harbors a large fraction of global waterbird diversity in its coastal wetland landscape35,36,37,38. These species are migrants that breed across the northern temperate belt from the Atlantic to the Pacific coastal wetlands. The wintering distributional ranges of those species cover major areas of Southern China and extend across the boundary between the Oriental and Sino-Japanese realms35. Like many parts globally, changes in climate could dramatically change the biodiversity landscape in this area39,40, making it a pressing need for understanding the implications for biodiversity. Community composition of wintering waterbird has not been well characterized in the region, with (to our knowledge) only two thorough waterbird surveys performed to date41,42.
Sites were assigned to different geographic regions using a map provided by the Geospatial Data Cloud (http://www.gscloud.cn/). Communities were found in one of three regions: west (Oriental, 111°00′–112°59′), center (Orien-SiJa, 113°00′–114°59′) and east (Sino-Japanese, 115°00′–116°59′).
Bird surveys
Bird surveys took place during winter 2014 (December 2014 to January 2015), when the most-contrasting weather conditions occur in local coastal wetlands. Birds were counted in 42 coastal wetlands in Southern China (Fig. S1). The duration of surveys among wetlands (distance less than 20 km) were restricted to one day. We also restricted the duration of the survey to minimize errors attributable to inter-site movements. The “look-see” counting method was used, in which we selected a suitable vantage point and subsequently counted all visible waterbirds43. We used 12 × 50 binoculars to locate birds, and a hand-held GPS unit with a 5-m error to measure distances within and among wetlands. Scientific nomenclature and taxonomic sequence follow Jetz et al.44.
Building the avian phylogenetic tree
Sets of 10,000 pseudo-posterior samples of phylogenetic trees were downloaded from http://birdtree.org/. We subsampled 1000 ‘Ericson All Species: a set of 10,000 trees with 9993 OUT each’ trees pruned for our full set of species and using the tree developed by Hackett et al. as a “backbone”45. From these 1000 trees, we calculated a maximum clade credibility tree using mean node heights with the software TreeAnnotator of the BEAST 2 package for use in subsequent analyses46.
Functional traits and phylogenetic structure of waterbird communities
Four functional traits were selected to calculate functional diversity using a Gower dissimilarity matrix. The functional traits selected reflected morphological, physiological, reproductive, and phenology characteristics of each species. Although using traits to characterize the functional roles of species undoubtedly misses some aspects of the ecologies of species, direct links have been demonstrated between functional traits and diet, foraging pattern, and habitat preference16,47. For example, beak length and tarsus length were used to represent food capture, resource acquisition and allocation strategies of species, which are directly associated with competitive ability48,49. Trait values were obtained from the Birds of China and the online database “The Handbook of the Bird of the World (http://www.hbw.com)” using information for populations that occur in our study area whenever possible. Mean trait values for species were used for continuous traits. In this study, we collected traits measured to the nearest mm (potential waterbird wing length, beak length, and tarsus length) and body mass measured to the nearest gram.
To assess whether the four continuous traits were evolutionarily conserved or labile in waterbirds, we conducted a test using the multiPhylosignal function in Picante. We first employed a randomization test for phylogenetic signal50, which calculates the variance of the independent contrasts of each trait across the phylogeny and compares it with a null distribution of the variance of trait’s independent contrasts obtained from 1000 randomizations of the traits among species. Observed variances lying on the first or last 25 quantiles of the 1000 randomizations were considered evidence of significant phylogenetic signal or antisignal, respectively. We then used the K statistic to quantify the strength of the phylogenetic signal of traits relative to signal expected for traits evolving under Brownian motion. If K equals zero, differences in traits between species are proportional to the branch lengths separating them on the phylogeny. If K is greater than one, then traits are considered conserved because close relatives are more similar than expected under Brownian motion evolution; and if K is lower than one, then traits are considered labile.
Functional and phylogenetic alpha diversity
We calculated MPD and MNTD among species in each community15,51. We performed this analysis using abundance-based data. We used an identical framework to calculate trait MPD and trait MNTD. Furthermore, we compared these indices to null models to test whether the phylogenetic and functional structures differed from random expectations. Specifically, we made the identities of those species random draws from the whole species pool, and then maintained the species richness of each community to generate random communities. The standardized effect sizes (SES) of MPD, MNTD, MFD, and MNFD were calculated as
where Xobs is the observed value of MPD, MNTD, trait MPD or trait MNTD, Xnull is the simulated values and SDnull is standard deviation of the simulated values. SES (MPD) and SES (MNTD) are equivalent to -1 times the net relatedness index (NRI) and the nearest taxon index (NTI), respectively. Positive SES values suggest phylogenetic or functional overdispersion, while negative values indicate clustering.
