Back

Phylogenetic signal dynamics during niche filling in food webs

Fuster-Calvo, A.; Proulx, M.; Parent, C.; Massol, F.; Besson, M.; Guimaraes, P. R.; Gravel, D.

2025-11-05 ecology
10.1101/2025.11.04.686537 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Understanding how phylogenetic signal in ecological networks--the tendency for closely related species to resemble one another in ecological roles--emerges and persists remains a central challenge in community ecology. Here, we simulate food web evolution to track how the correspondence between phylogeny and trophic structure changes as communities assemble and niche space fills. By simulating trait evolution coupled with trait-matching for ecological interactions, we quantify how phylogenetic signal in trophic structure changes through time and examine how species network positions relate to their phylogenetic distinctiveness and diversification dynamics. We find that the signal declines over time, driven by emergent feedbacks between node extinction, link reorganization, and trait divergence. Species with high phylogenetic distinctiveness tend to be more specialized and occupy peripheral network positions, particularly in late-stage communities. Centrality consistently constrains diversification in intermediate consumers, emerges as a limiting factor for top predators after niche saturation, and shows nonlinear effects in basal species diversification. Applying our framework to empirical food webs from the Galapagos Islands, we find partial support for these predictions: phylogenetic signal in foraging and vulnerability roles declines with island age, but shows contrasting trends with island area and elevation. We also detect discrepancies between distance-based and clustering-based measures of phylogenetic signal, highlighting the need for robust methods to compare phylogenetic and network structures. Together, our results reveal how trophic interactions mediate the erosion of phylogenetic structure during community assembly and offer testable predictions for systems at different stages of diversification.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.