Srovnávací ekologie

•Jaký je vztah mezi velikostí přívěsku semena a jeho schopností

šíření?

•Mají stínomilné rostliny větší semena než světlomilné rostliny?

•Produkují neofyty na jedné rostlině více semen než druhy původní?

•Existuje příčinný vztah mezi počtem semen na jedné rostlině a

invasivností druhu?

•Jsou neofyta zastoupena mezi krátkověkými rostlinami

regenerujícími z kořenů náhodně?

znak A

y = 0.8946x + 0.2836

R2 = 0.7055

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

znak

BNE !

NE !

NE !

NE !

proměnné na metrické škále

druh 1 druh 2

jedna z proměnných je dichotomická

A

B C

X

1 6

0 3

0 5

0 8

1 14

1 12

In each of the three independent comparisons – A, B and C – the species with an X value of 1 has a larger value of Y than

does the species with a value of 0 for X.

Y

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

dr a

dr b

dr c

dr d

dr e

dr f

dr g

dr h dr i

dr j

dr k dr l

dr m dr n

dr o

dr p

dr q

dr r

dr s

dr t

dr u

dr v

dr w

dr x

dr y

dr z

dra

a

dra

b

dra

c

dra

d

dra

e

dra

f

druh dep1 dep2dr a 0.77 0.65dr b 0.86 0.12dr c 0.29 0.72dr d 0.16 0.99dr e 0.48 0.97dr f 0.18 0.26dr g 0.28 0.76dr h 0.95 0.05dr i 0.58 0.50dr j 0.90 0.90dr k 0.01 0.42dr l 0.26 0.61dr m 0.22 0.88dr n 0.89 0.77dr o 0.97 0.50dr p 0.06 0.64dr q 1.77 1.65dr r 1.86 1.12dr s 1.29 1.72dr t 1.16 1.99dr u 1.48 1.97dr v 1.18 1.26dr w 1.28 1.76dr x 1.95 1.05dr y 1.58 1.50dr z 1.90 1.90dra a 1.01 1.42dra b 1.26 1.61dra c 1.22 1.88dra d 1.89 1.77dra e 1.97 1.50dra f 1.06 1.64

druh dep1 dep2dr a 0.77 0.65dr b 0.86 0.12dr c 0.29 0.72dr d 0.16 0.99dr e 0.48 0.97dr f 0.18 0.26dr g 0.28 0.76dr h 0.95 0.05dr i 0.58 0.50dr j 0.90 0.90dr k 0.01 0.42dr l 0.26 0.61dr m 0.22 0.88dr n 0.89 0.77dr o 0.97 0.50dr p 0.06 0.64dr q 1.77 1.65dr r 1.86 1.12dr s 1.29 1.72dr t 1.16 1.99dr u 1.48 1.97dr v 1.18 1.26dr w 1.28 1.76dr x 1.95 1.05dr y 1.58 1.50dr z 1.90 1.90dra a 1.01 1.42dra b 1.26 1.61dra c 1.22 1.88dra d 1.89 1.77dra e 1.97 1.50dra f 1.06 1.64

y = 0.9828x

R2 = 0.227

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50

y = -0.0888x

R2 = 0.0092

-0.4

-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5

TIP

PIC

Vyskytují se krátkověké druhy odnožující z

kořenů ve stejném počtu floristických oblastí

jako druhy z kořenů neodnožující?

nFlor rsAcinos arvensis 3 0Aethionema saxatile 3 0Alcea rosea 2 0Alliaria petiolata 3 1Anchusa officinalis 4 1Angelica archangelica 5 0Angelica palustris 2 0Angelica sylvestris 4 0Apium graveolens 3 0Arabidopsis suecica 1 0Arabis ciliata 2 0Arabis hirsuta 4 1Arabis nemorensis 2 0Arabis sagittata 3 1Arabis turrita 3 1Arctium lappa 3 0Arctium minus 4 0Arctium nemorosum 3 0Arctium tomentosum 4 0Arenaria serpyllifolia 4 0Artemisia biennis 3 0Artemisia scoparia 3 0Artemisia siversiana 3 0Aster tripolium 4 0Barbarea intermedia 3 0Barbarea stricta 3 0Barbarea verna 3 0Barbarea vulgaris 4 1Berteroa incana 2 0Beta vulgaris 3 0Brassica elongata 2 0Brassica napus -9 1Brassica oleracea 3 1Brassica rapa 2 1