MPD is more sensitive to tree-wide distributions of lineages, whereas MNTD tends to be more sensitive to the distribution of lineages close to the tips of the tree15,52. The measures MPD and trait MPD represented “tree-wide” clustering and evenness, respectively, and phylodiversity and functional diversity were measured by MNTD and trait MNTD as indices of clustering and evenness toward the tips of the tree. Processes including dispersal, habitat specialization, and speciation have very different predicted effects on phylogenetic and functional diversity depending on how they are measured. These processes occurred in the distant past, and therefore effects on the entire clade of organisms are indicated by non-random patterns of MPD or trait MPD, whereas more recent processes, such as those during the past several million years, are indicated by significantly non-random patterns of MNTD or trait MNTD.
Phylogenetic and functional beta diversity
Phylogenetic and functional beta diversity were calculated between pairs of plots belonging to the same or to different regions, to assess geographical turnover in phylogenetic and functional diversity. Both phylogenetic and functional beta diversity were calculated using two distance-based measurement metrics, the abundance weight pairwise distance metric (D′pw and trait D′pw), and the abundance weight nearest neighbor distance metric (D′nn and trait D′nn)23.
for D′pw and trait D′pw, where δ i is the mean pairwise phylogenetic or functional distance between species i in community k1 to all species in community k2, and δ j is the mean pairwise phylogenetic or functional distance between species j in community k2 to all species in community k1, and ƒ i and ƒ j are the relative abundances of species i and species j. For D′nn and trait D′nn, where min \({\delta }_{{{ik}}_{2}}\) is the nearest phylogenetic or functional neighbor to species i in community k1 to community k2, and min \({{\rm{\delta }}}_{{{jk}}_{1}}\) is the nearest phylogenetic or functional neighbor of species j in community k2 to community k1, and ƒ i and ƒ j are the relative abundance of species i and species j.
A pairwise distance metric generally reflects the overall dissimilarity between communities, while nearest neighbor distance metric is likely better for qualifying the patterns among close related species between different communities23. Null model communities for analyzing functional and phylogenetic beta diversities were generated by randomly shuffling richness cross the tips of phylogenetic tree or the traits matrix for 999 times23. Next, we used partial Mantel tests to calculate the correlation coefficients for pairs of dissimilarity matrices. Statistical significance was calculated with a Mantel Carlo permutation test using 999 permutations53.
Temperature variables correlated with the community structures
Based on the knowledge on the main climatic drivers of the wintering waterbird distributions, we selected eight temperature variables as potential explanatory variables for wintering waterbird community’s structures: (1) average temperature, (2) temperature fluctuation. The average temperature predictors included mean annual temperature (MAT), mean autumn temperature (MAuT), mean wintering temperature (MWT) and mean spring temperature (MST).The average temperature conditions for each 0.5°-grid cell were derived from the China Meteorological Data Sharing Service System (http://data.cma.cn). Temperature fluctuation predictors included annual temperature fluctuation (ATF), autumn-winter temperature fluctuation (AWTF), winter temperature fluctuation (WTF) and winter-spring temperature fluctuation (WSTF) which were calculated according to monthly temperature.
We used adequate dissimilarity measures (Function metaMDS in the vegan library) recommended in community ordination to measure how temperature variables are correlated with phylogenetic and functional dissimilar53. Accordingly, we performed envfit function to get the p-value of correlation of each variable with overall waterbird communities. We performed two-dimensional nonparametric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) to plotting ecological correlates in the ordination to visualize the relationships among the communities and the determinant factors as recommended by Minchin (1987)54. The temperature vectors give the direction cosines which are the coordinates of the heads of unit length vectors. These “weak” predictors have shorter arrows than “strong” predictors. Then, we scaled relative lengths using command scores.
One-way ANOVA was used to analyze whether phylogenetic or functional structure or temperature differed significantly across different regions. Similarly, all pair-wise differences were interpreted using Tukey’s HSD post hoc tests. In addition, the correlations were computed using Pearson’s correlation coefficient.
These analyses were performed with R package picante, vegan, phyloch and multcomp in R version 3.2.2.
References
Holt, B. et al. An update of Wallace’s zoogeographic regions of the world. Science 339, 74–78 (2013).
Ficetola, G. F., Mazel, F. & Thuiller, W. Global determinants of zoogeographical boundaries. Nature Ecology & Evolution 1, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0089 (2017).
Arnan, X., Cerdá, X. & Retana, J. Relationships among taxonomic, functional, and phylogenetic ant diversity across the biogeographic regions ofEurope. Ecography 40, 448–457 (2016).
He, J., Kreft, H., Gao, E., Wang, Z. & Jiang, H. Patterns and drivers of zoogeographical regions of terrestrial vertebrates in China. Journal of Biogeography 44, 1172–1184 (2016).
