This is a preview of subscription content
Subscribe to Journal
Get full journal access for 1 year
only $3.90 per issue
All prices are NET prices.
VAT will be added later in the checkout.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.
All prices are NET prices.
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)
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
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