Mean1 Mean2G_1:1 G_2:2 t-value df p

V1 2.63 2.88 -1.51876 223 0.13

Umbelliferae

Compositae

Campanulaceae

Gentianaceae

Boraginaceae

Scrophulariaceae

Labiatae

Orobanchaceae

Geraniaceae

Onagraceae

Cruciferae

Caryophyllaceae

Leguminosae

Dipsacaceae

Lolium multiflorum AGlaucium flavum BAARanunculus serpens BABSaxifraga cymbalaria BBAAAASaxifraga mutata BBAAABSedum villosum BBAABAASedum cepaea BBAABABSedum hispanicum BBAABBDipsacus sativus BBABAAAAAADipsacus laciniatus BBABAAAAABDipsacus fullonum BBABAAAAACVirga strigosa BBABAAAABAVirga pilosa BBABAAAABBEryngium maritimum BBABAAABAPleurospermum austriacum BBABAAABBASmyrnium perfoliatum BBABAAABBBATorilis japonica BBABAAABBBBAALaserpitium prutenicum BBABAAABBBBABAADaucus carota BBABAAABBBBABABTrinia glauca BBABAAABBBBABBAChaerophyllum temulum BBABAAABBBBABBBAChaerophyllum bulbosum BBABAAABBBBABBBBOenanthe fluviatilis BBABAAABBBBBAAOenanthe conioides BBABAAABBBBBABOenanthe aquatica BBABAAABBBBBACCarum carvi BBABAAABBBBBBAPetroselinum crispum BBABAAABBBBBBAAApium graveolens BBABAAABBBBBBABFoeniculum vulgare BBABAAABBBBBBACConium maculatum BBABAAABBBBBBBAATordylium maximum BBABAAABBBBBBBABAPastinaca sativa BBABAAABBBBBBBABBAHeracleum mantegazzianum BBABAAABBBBBBBABBBCnidium dubium BBABAAABBBBBBBBAAngelica sylvestris BBABAAABBBBBBBBBAAAngelica palustris BBABAAABBBBBBBBBABAngelica archangelica BBABAAABBBBBBBBBACSeseli libanotis BBABAAABBBBBBBBBBSeseli annuum BBABAAABBBBBBBBBCAPeucedanum palustre BBABAAABBBBBBBBBCB

Code nFlorBBABBABBAAABBBBABABBBB 0.54006BBABBABBAAABBBBABABB 0BBABBABBAAABBBBBAAA 0.54772BBABBABBAAABBBBABB -0.26726BBABAAABBBBBBBABB 1BBABBABBAAABBBBAA 0.67082BBABBABBAAABBBBBA 0.40825BBABAAABBBBBBBB -0.48652BBABBABBAAABBAB 0.80178BBABAAABBBBABA 1BBABABBBBAAAAB 0BBABABBBBBBABA -0.31623BBABBABBAAABBA 0.5BBABAABAAABBB -0.22361BBABAABABAAAC 0.53452BBABAABABABBA 0.08771BBABAABABABBB 0.20567BBABAABABAAA 0BBABBABBAB 0.26726BBABBBAAAB 0BBABAABBA 0.24056BBABABBAA -0.5BBABABBAB 0.07156BBABABBBA 0.54773BBABBBABB 1.60357BBABBABA 0.28868BBBABBBA 0.44721BBABBBB -0.63038

0.262111

P chi2 0.03 H0(1): pocet kladnych a zapornych kontrastu je stejny

t 2.842 H0(2) prumer = 0P(t) 0.008

závěrkrátkověké druhy odnožující z kořenů se vyskytují

ve větším počtu floristických oblastí než druhy z kořenů neodnožující

Introduction and „classical papers“

Felsenstein, J. (1985) Phylogenies and the comparative method. American Naturalist, 125, 1-15.

Grafen, A: (1989) The phylogenetic regression. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, SeriesB, 205, 581-598.

Harvey P.H. & Pagel, M.D. (1991) The comparative method in evolutionary biology. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Articles on the theory and statistics

Ackerly, D.D. (2000) Taxon sampling, correlated evolution, and independent contrasts. Evolution, 54, 1480-1492.

Diaz-Uriarte, R. & Garland, T. (1998) Effects of branch length errors on the performance of phylogenetically independent contrasts. Systematic Biology, 47, 654-672.

Diaz-Uriarte, R. & Garland, T. (1996) Testing hypotheses of correlated evolution using phylogenetically independent contrasts: Sensitivity to deviations from Brownian motion. Systematic Biology, 45, 27-47.

Freckleton, R.P., Harvey, P.H. & Pagel, M. (2002) Phylogenetic analysis and comparative data: A test and review of evidence. American Naturalist, 160, 712-726.

