This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 51 print issues and online access
$199.00 per year
only $3.90 per issue
Rent or buy this article
Prices vary by article type
from$1.95
to$39.95
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
References
Telford, R. J., Chipperfield, J. D., Birks, H. H. & Birks, H. J. B. How foreign is the past? Nature 538, http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature20097 (2016)
Lyons, S. K. et al. Holocene shifts in the assembly of plant and animal communities implicate human impacts. Nature 529, 80–83 (2016)
Law, B. S. & Dickman, C. R. The use of habitat mosaics by terrestrial vertebrate fauna: implications for conservation and management. Biodivers. Conserv. 7, 323–333 (1998)
McDonald, R. I., Kareiva, P. & Formana, R. T. T. The implications of current and future urbanization for global protected areas and biodiversity conservation. Biol. Conserv. 141, 1695–1703 (2008)
Greb, S. F. & DiMichele, W. A. (eds) Wetlands through Time Vol. 399 (The Geological Society of America 2006)
DiMichele, W. A., Philips, T. L. & Olmstead, R. G. Opportunistic evolution: abiotic environmental stress and the fossil record of plants. Rev. Palaeobot. Palynol. 50, 151–178 (1987)
Wing, S. L., Alroy, J. & Hickey, L. J. Plant and mammal diversity in the Paleocene to early Eocene of the Bighorn Basin. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 115, 117–155 (1995)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Extended data figures and tables
Extended Data Figure 1 Results from subsetting analyses rarefying to 20 sites instead of 10 as done by Telford et al.1
a–d, Datasets are US desert rodents (a), Holocene mammals (b), 1,000-year-old North American pollen (c) and 1950 Wisconsin understory vegetation (d). Lines indicate a significant linear regression at P < 0.05. Panels without lines are non-significant.
Extended Data Figure 2 Box plots showing the number of sites and proportion of aggregated species pars with the data stratified into three groups: Deep Time (>1 million years ago Ma; n = 29 data sets), Shallow Time (1 million–100 years ago; n = 24), and Modern (<100 years ago; n = 46).
Deep Time and Modern datasets each differ significantly in the number of sites compared to Shallow time, but Deep Time and Modern datasets do not differ significantly from one another (left; P = 0.37). By contrast, there is a significant difference between Deep Time and Modern datasets in the proportion of aggregated species pairs (P < 0.01). Even if there is an effect of sample size on pairs analysis, it cannot explain our previous findings2
Supplementary information
Supplementary Data
This file contains the Supplementary Data. (XLSX 73 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lyons, S., Miller, J., Amatange, K. et al. Lyons et al. reply. Nature 538, E3–E4 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature20097
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature20097
This article is cited by
-
Lyons et al. reply
Nature (2016)
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.