Glor, R. E. & Warren, D. Testing ecological explanations for biogeographic boundaries. Evolution 65, 673–683 (2011).
Sexton, J. P., McIntyre, P. J., Angert, A. L. & Rice, K. J. Evolution and ecology of species range limits. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 40, 415–436 (2009).
Buckley, L. B. & Jetz, W. Linking global turnover of species and environments. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105, 17836–17841 (2008).
Melo, A. S., Rangel, T. F. L. & Diniz‐Filho, J. A. F. Environmental drivers of beta‐diversity patterns in New‐World birds and mammals. Ecography 32, 226–236 (2009).
Bozinovic, F. et al. The mean and variance of environmental temperature interact to determine physiological tolerance and fitness. Physiological and Biochemical Zoology 84, 543–552 (2011).
Zhang, Q. et al. Avian responses to an extreme ice storm are determined by a combination of functional traits, behavioural adaptations and habitat modifications. Scientific reports 6, https://doi.org/10.1038/srep22344 (2016).
Chown, S. L. et al. Adapting to climate change: a perspective from evolutionary physiology. Climate Research 43, 3–15 (2010).
Crozier, L. & Dwyer, G. Combining population-dynamic and ecophysiological models to predict climate-induced insect range shifts. The American Naturalist 167, 853–866 (2006).
Johnson, M. T. & Stinchcombe, J. R. An emerging synthesis between community ecology and evolutionary biology. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 22, 250–257 (2007).
Villalobos, F., Lira-Noriega, A., Soberón, J. & Arita, H. T. Co-diversity and co-distribution in phyllostomid bats: Evaluating the relative roles of climate and niche conservatism. Basic and Applied Ecology 15, 85–91 (2014).
Webb, C. O., Ackerly, D. D., McPeek, M. A. & Donoghue, M. J. Phylogenies and community ecology. Annual review of ecology and systematics 33, 475–505 (2002).
McGill, B. J., Enquist, B. J., Weiher, E. & Westoby, M. Rebuilding community ecology from functional traits. Trends in ecology & evolution 21, 178–185 (2006).
Streelman, J. T. & Danley, P. D. The stages of vertebrate evolutionary radiation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 18, 126–131 (2003).
Ackerly, D., Schwilk, D. & Webb, C. Niche evolution and adaptive radiation: testing the order of trait divergence. Ecology 87, S50–S61 (2006).
Barnagaud, J. Y. et al. Ecological traits influence the phylogenetic structure of bird species co‐occurrences worldwide. Ecology letters 17, 811–820 (2014).
Kraft, N. J., Cornwell, W. K., Webb, C. O. & Ackerly, D. D. Trait evolution, community assembly, and the phylogenetic structure of ecological communities. The American Naturalist 170, 271–283 (2007).
Srivastava, D. S., Cadotte, M. W., MacDonald, A. A. M., Marushia, R. G. & Mirotchnick, N. Phylogenetic diversity and the functioning of ecosystems. Ecology letters 15, 637–648 (2012).
Kreft, H. & Jetz, W. Comment on “An update of Wallace’s zoogeographic regions of the world”. Science 341, 343–343 (2013).
Swenson, N. G. Functional and phylogenetic ecology in R. 43 (Springer, 2014).
Prentice, I. C. et al. Special paper: a global biome model based on plant physiology and dominance, soil properties and climate. Journal of biogeography 19, 117–134 (1992).
Smith, M. A. Ants, elevation, phylogenetic diversity and community structure. Ecosphere 6, 1–17 (2015).
Daufresne, M., Lengfellner, K. & Sommer, U. Global warming benefits the small in aquatic ecosystems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106, 12788–12793 (2009).
O’Gorman, E. J. et al. Impacts of warming on the structure and functioning of aquatic communities: individual-to ecosystem-level responses. Advances in Ecological Research 47, 81–176 (2012).
Brown, J. H., Gillooly, J. F., Allen, A. P., Savage, V. M. & West, G. B. Toward a metabolic theory of ecology. Ecology 85, 1771–1789 (2004).
Woodward, G. et al. The effects of climatic fluctuations and extreme events on running water ecosystems. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 371, https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0274 (2016).
McCain, C. M. Could temperature and water availability drive elevational species richness patterns? A global case study for bats. Global Ecology and biogeography 16, 1–13 (2007).
McCain, C. M. Global analysis of bird elevational diversity. Global Ecology and Biogeography 18, 346–360 (2009).
Cooper, N. & Purvis, A. Body size evolution in mammals: complexity in tempo and mode. The American Naturalist 175, 727–738 (2010).
Weir, J. T. & Schluter, D. The latitudinal gradient in recent speciation and extinction rates of birds and mammals. Science 315, 1574–1576 (2007).
