R gradient for the wet (A) and the dry season (B

R gradient for the wet (A) and the dry season (B). Each symbol represents one tadpole assemblage. (C) and (D) show the differences between null model (dashed line) and observed values of FD (grey circles) of the wet and dry season, respectively. Values above or below the line show observed values being higher (high FD) or lower (low FD) than predicted, respectively. As graphical summary, the respective box-whisker plots are provided next to the scatter plot with outliers indicated as asterisks. Differences were not significant in the wet season; in the dry season assemblages show significantly higher FD than expected. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0151744.gthat species loss and/or species turnover from the wet to the dry season is non random with respect to the species traits, and it is BLU-554 site explained by the structure of the tadpole assemblages of the dry season. Firstly, tadpole assemblages do not show functional redundancy in the wet season, as both observed and null model FD show a linear relationship with SR (Fig 4A; linear regressions; null model: R2 = 0.78, F1,10 = 35.8, pmodel < 0.001, pintercept = 0.012, pSR < 0.001; observed: R2 = 0.63, F1,10 = 17, pmodel = 0.002, pintercept = 0.015, pSR = 0.002). Also, there is noPLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0151744 March 25,8 /Seasons Affect Functional and Phylogenetic Diversitydifference between observed and null model FD (Fig 4C; paired t-test, t = -1.43, df = 11, p = 0.18). In the dry season, however, the tadpole assemblages are characterised by functional redundancy as indicated by curvilinear relationship of FD with SR (Fig 4B; polynomial regressions; null model: R2 = 0.96, F2,9 = 114, pmodel < 0.001, pSR < 0.001, pSR^2 < 0.001, observed: R2 = 0.91, F2,9 = 45.8, pmodel < 0.001, pSR < 0.001, pSR^2 < 0.005). Furthermore, these assemblages show high functional diversity, i.e. observed FD values are higher than predicted by the null model (Fig 4D; paired t-test; t = 2.99, df = 11, p = 0.012). In a nutshell, the loss and/or turnover of species in tadpole assemblages in RNP from the wet to the dry season is non random with respect to species traits with patterns of high FD (compared to the null model) and higher functional redundancy (with increasing SR among sites) in the dry season, whereas in the wet season FD does not provide any more or different information than SR.Phylogenetic diversityThe observed relative loss of PD (28 ) of tadpole assemblages was stronger than predicted (23 ) by null model assemblages (Fig 3; paired t-test; t = 3.08, df = fpsyg.2017.00209 11, p = 0.011). To identify the reason for this Tyrphostin AG 490 site deviation of the observed data from the null model, we focused on PD in the wet and the dry season separately. In the wet season, both observed and null model PD show a linear relationship with SR indicating no phylogenetic redundancy (Fig 5A; linear regressions; null model: R2 = 0.96, F1,10 = 267.7, pmodel < 0.001, pintercept = 0.022, pSR < 0.001; observed: R2 = 0.93, F1,10 = 123.8, pmodel < 0.001, pintercept = 0.008, pSR < 0.001). The observed PD of tadpole assemblages in the wet season does not differ from the predicted values (Fig 5C; paired ttest; t = -0.88, df = 11, p = 0.4). Therefore, there is neither SART.S23503 phylogenetic clustering nor overdispersion in tadpole assemblages in the wet season. In the dry season, null assemblages predict that PD will be highly related to SR with a trend to curvilinearity (Fig 5B; polynomial regression; R2 = 0.99, F2,9 = 378.2, pmodel < 0.001, pintercept = 0.82, pSR < 0.001.R gradient for the wet (A) and the dry season (B). Each symbol represents one tadpole assemblage. (C) and (D) show the differences between null model (dashed line) and observed values of FD (grey circles) of the wet and dry season, respectively. Values above or below the line show observed values being higher (high FD) or lower (low FD) than predicted, respectively. As graphical summary, the respective box-whisker plots are provided next to the scatter plot with outliers indicated as asterisks. Differences were not significant in the wet season; in the dry season assemblages show significantly higher FD than expected. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0151744.gthat species loss and/or species turnover from the wet to the dry season is non random with respect to the species traits, and it is explained by the structure of the tadpole assemblages of the dry season. Firstly, tadpole assemblages do not show functional redundancy in the wet season, as both observed and null model FD show a linear relationship with SR (Fig 4A; linear regressions; null model: R2 = 0.78, F1,10 = 35.8, pmodel < 0.001, pintercept = 0.012, pSR < 0.001; observed: R2 = 0.63, F1,10 = 17, pmodel = 0.002, pintercept = 0.015, pSR = 0.002). Also, there is noPLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0151744 March 25,8 /Seasons Affect Functional and Phylogenetic Diversitydifference between observed and null model FD (Fig 4C; paired t-test, t = -1.43, df = 11, p = 0.18). In the dry season, however, the tadpole assemblages are characterised by functional redundancy as indicated by curvilinear relationship of FD with SR (Fig 4B; polynomial regressions; null model: R2 = 0.96, F2,9 = 114, pmodel < 0.001, pSR < 0.001, pSR^2 < 0.001, observed: R2 = 0.91, F2,9 = 45.8, pmodel < 0.001, pSR < 0.001, pSR^2 < 0.005). Furthermore, these assemblages show high functional diversity, i.e. observed FD values are higher than predicted by the null model (Fig 4D; paired t-test; t = 2.99, df = 11, p = 0.012). In a nutshell, the loss and/or turnover of species in tadpole assemblages in RNP from the wet to the dry season is non random with respect to species traits with patterns of high FD (compared to the null model) and higher functional redundancy (with increasing SR among sites) in the dry season, whereas in the wet season FD does not provide any more or different information than SR.Phylogenetic diversityThe observed relative loss of PD (28 ) of tadpole assemblages was stronger than predicted (23 ) by null model assemblages (Fig 3; paired t-test; t = 3.08, df = fpsyg.2017.00209 11, p = 0.011). To identify the reason for this deviation of the observed data from the null model, we focused on PD in the wet and the dry season separately. In the wet season, both observed and null model PD show a linear relationship with SR indicating no phylogenetic redundancy (Fig 5A; linear regressions; null model: R2 = 0.96, F1,10 = 267.7, pmodel < 0.001, pintercept = 0.022, pSR < 0.001; observed: R2 = 0.93, F1,10 = 123.8, pmodel < 0.001, pintercept = 0.008, pSR < 0.001). The observed PD of tadpole assemblages in the wet season does not differ from the predicted values (Fig 5C; paired ttest; t = -0.88, df = 11, p = 0.4). Therefore, there is neither SART.S23503 phylogenetic clustering nor overdispersion in tadpole assemblages in the wet season. In the dry season, null assemblages predict that PD will be highly related to SR with a trend to curvilinearity (Fig 5B; polynomial regression; R2 = 0.99, F2,9 = 378.2, pmodel < 0.001, pintercept = 0.82, pSR < 0.001.

Leave a Reply