Garland, T., Harvey, P.H. & Ives, A.R. (1992) Procedures for the Analysis of Comparative Data Using Phylogenetically Independent Contrasts. Systematic Biology, 41, 18-32.

Garland, T. & Diaz-Uriarte, R. (1999) Polytomies and phylogenetically independent contrasts: Examination of the bounded degrees of freedom approach. Systematic Biology, 48, 547-558.

Nunn, C.L. & Barton, R.A. (2000) Allometric slopes and independent contrasts: A comparative test of Kleiber's law in primate ranging patterns. American Naturalist, 156, 519-533.

Price, T. (1997) Correlated evolution and independent contrasts. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series B-Biological Sciences, 352, 519-529.

Purvis, A. & Rambaut, A. (1995) Comparative-Analysis by Independent Contrasts (Caic) - An Apple-Macintosh Application for Analyzing Comparative Data. Computer Applications in the Biosciences, 11, 247-251.

Ricklefs R. E. 1996. Applications of phylogenetically independent contrasts: a mixed progress report. Oikos 77: 167-172.

Symonds, M.R.E. (2002) The effects of topological inaccuracy in evolutionary trees on the phylogenetic comparative method of independent contrasts. Systematic Biology, 51, 541-553.

Comparative analyses using phylogenetic „corrected“ data

Ackerly, D.D. & Reich, P.B. (1999) Convergence and correlations among leaf size and function in seed plants: A comparative test using independent contrasts. American Journal of Botany, 86, 1272-1281.

Armstrong, D.P. & Westoby, M. (1993) Seedlings from Large Seeds Tolerate Defoliation Better - A Test Using Phylogenetically Independent Contrasts. Ecology, 74, 1092-1100.

Eriksson, O. & Jakobsson, A. (1998) Abundance, distribution and life histories of grassland plants: a comparative study of 81 species. Journal of Ecology, 86, 922-933.

Herrera, C.M. & de Donana, E.B. (2002) Correlated evolution of fruit and leaf size in bird-dispersed plants: species-level variance in fruit traits explained a bit further? Oikos, 97, 426-432.

Hodkinson, D.J., Askew, A.P., Thompson, K., Hodgson, J.G., Bakker, J.P. & Bekker, R.M. (1998) Ecological correlates of seed size in the British flora. Functional Ecology, 12, 762-766.

Kidson, R. & Westoby, M. (2000) Seed mass and seedling dimensions in relation to seedling establishment. Oecologia, 125, 11-17.

Nicotra, A.B., Babicka, N. & Westoby, M. (2002) Seedling root anatomy and morphology: an examination of ecological differentiation with rainfall using phylogenetically independent contrasts. Oecologia, 130, 136-145.

Prinzing, A., Durka, W., Klotz, S. & Brandl, R. (2002) Geographic variability of ecological niches of plant species: are competition and stress relevant? Ecography, 25, 721-729.

Saverimuttu, T. & Westoby, M. (1996) Components of variation in seedling potential relative growth rate: Phylogenetically independent contrasts. Oecologia, 105, 281-285.

Schwilk, D.W. & Ackerly, D.D. (2001) Flammability and serotiny as strategies: correlated evolution in pines. Oikos, 94, 326-336.

Swanborough, P. & Westoby, M. (1996) Seedling relative growth rate and its components in relation to seed size: Phylogenetically independent contrasts. Functional Ecology, 10, 176-184.

Thompson, K., Gaston, K.J. & Band, S.R. (1999) Range size, dispersal and niche breadth in the herbaceous flora of central England. Journal of Ecology, 87, 150-155.

metodologická diskuse v J. Ecol. (1995)

Harvey, P.H., Read, A.F. & Nee, S. (1995) Why Ecologists need to be phylogenetically challanged. Journal of Ecology, 83, 535-536.

Harvey, P.H., Read, A.F. & Nee, S. (1995) Further remarks on the role of phlogeny in comperative ecology. Journal of Ecology, 84, 733-734.

Westoby, M., Leishman, M.R. & Lord, J.M. (1995) On Misinterpreting the Phylogenetic Correction. Journal of Ecology, 83, 531-534.

Westoby, M., Leishman, M. & Lord, J. (1995) Further Remarks on Phylogenetic Correction. Journal of Ecology, 83, 727-729.

Westoby, M., Leishman, M. & Lord, J. (1995) Issues of Interpretation After Relating Comparative Datasets to Phylogeny . Journal of Ecology, 83, 891-893.

software (zadarmo)

http://www.r-project.org/ (R)

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~grafen/phylo/ (GLIM)

http://evolution.genetics.washington.edu/phylip/software.html