Weiher, E. & Keddy, P. A. Assembly rules, null models, and trait dispersion: new questions from old patterns. Oikos, 159–164 (1995).
Bai, Q. et al. Identification of coastal wetlands of international importance for waterbirds: a review of China Coastal Waterbird Surveys 2005–2013. Avian Research 6, 1–16 (2015).
Cui, P. et al. Status of Wintering Waterbirds at Selected Locations in China. Waterbirds 37, 402–409, https://doi.org/10.1675/063.037.0407 (2014).
Li, Z., Mundkur, T. & Bakewell, D. Status of waterbirds in Asia: results of the Asian waterbird census: 1987-2007. (Wetlands International, 2009).
Zou, F. S. & Ye, G. Guangdong terrestrial vertebrates Directory. 1 (Guangdong Science and Technology Press, 2016).
Piao, S. et al. The impacts of climate change on water resources and agriculture in China. Nature 467, 43–51 (2010).
Li, Y. & Wilcove, D. S. Threats to vertebrate species in China and the United States. BioScience 55, 147–153 (2005).
Guan, G., Zang, H. & Bei, T. A Preliminary Investigation of Ducks Wintering in South China. Journal of Zoology 5, 70–73 (1963).
Deng, J., Guan, G., Lu, B. & Chen, W. Important Birds Resources Survey in Guangdong and Hainan provinces. Ecological science 2, 60–70 (1989).
Bibby, C. J. Bird census techniques. 91−112 (Elsevier, 2000).
Jetz, W., Thomas, G., Joy, J., Hartmann, K. & Mooers, A. The global diversity of birds in space and time. Nature 491, 444–448 (2012).
Rubolini, D., Liker, A., Garamszegi, L. Z., Møller, A. P. & Saino, N. Using the BirdTree. org website to obtain robust phylogenies for avian comparative studies: A primer. Current Zoology 61, 959–965 (2015).
Bouckaert, R. et al. BEAST 2: a software platform for Bayesian evolutionary analysis. PLoS Comput Biol 10, e1003537 (2014).
Robinson, S. K. & Holmes, R. T. Foraging behavior of forest birds: the relationships among search tactics, diet, and habitat structure. Ecology 63, 1918–1931 (1982).
Swenson, N. G. et al. Phylogenetic and functional alpha and beta diversity in temperate and tropical tree communities. Ecology 93, S112–S125 (2012).
Lasky, J. R. et al. The relationship between tree biodiversity and biomass dynamics changes with tropical forest succession. Ecology letters 17, 1158–1167 (2014).
Blomberg, S. P., Garland, T. & Ives, A. R. Testing for phylogenetic signal in comparative data: behavioral traits are more labile. Evolution 57, 717–745 (2003).
Webb, C. O. Exploring the phylogenetic structure of ecological communities: an example for rain forest trees. The American Naturalist 156, 145–155 (2000).
Jin, L. S., Cadotte, M. W. & Fortin, M. J. Phylogenetic turnover patterns consistent with niche conservatism in montane plant species. Journal of Ecology 103, 742–749 (2015).
Oksanen, J. et al. The vegan package. Community ecology package 10, 631–637 (2007).
Minchin, P. R. In Theory and models in vegetation science 89–107 (Springer, 1987).
Acknowledgements
We appreciate the help during fieldwork by X.W Zeng, S.H Peng, H.B Li, Y.S Peng, W. Zhang and G.X Lin. This work was supported by the Funds from National Nature Science Fundation of China (31672265) and Environment Construction & Capacity Building of GDAS’ Research Platform (2016GDASPT-0305) to F.S Zou and Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province (2016A030313784) and Wildlife Conservation and Management Project of Guangdong Province to M. Zhang.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
X.L.C., M.Z. and F.S.Z. conceived the study. X.L.C., M.Z., Y.Y.Z., Q.Z. and F.S.Z. performed the experiments. X.L.C. and Q.Q. analyzed the data. X.L.C., A.M. and F.S.Z. led the writing. All authors contributed substantially to revisions.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing Interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Che, X., Zhang, M., Zhao, Y. et al. Phylogenetic and Functional Structure of Wintering Waterbird Communities Associated with Ecological Differences. Sci Rep 8, 1232 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-19686-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-19686-3
This article is cited by
-
A statistical approach on distribution and seasonal habitat use of waterfowl and shorebirds in Çıldır Lake (Ardahan, Türkiye)
Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023)
-
Direct effects of selection on aboveground biomass contrast with indirect structure-mediated effects of complementarity in a subtropical forest
Oecologia (2021)
-
Phylogenetic and phenotypic filtering in hummingbirds from urban environments in Central Mexico
Evolutionary Ecology (2020)
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.