| Site1 | |
|---|---|
| Sp. 1 | 4 |
| Sp. 2 | 300 |
| Sp. 3 | 56 |
| Sp. 4 | 23 |
Diversity and Trait-Based Approaches
đ§đ»âđ» Masatoshi Katabuchi @ XTBG, CAS
November 18-20, 2025 XTBG AFEC
We Learn:
Why we use functional and phylogenetic diversity
How to calculate functional and phylogenetic diversity
Trait-based approaches
Community Ecology
Simple diversity indices
Phylogenetic diversity
Functional traits and diversity
R examples
For over a century, field ecologists have been characterizing patterns in ecological communities and trying to draw theoretical inferences from the resulting data.

Why do species occur in specific locations?
Why do some species coexist while others do not?

Russo et al. 2005, Journal of Ecology.
Species
Species + Site information (1950s ~)
Species + Site information + Species information (2000s ~)
[1] Vellend, M. (2016). The Theory of Ecological Communities. Princeton University Press
A vector of species abundance
Species composition
| Site1 | |
|---|---|
| Sp. 1 | 4 |
| Sp. 2 | 300 |
| Sp. 3 | 56 |
| Sp. 4 | 23 |

[1] Vellend, M. (2016). The Theory of Ecological Communities. Princeton University Press
Which community is more diverse?
Species richness = 2
What is the chance to get the same species?
A: \(\frac{9}{10} \times \frac{8}{9} + \frac{1}{10} \times \frac{0}{9} = 0.8\)
B: \(\frac{5}{10} \times \frac{4}{9} + \frac{5}{10} \times \frac{4}{9} \simeq 0.44\)
Which community is more diverse?

A: \(\frac{9}{10} \times \frac{8}{9} + \frac{1}{10} \times \frac{0}{9} = 0.8\)
B: \(\frac{5}{10} \times \frac{4}{9} + \frac{5}{10} \times \frac{4}{9} \simeq 0.44\)
We prefer that large values indicate more diverse communities.
Diversity of A: 1 - 0.8 = 0.2
Diversity of B: 1 - 0.44 = 0.56
Simpsonâs Index of Diversity: \(D = 1 - \Sigma\frac{n_i(n_i - 1)}{N_i(N_i - 1)}\)
Simpsonâs Index of Diversity (ver. 2): \(D = 1 - \Sigma p_i^2\)
n: number of individuals of each species, N: total number of individuals of all species, p: relative species abundance
[1] Vellend, M. (2016). The Theory of Ecological Communities. Princeton University Press
Another simple way to describe diversity?

