1 / 26

Srovnávací ekologie

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?

roy
Download Presentation

Srovnávací ekologie

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Srovnávací ekologie

  2. 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?

  3. NE ! NE ! NE ! NE ! znak B znak A

  4. proměnné na metrické škále

  5. druh 1 druh 2

  6. jedna z proměnných je dichotomická

  7. TIP PIC

  8. Vyskytují se krátkověké druhy odnožující z kořenů ve stejném počtu floristických oblastí jako druhy z kořenů neodnožující?

  9. Dipsacaceae Umbelliferae Compositae Campanulaceae Gentianaceae Boraginaceae Scrophulariaceae Labiatae Orobanchaceae Geraniaceae Onagraceae Cruciferae Leguminosae Caryophyllaceae

  10. závěr krátkověké druhy odnožující z kořenů se vyskytují ve větším počtu floristických oblastí než druhy z kořenů neodnožující

  11. 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.

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. software (zadarmo)

  16. http://www.r-project.org/ (R) http://users.ox.ac.uk/~grafen/phylo/ (GLIM) http://evolution.genetics.washington.edu/phylip/software.html

More Related