Figure 1.
Relationship between taxonomic diversity and functional diversity: schematic scenarios (redrawn from [16]).
Figure 2.
Location of the transects surveyed near Koné, north-western coast of New Caledonia, South-West Pacific.
Reef types (from [29]), mangroves and land are indicated.
Table 1.
Substrate elements for which percentage cover was estimated using the medium scale approach [30].
Figure 3.
Relationship between species diversity (number of species/transect) and functional diversity (number of functions/transect).
A: Linear, power, asymptotic and logistic regressions are shown for the DS classification scheme. B: only the best model (power, see Table 2) is shown for each of the three classification schemes. Dotted line indicates 1∶1 line for both plots. DS: diet×size; DSH: diet×size×home range; DSHG: diet×size×home range×gregariousness.
Table 2.
Results of the regression relationships between functional diversity and species diversity for the linear, power, asymptotic, logistic and through the origin models for each functional classification scheme (DS, DSH and DSHG).
Figure 4.
Comparing observed and random distributions of functions among species.
A: Functional diversity (number of functions/transect) as a function of species diversity (number of species/transect) for the three functional classification schemes (DS, DSH, DSHG). Lines indicate 95% confidence intervals estimated from random distribution (Monte Carlo analysis with 999 permutations). B: Cumulative frequency distributions of observations for which the number of observed functions was significantly lower than the number of functions obtained from a random distribution (i.e. lower than the 95% confidence interval). DS: diet×size; DSH: diet×size×home range; DSHG: diet×size×home range×gregariousness.
Figure 5.
Relationship between species diversity and functional diversity for different types of reef habitats.
Functional diversity (number of functions/transect, DS functional classification scheme) as a function of species diversity (number of species/transect) for each of the six clusters (three per reef type) obtained after the hierarchical classifications of transects according to their transect-scale habitat characteristics (see Table 3). DS: diet×size.
Table 3.
Description of the clusters obtained after the hierarchical classification of transects according to their transect-scale habitat characteristics, for two reef types.
Figure 6.
Relationship between species diversity and functional diversity for different levels of fishing pressure.
Functional diversity (number of functions/transect, DS functional classification scheme) as a function of species diversity (number of species/transect) for each of the three categories of fishing pressure (derived from [33]). DS: diet×size.
Table 4.
Average number of species per function (functional redundancy) and average proportion of species diversity (functional dominance) for the diet × size (DS) classification scheme.
Figure 7.
Redundancy as a function of species diversity, for individual functions (DS functional classification scheme).
A: Schematic possible trends. B: Observed trends. The plots were classified as early increase, late increase, constant increase or unclear trend (see Table 5). Least-square curves were fitted to each plot (for which the slope was significant following a linear regression) to visualise the trends. DS: diet×size.
Table 5.
Spearman's rank correlation coefficients and slopes of linear regressions between the redundancy of a function (DS functional classification scheme) and species diversity.
Figure 8.
Average redundancy of three functions, for different levels of fishing pressure.
Average redundancy of the three functions which showed a significant response to fishing pressure in GLMs (C1, C3 and H2), for each category of fishing pressure. Confidence intervals (95%) are indicated.