A: \(p_1\) = 0.9, \(p_2\) = 0.1
B: \(p_1\) = 0.5, \(p_2\) = 0.5
Diversity of A: 0.9 \(\times\) 0.1 = 0.09?
Diversity of B: 0.5 \(\times\) 0.5 = 0.25?
Diversity \(\times\) Diversity? What is the unit?
p: relative species abundance
[1] Vellend, M. (2016). The Theory of Ecological Communities. Princeton University Press
[1] Vellend, M. (2016). The Theory of Ecological Communities. Princeton University Press
| Site 1 | Site 2 | Site 3 | Site 4 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sp. 1 | 4 | 0 | 315 | 23 |
| Sp. 2 | 300 | 250 | 0 | 18 |
| Sp. 3 | 56 | 120 | 74 | 0 |
| Sp. 4 | 23 | 18 | 101 | 0 |
| Site 1 | Site 2 | Site 3 | Site 4 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Site 1 | 0.00 | 0.16 | 0.81 | 0.90 |
| Site 2 | 0.16 | 0.00 | 0.79 | 0.92 |
| Site 3 | 0.81 | 0.79 | 0.00 | 0.91 |
| Site 4 | 0.90 | 0.92 | 0.91 | 0.00 |
e.g., BrayâCurtis dissimilarity
\(BC_{ij}=1-2\frac{\sum min\left(S_{A,i}\mbox{, } S_{B,i}\right)}{\sum S_{A,i}+\sum S_{B,i}}\)
Site 1 vs Site 2: 1 - (2 * (0 + 250 + 56 + 18) / (4 +300 + 56 + 23 + 0 + 250 + 120 + 18)) = 0.16
[1] Vellend, M. (2016). The Theory of Ecological Communities. Princeton University Press
| Site 1 | Site 2 | Site 3 | Site 4 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Abundance | ||||
| Sp. 1 | 4 | 0 | 315 | 23 |
| Sp. 2 | 300 | 250 | 0 | 18 |
| Sp. 3 | 56 | 120 | 74 | 0 |
| Sp. 4 | 23 | 18 | 101 | 0 |
| Env | ||||
| Env. 1 | 780 | 2500 | 480 | 1200 |
| Env. 2 | 21 | 11 | 24 | 19 |
| Env. 3 | 1500 | 1900 | 700 | 4500 |
[1] Vellend, M. (2016). The Theory of Ecological Communities. Princeton University Press
| Site 1 | Site 2 | Site 3 | Site 4 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Abundance | ||||
| Sp. 1 | 4 | 0 | 315 | 23 |
| Sp. 2 | 300 | 250 | 0 | 18 |
| Sp. 3 | 56 | 120 | 74 | 0 |
| Sp. 4 | 23 | 18 | 101 | 0 |
| Env | ||||
| Elevation (m) | 780 | 2500 | 480 | 1200 |
| MAT (â) | 21 | 11 | 24 | 19 |
| MAP (mm) | 1500 | 1900 | 700 | 4500 |
[1] Vellend, M. (2016). The Theory of Ecological Communities. Princeton University Press
| Site 1 | Site 2 | Site 3 | Site 4 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Abundance | ||||
| Sp. 1 | 4 | 0 | 315 | 23 |
| Sp. 2 | 300 | 250 | 0 | 18 |
| Sp. 3 | 56 | 120 | 74 | 0 |
| Sp. 4 | 23 | 18 | 101 | 0 |
| Env | ||||
| Elevation (m) | 780 | 2500 | 480 | 1200 |
| MAT (â) | 21 | 11 | 24 | 19 |
| MAP (mm) | 1500 | 1900 | 700 | 4500 |
| Trait 1 | Trait 2 | Trait 3 | Trait 4 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sp 1 | 1.3 | 4.8 | 1.8 | 30.0 |
| Sp 2 | 1.7 | 12.5 | 2.1 | 22.4 |
| Sp 3 | 7.0 | 5.9 | 5.7 | 11.5 |
| Sp 4 | 2.1 | 2.1 | 3.4 | 119.9 |
[1] Vellend, M. (2016). The Theory of Ecological Communities. Princeton University Press
| Site 1 | Site 2 | Site 3 | Site 4 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Abundance | ||||
| Sp. 1 | 4 | 0 | 315 | 23 |
| Sp. 2 | 300 | 250 | 0 | 18 |
| Sp. 3 | 56 | 120 | 74 | 0 |
| Sp. 4 | 23 | 18 | 101 | 0 |
| Env | ||||
| Elevation (m) | 780 | 2500 | 480 | 1200 |
| MAT (â) | 21 | 11 | 24 | 19 |
| MAP (mm) | 1500 | 1900 | 700 | 4500 |
| Leaf N | Amax | Rdark | LL | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sp 1 | 1.3 | 4.8 | 1.8 | 30.0 |
| Sp 2 | 1.7 | 12.5 | 2.1 | 22.4 |
| Sp 3 | 7.0 | 5.9 | 5.7 | 11.5 |
| Sp 4 | 2.1 | 2.1 | 3.4 | 119.9 |
Trait diversity and its role in species composition
Trait composition-environment relationships
Photosynthetic rates


Community with 1 genus and 3 species (1:3)

Community with 3 genus and 3 species (3:3)

A low genus:species ratio indicates closely related species coexist.
A high genus:species ratio indicates distantly related species coexist.
Community with 3 genus and 3 species (3:3)

Community with 3 genus and 3 species (3:3)

A low genus:species ratio indicates closely related species coexist.
A high genus:species ratio indicates distantly related species coexist.
[1] Swenson 2013, Ecography
[1] Dimensions of Biodiversity, NSF

In the 1990âs conservation biologists recognized the biodiversity is not only species diversity
[1] Faith 1992, Biological Conservation
[1] Faith 1992, Biological Conservation

