Environmental filtering and dispersal limitation jointly shaped the taxonomic and phylogenetic beta diversity of natural forests in southern China

AIM: The mechanisms underlying the maintenance of biodiversity remain to be elucidated. Taxonomic diversity alone remains an unresolved issue, especially in terms of the mechanisms of species co‐existence. We hypothesized that phylogenetic information could help to elucidate the mechanism of community assembly and the services and functions of ecosystems. The aim of this study was to explore the mechanisms driving floral diversity in subtropical forests and evaluate the relative effects of these mechanisms on diversity variation, by combining taxonomic and phylogenetic information. LOCATION: We examined 35 1‐ha tree stem‐mapped plots across eight national nature reserves in Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, China. TAXON: Trees. METHODS: We quantified the taxonomic and phylogenetic β‐diversity between each pair of plots using the (abundance‐based) Rao's quadratic entropy and the (incidence‐based) Sørensen dissimilarity indices. Using a null model approach, we compared the observed β‐diversity with the expected diversity at random and calculated the standard effect size of the observed β‐diversity deviation. Furthermore, we used distance‐based redundancy analysis (dbRDA) to partition the variations in taxonomic and phylogenetic observed β‐diversity and β‐deviation into four parts to assess the environmental and spatial effects. RESULTS: The taxonomic β‐deviation was related to and higher than the phylogenetic β‐deviation (r = .74). This indicated that the species turnover between pairwise plots was mainly the turnover of closely related species. Higher taxonomic and phylogenetic β‐deviation were mainly concentrated in the pairwise karst and nonkarst forest plots, indicating that the species in karst forests and nonkarst forests were predominantly from distantly related clades. A large proportions of the variation in taxonomic and phylogenetic β‐deviation were explained by the joint effect of environmental and spatial variables, while the contribution of environmental variables was greater than that of spatial variables, probably owing to the influence of the sampling scale dependence, integrality of sampling size and species pool, and the unique climatic and geomorphic characteristics. MAIN CONCLUSIONS: Our study highlights the importance of phylogeny in biodiversity research. The incorporation of taxonomic and phylogenetic information provides a perspective to explore potential underlying mechanisms that have shaped species assemblages and phylogenetic patterns in biodiversity hotspots.