title: A tale of two communities: Neotropical butterfly assemblages show higher beta diversity in the canopy compared to the understory.
abstract: Tropical fruit-feeding nymphalid butterflies generally restrict adult foraging exclusively to either the canopy or understory strata. We compared canopy and understory butterfly communities using data from four long-term studies in Central and South America. At all study sites we found little similarity in species composition between canopy and understory, with most species showing a strong affinity for one of the two habitats. There was a consistent phylogenetic signal for canopy and understory association, suggesting a substantial evolutionary history with these habitats. In addition to compositional differences, we found different patterns of beta diversity between canopy and understory communities. Across all study sites, the canopy had greater temporal and spatial beta diversity compared to the understory. Although these two communities are composed of the same feeding guild and separated only by a relatively small vertical space, each has its own stratum-specific species composition and community dynamics.
authors.affiliation: Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, 37996, USA. jfordyce@utk.edu.
authors.forename: James A
authors.initials: JA
authors.lastname: Fordyce
authors.affiliation: Department of Biological Sciences, University of New Orleans, New Orleans, LA, 70148, USA.
authors.forename: Philip J
authors.initials: PJ
authors.lastname: DeVries
mesh_terms: D063147:Animal Distribution; D000818:Animals; D044822:Biodiversity; D002080:Butterflies / Q000502:physiology*; D003364:Costa Rica; D004484:Ecuador; D010568:Peru; D010802:Phylogeny; D065947:Rainforest; D012621:Seasons
keywords: Nymphalidae; Rainforest; Stratification; Tropical; Turnover
references.citation: Proc Biol Sci. 2006 Aug 7;273(1596):1969-75
references.pmid: 16822759
references.citation: J Anim Ecol. 2012 Mar;81(2):472-82
references.pmid: 22092379
references.citation: Oecologia. 1992 Jan;89(1):47-52
references.pmid: 28313394
references.citation: Ecol Lett. 2006 Jun;9(6):683-93
references.pmid: 16706913
references.citation: Evolution. 2003 Apr;57(4):717-45
references.pmid: 12778543
references.citation: Proc Biol Sci. 2009 Dec 22;276(1677):4295-302
references.pmid: 19793750
references.citation: Ecol Lett. 2011 Jan;14(1):19-28
references.pmid: 21070562
references.citation: PLoS One. 2011;6(11):e26785
references.pmid: 22132077
references.citation: Nature. 1999 Oct 28;401(6756):877-84
references.pmid: 10553904
references.citation: Am Nat. 2002 Dec;160(6):712-26
references.pmid: 18707460
references.citation: Science. 1978 Mar 24;199(4335):1302-10
references.pmid: 17840770
references.citation: Am Nat. 2012 Sep;180(3):E64-74
references.pmid: 22854086