[1] Faith 1992, Biological Conservation

[1] Faith 1992, Biological Conservation

[1] Petchey & Gaston 2002, Ecology Letters

[1] Webb 2000, The American Naturalist
Solution for genus:species = Use phylogenetic trees to estimate the relatedness of coexisting species

Distance matrix
A B C D E
B 1
C 2 2
D 4 4 3
E 5 5 4 2
F 5 5 4 2 1
[1] \(MPD = \frac{1}{n} \sum^{n}_{i} \sum^n_j \delta_{i,j} \; i \neq j\), where \(\delta_{i, j}\) is the pairwise distance between species i and j
Letâs consider greatest possible mean pairwise node distance (MPD) for a community of 4 taxa

A B C D E
B 1
C 2 2
D 4 4 3
E 5 5 4 2
F 5 5 4 2 1
A B E
B 1
E 5 5
F 5 5 1
Greatest MPD for a community of 4 taxa: 22 / 6 pairs = 3.66 (A, B, E, F)
[1] \(MPD = \frac{1}{n} \sum^{n}_{i} \sum^n_j \delta_{i,j} \; i \neq j\), where \(\delta_{i, j}\) is the pairwise distance between species i and j
Greatest possible mean pairwise node distance for a community of 4 taxa: 22 / 6 pairs = 3.66 (A, B, E, F)
Community 1; A, B, C, D
A B C
B 1
C 2 2
D 4 4 3
MPD = (1 + 2 + 2 + 4 + 4 + 3) / 6 = 2.66
NRI = 1 - (2.66 / 3.66) = 0.273
Community 2; A, B, E, F
A B E
B 1
E 5 5
F 5 5 1
MPD = (1 + 5 + 5 + 5+ 5 + 1) / 6 = 3.66
NRI = 1 - (3.66 / 3.66) = 0
Community 1 is more phylogenetically similar.
[1] \(MNTD = \frac{1}{n} \sum^n_i min \delta_{i,j} \; i \neq j\), where \(min \delta_{i, j}\) is the minimum distance between species i and all other species in the community.
Greatest possible nearest nodal distance for a community of 4 taxa = 2 (A, C, D, F; A to C = 2, D to F = 2)

A B C D E
B 1
C 2 2
D 4 4 3
E 5 5 4 2
F 5 5 4 2 1
[1] \(MNTD = \frac{1}{n} \sum^n_i min \delta_{i,j} \; i \neq j\), where \(min \delta_{i, j}\) is the minimum distance between species i and all other species in the community.
Community 1; A, B, C, D
A B C
B 1
C 2 2
D 4 4 3
MNTD = (1 + 1 + 2 + 3) / 4 = 1.75
NTI = 1 - (1.75 / 2.0) = 0.125
Community 2; A, B, E, F
A B E
B 1
E 5 5
F 5 5 1
MNTD = (1 + 1 + 1 + 1) / 4 = 1
NTI = 1 - (1 / 2.0) = 0.5
Community 2 is more phylogenetically similar (in tips).
[1] Anolis ecomorphs (Wikipedia)

We are assuming that related species are ecologically similar
Related species sometimes have very different traits and ecological niches (e.g., grass-bush, trunk, trunk-crown, trunk-ground and twig ecomorphs)
[1] Losos et al. 1998, Science

A: Functional dendrogram based on ecomorph
B: Phylogeny indicates frequent evolution of traits
They do not match at all (!!)
Phylogenetically similar = Functional (ecologically) similar??
[1] Blomberg et al. 2003, Evolution


[1] Cavender-Bares et al. 2004, The American Naturalist
[1] Cavender-Bares et al. 2004, The American Naturalist
[1] Swenson 2013, Ecography

Phylogeny as a proxy for the functional or ecological similarity of species.
Measuring trait data and arraying it on the phylogenetic tree to demonstrate phylogenetic signal in function so that their phylogenetically-based inferences could be supported.
Compared to simply measuring the trait dispersion, this approach is very indirect.
This approach should be avoided! (phylogeny and traits are useful to make meaningful evolutionary inferences)
Measurable properties of plants that are indicative of ecological strategies
âHardâ traits: e.g., Photosynthetic rates

