TY - JOUR
T1 - Phytosociological data and herbarium collections show congruent large-scale patterns but differ in their local descriptions of community composition
AU - Bottin, Marius
AU - Peyre, Gwendolyn
AU - Vargas, Carlos
AU - Raz, Lauren
AU - Richardson, James E.
AU - Sanchez, Adriana
N1 - Funding Information:
We are grateful to all the collaborators and contributors of the Global Biological Information Facility (GBIF), the Biodiversity Informatics Program of the Instituto de Ciencias Naturales, which administers the database of the Herbario Nacional Colombiano (COL), and the Missouri Botanical Garden (Tropicos) for making their herbarium data available. We would like to thank the group ?Gen?tica evolutiva, filogeograf?a y ecolog?a de biodiversidad Neotropical? and the High Performance Computing service of the Universidad del Rosario for hosting our PostgreSQL database on their servers. We are grateful to Dr. Andrew Tanentzap, coordinating editor, and two anonymous reviewers for their suggestions that substantially improved the manuscript.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2019 International Association for Vegetation Science
Copyright:
Copyright 2020 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2020/1/1
Y1 - 2020/1/1
N2 - Question: As a result of recent and substantial digitization efforts, herbaria are becoming important sources of data for vegetation scientists. Are such data sets appropriate to describe composition gradients and β-diversity? When compared with phytosociological data, what are the differences in terms of composition (co-occurrence) gradients depending on the considered scale?. Location: Páramos (Neo-tropical alpine ecosystems) of Colombia. Methods: We compared vegetation patterns from phytosociological relevés and reconstructed pseudo-communities from herbarium collections in the Colombian high elevation páramo ecosystem using diversity partitioning and Mantel correlations. Results: Species composition differed in the two data sets, which could be explained by taxonomic bias towards charismatic species and overrepresentation of rare species in the herbarium data set, whereas common species were more frequently represented in the phytosociological data set. The two data sets showed a similarly preponderant importance of large-scale differences when we looked at species accumulation across different scales. Small-scale richness contributed more to total richness for the phytosociological data set, while richness at intermediate scales was more important in the herbarium data set. Finally, pairwise β-diversity analyses did not show correlations between data sets, and common species showed similar ecological distribution patterns. Conclusions: We recommend caution to researchers who wish to describe β-diversity patterns in local communities using only herbarium data. However, since the two data sets showed some complementarity in their composition patterns, we suggest that combining data from relevés (or plots) and occurrence data (herbarium records, citizen science, etc.) could be an efficient strategy for describing broader diversity patterns. We discuss the circumstances under which it could be advantageous to work with such combined data sets, in particular in relation to conservation issues.
AB - Question: As a result of recent and substantial digitization efforts, herbaria are becoming important sources of data for vegetation scientists. Are such data sets appropriate to describe composition gradients and β-diversity? When compared with phytosociological data, what are the differences in terms of composition (co-occurrence) gradients depending on the considered scale?. Location: Páramos (Neo-tropical alpine ecosystems) of Colombia. Methods: We compared vegetation patterns from phytosociological relevés and reconstructed pseudo-communities from herbarium collections in the Colombian high elevation páramo ecosystem using diversity partitioning and Mantel correlations. Results: Species composition differed in the two data sets, which could be explained by taxonomic bias towards charismatic species and overrepresentation of rare species in the herbarium data set, whereas common species were more frequently represented in the phytosociological data set. The two data sets showed a similarly preponderant importance of large-scale differences when we looked at species accumulation across different scales. Small-scale richness contributed more to total richness for the phytosociological data set, while richness at intermediate scales was more important in the herbarium data set. Finally, pairwise β-diversity analyses did not show correlations between data sets, and common species showed similar ecological distribution patterns. Conclusions: We recommend caution to researchers who wish to describe β-diversity patterns in local communities using only herbarium data. However, since the two data sets showed some complementarity in their composition patterns, we suggest that combining data from relevés (or plots) and occurrence data (herbarium records, citizen science, etc.) could be an efficient strategy for describing broader diversity patterns. We discuss the circumstances under which it could be advantageous to work with such combined data sets, in particular in relation to conservation issues.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85075720810&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85075720810&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1111/jvs.12825
DO - 10.1111/jvs.12825
M3 - Research Article
AN - SCOPUS:85075720810
SN - 1100-9233
VL - 31
SP - 208
EP - 219
JO - Journal of Vegetation Science
JF - Journal of Vegetation Science
IS - 1
ER -