Figure 1.
Conceptual framework of trait filtering by climate and expected associated patterns of functional (A, B) and phylogenetic relatedness (C, D).
(A) Shows no functional overlap (i.e., expected functional relatedness); (B) shows functional overlap (i.e., higher-than-expected functional relatedness); (C) shows phylogenetic overdispersion; (D) shows phylogenetic clustering.
Figure 2.
Map showing the number and approximate location of the 225 seasonal wetlands considered in the meta-analysis (bolded) and the corresponding source in Table A in File S1 (in brackets).
The climatic regions according to Köppen classification are shown. For details about each study, see Table A in File S1. NE = Nearctic, WP = Western Palearctic.
Figure 3.
Functional diversity trends vs. taxonomic richness in the Temperate wetlands of the case study
The communities observed over a complete hydroperiod in Harsh Summer Temperate wetlands (dark symbols) and Mild Summer Temperate wetlands (light symbols) were plotted against a 95% probability funnel using the TAXDTEST routine. Whereas wetlands within this funnel host communities with traits that could be explained as random draws from the pool (null hypothesis, H0), those below the 95% probability threshold present a significantly lower functional diversity than would be expected according to taxonomic richness (HA2).
Figure 4.
MDS showing sites according to their (A) taxonomic composition and (B) trait composition similarities, classified by climates (Arid, B; Temperate Harsh Summer, Cs; Temperate Mild Summer, Cf; and Cold climate, D) and ecozones (NE = Nearctic, WP = Western Palearctic).
Figure 5.
Similarity profiles (SIMPROF) for the traits matrix at each ecozone (NE = Nearctic, WP = Western Palearctic).
The profile shows the ordered similarities between sites plotted against their real ranks (black thick continuous line) and permuted data (mean of the 999 permuted matrices in black thin dashed line and 99% confidence intervals in grey lines). In both cases, higher similarities between site pairs were observed less than expected by chance (lower ranks), while the opposite was true for lower similarities (higher ranks). The statistics (Pi) and p-values are provided.
Figure 6.
Trait richness trends among climates within each ecozone (NE = Nearctic, WP = Western Palearctic).
Figure 7.
Patterns of taxonomic clustering among climates within each ecozone (NE = Nearctic, WP = Western Palearctic).
(A) Mean ± SE values of Delta+, informing about taxonomic relatedness (relatively higher Delta+ values imply assemblages with taxonomically closer members); (B) % of sites presenting lower-than-expected taxonomic relatedness (HA1, overdispersion), expected taxonomic relatedness (H0, random clustering) and higher-than-expected taxonomic relatedness (HA2, clustering).