âSoftâ traits: e.g., LMA (leaf mass per area)

[1] Reich et al. 1997, PNAS
[2] Wright et al. 2004, Nature
[3] Osnas et al. 2013, Science
[4] Katabuchi et al. 2025, Oecologia

[1] McGill et al. 2006, Trends in Ecology and Evolution
Non-trait based statement
Trait-based statement
[1] McGill et al. 2006, Trends in Ecology and Evolution
[1] Cornwell et al. 2006, Ecology

California woody-plant communities (43 plots, 54 species, 3 traits)
Is the trait volume of California woody-plant communities significantly less than expected by chance?
[1] Cornwell et al. 2006, Ecology

Species in 40 out of 43 plots occupied less trait space than would be expected by chance
Consistent with environmental filtering
[1] Cornwell & Ackerly 2009, Ecological Monographs

[1] Kraft et al. 2008, Science

Yasuni tropical tree communities, 25ha, 625 20m x 20m quadrats, 1089 species!
Consistent with environmental filtering
A: Ridgetops have lower than expected SLA and valleys have higher
B: Seed mass shows broader distribution than expected - Limiting similarity
C: Range of SLA is smaller than expected - Environmental filtering
[1] Katabuchi et al. 2012, Journal of Ecology

| Process / Factor | Pattern |
|---|---|
| Biotic factor | |
| Environmental filtering | Clustering |
| Abiotic factor (competition) | |
| Limiting similarity / Competitive exclusion | Overdispersion |
| Competitive hierarchy / directional competition | Clustering |
| Herbivores / Parasites / Pathogens | Overdispersion |
| Pollinator-mediated competition | Overdispersion |
| Abiotic factor (facilitation) | |
| Nurse plants | Overdispersion |
| Pollinator facilitation | Clustering |
| Stochastic process | |
| Neutral theory | Random |
[1] \(t_A\) and \(t_B\) are the functional trait values of species A and B
[2] Kunstler et al. 2012, Ecology Letters

Competitive interaction strengths between species will increase with decreasing niche distance, measured as their absolute traits distance \(|t_A - t_B|\)

Competitive effects of species A on species B will increase with increasing \(t_A - t_B\).
[1] Endara et al. 2022, Journal of Ecology

6000+ secondary metabolites from nearly 100 species in a diverse Neotropical plant clade across the whole Amazonia
More differences in their defensive chemistry than expected by chance
Plantâherbivore interactions promote species diversity
[1] LĂłpez-Angulo et al. 2018, Journal of Vegetation Science

Alpine plants in the Andes
Functional dispersion in harsh environments (higher potential solar radiation)
Facilitation tends to dominate interactions when environmental harshness increases

[1] Katabuchi et al. 2017, Ecology
[2] Swenson et al. 2020, Ecological Monographs

50ha Forest Dynamics Plot on Barro Colorado Island, Panama
CWM wood density trends suggest a community-level response in climate change (i.e, drier conditions).
But 2 of ~300 species (~0.7%) account for ~60% of the temporal shifts in CWM, likely due to species-specific pathogens rather than a community-wide climate response.

[1] Osnas, Katabuchi et al. 2018, PNAS

We may need metrics somewhere between functional traits and invasion growth rate (model parameter) to predict coexistence.
[1] Levine et al. 2024, Trends in Ecology & Evolution

PIMs (LMAm/LMAs) outperform bulk LMA for predicting physiology
Katabuchi et al. 2025, Oecologia
Why do we use trait and phylogenetic diversity?
We want to quantify ecological similarities and biodiversity dimensions.
We need to be very careful when we use or develop ways to map multiple dimensions of biodiversity to a few dimensions of diversity.
Trait-based approaches
Moving ecology towards more quantitative and predictive methods.
We only focused on a âsnapshotâ of biodiversity (predicting future biodiversity is another story)
Developing more effective metrics may be necessary, beyond simply measuring traits.
How to calculate trait and phylogenetic diversity anyway?
The slides are made using Quarto with Emi Tanakaâs CSS design and Danyang Daiâs template.
Source code for the slides can be found at mattocci27/phy-fun-div
