title: Phylogenetic community ecology needs to take positive interactions into account: Insights from colourful butterflies.
abstract: Phylogenetic community ecology uses phylogenetic relationships among species to infer the dominant processes that shape community ecological structure. This field has particularly focused on habitat filtering and competition, the latter driving divergence and competitive exclusion. However, the effects of positive interactions among species of the same guild have rarely been considered in either empirical studies or theoretical models. We have recently documented a pervasive influence of mutualism in driving adaptive convergence in ecological niche. Müllerian mimicry in butterflies is one of the best-studied examples of mutualism, where unpalatable species converge in wing pattern locally to advertise their toxicity to predators. We showed that species that share similar wing patterns are more similar in their ecology than expected given the phylogeny and co-exist at a fine spatial scale, thereby maximizing the warning signal to local predators. Evidence for competition was detected only among species with distinct wing patterns, implying that mutualistic interactions outweigh the effects of competition. Positive interactions among potential competitors are common among plants and animals. We argue that such forces should be considered in the field of phylogenetic community ecology, along-side neutral processes, habitat filtering and competition.
authors.affiliation: Institute of Evolutionary Biology; University of Edinburgh; Edinburgh UK.
authors.forename: Marianne
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Elias
authors.forename: Zachariah
authors.initials: Z
authors.lastname: Gompert
authors.forename: Keith
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Willmott
authors.forename: Chris
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Jiggins
references.citation: Ecol Lett. 2007 Nov;10(11):1029-36
references.pmid: 17714492
references.citation: Ecology. 2006 Jul;87(7 Suppl):S14-28
references.pmid: 16922299
references.citation: Ecology. 2006 Jul;87(7 Suppl):S100-8
references.pmid: 16922306
references.citation: Ecology. 2006 Jul;87(7 Suppl):S123-31
references.pmid: 16922308
references.citation: Ecology. 2006 Jul;87(7 Suppl):S86-99
references.pmid: 16922305
references.citation: Ecol Lett. 2008 Sep;11(9):929-36
references.pmid: 18485001
references.citation: Nature. 2007 Jul 5;448(7149):64-7
references.pmid: 17611539
references.citation: Proc Biol Sci. 2004 May 22;271(1543):1039-42
references.pmid: 15293857
references.citation: Ecology. 2006 Jul;87(7 Suppl):S39-49
references.pmid: 16922301
references.citation: Trends Ecol Evol. 2004 Dec;19(12):639-44
references.pmid: 16701326
references.citation: Trends Ecol Evol. 2007 May;22(5):250-7
references.pmid: 17296244
references.citation: Am Nat. 2004 Jun;163(6):823-43
references.pmid: 15266381
references.citation: Naturwissenschaften. 2008 Aug;95(8):681-95
references.pmid: 18542902
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 Aug 12;105 Suppl 1:11549-55
references.pmid: 18695216
references.citation: Am Nat. 2007 Aug;170(2):271-83
references.pmid: 17874377
references.citation: Ecol Lett. 2008 Oct;11(10):995-1003
references.pmid: 18673385
references.citation: PLoS Biol. 2008 Dec 2;6(12):2642-9
references.pmid: 19055316