Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Lyons et al. reply

This is a preview of subscription content

Access options

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

$32.00

All prices are NET prices.

References

  1. 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)

  2. Lyons, S. K. et al. Holocene shifts in the assembly of plant and animal communities implicate human impacts. Nature 529, 80–83 (2016)

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Greb, S. F. & DiMichele, W. A. (eds) Wetlands through Time Vol. 399 (The Geological Society of America 2006)

  6. 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. Kathleen Lyons.

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

ad, 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

Extended Data Table 1 Results of break-point analysis and ANOVAs showing a consistent difference in the proportion of aggregated pairs in modern versus fossil data sets and a consistent Holocene break point

Supplementary information

Supplementary Data

This file contains the Supplementary Data. (XLSX 73 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature20097

Further reading

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.

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing