Editing Competitive exclusion principle (section)

==Phylogenetic context==

An [[Ecology|ecological]] community is the assembly of species which is maintained by ecological (Hutchinson, 1959;<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Hutchinson |first=G. E. |date=1959 |title=Homage to Santa Rosalia or Why Are There So Many Kinds of Animals? |journal=The American Naturalist |volume=93 |issue=870 |pages=145–159 |doi=10.1086/282070 |issn=0003-0147 |jstor=2458768 |bibcode=1959ANat...93..145H |s2cid=26401739}}</ref> Leibold, 1988<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Leibold |first=MATHEW A. |date=1998-01-01 |title=Similarity and local co-existence of species in regional biotas |journal=Evolutionary Ecology |volume=12 |issue=1 |pages=95–110 |bibcode=1998EvEco..12...95L |doi=10.1023/A:1006511124428 |issn=1573-8477 |s2cid=6678357}}</ref>) and evolutionary process (Weiher and Keddy, 1995;<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Weiher |first1=Evan |last2=Keddy |first2=Paul A. |date=1995 |title=The Assembly of Experimental Wetland Plant Communities |journal=Oikos |volume=73 |issue=3 |pages=323–335 |bibcode=1995Oikos..73..323W |doi=10.2307/3545956 |issn=0030-1299 |jstor=3545956}}</ref> Chase ''et al''., 2003). These two processes play an important role in shaping the existing community and will continue in the future (Tofts ''et al''., 2000; Ackerly, 2003; Reich ''et al''., 2003). In a local community, the potential members are filtered first by environmental factors such as temperature or availability of required resources and then secondly by its ability to co-exist with other resident species.

In an approach of understanding how two species fit together in a community or how the whole community fits together, ''The Origin of Species''  ([[Charles Darwin|Darwin]], 1859) proposed that under homogeneous environmental condition struggle for existence is greater between closely related species than distantly related species. He also hypothesized that the functional traits may be conserved across phylogenies. Such strong phylogenetic similarities among closely related species are known as phylogenetic effects (Derrickson ''et al''., 1988.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Derrickson |first1=E. M. |last2=Ricklefs |first2=R. E. |date=1988 |title=Taxon-Dependent Diversification of Life-History Traits and the Perception of Phylogenetic Constraints |journal=Functional Ecology |volume=2 |issue=3 |pages=417–423 |bibcode=1988FuEco...2..417D |doi=10.2307/2389415 |issn=0269-8463 |jstor=2389415}}</ref>)

With field study and mathematical models, ecologists have pieced together a connection between functional traits similarity between species and its effect on species co-existence. According to competitive-relatedness hypothesis (Cahil ''et al''., 2008<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Cahill |first1=James F. |last2=Kembel |first2=Steven W. |last3=Lamb |first3=Eric G. |last4=Keddy |first4=Paul A. |date=2008-03-12 |title=Does phylogenetic relatedness influence the strength of competition among vascular plants? |journal=Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics |volume=10 |issue=1 |pages=41–50 |bibcode=2008PPEES..10...41C |doi=10.1016/j.ppees.2007.10.001 |issn=1433-8319}}</ref>) or phylogenetic limiting similarity hypothesis (Violle ''et al''., 2011<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Violle |first1=Cyrille |last2=Nemergut |first2=Diana R. |last3=Pu |first3=Zhichao |last4=Jiang |first4=Lin |date=2011 |title=Phylogenetic limiting similarity and competitive exclusion |journal=Ecology Letters |volume=14 |issue=8 |pages=782–787 |bibcode=2011EcolL..14..782V |doi=10.1111/j.1461-0248.2011.01644.x |issn=1461-0248 |pmid=21672121}}</ref>) interspecific competition<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Tarjuelo |first1=R. |last2=Morales |first2=M. B. |last3=Arroyo |first3=B. |last4=Mañosa |first4=S. |last5=Bota |first5=G. |last6=Casas |first6=F. |last7=Traba |first7=J. |year=2017 |title=Intraspecific and interspecific competition induces density-dependent habitat niche shifts in an endangered steppe bird |journal=Ecology and Evolution |volume=7 |issue=22 |pages=9720–9730 |bibcode=2017EcoEv...7.9720T |doi=10.1002/ece3.3444 |pmc=5696386 |pmid=29188003}}</ref> is high among the species which have similar functional traits, and which compete for similar resources and habitats. Hence, it causes reduction in the number of closely related species and even distribution of it, known as phylogenetic overdispersion (Webb ''et al''., 2002<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Webb |first1=Campbell O. |last2=Ackerly |first2=David D. |last3=McPeek |first3=Mark A. |last4=Donoghue |first4=Michael J. |date=2002 |title=Phylogenies and Community Ecology |journal=Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics |volume=33 |issue=1 |pages=475–505 |doi=10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.33.010802.150448 |bibcode=2002AnRES..33..475W |s2cid=535590}}</ref>). The reverse of phylogenetic overdispersion is phylogenetic clustering in which case species with conserved functional traits are expected to co-occur due to  environmental filtering (Weiher ''et al''., 1995; Webb, 2000). In the study performed by Webb ''et al''., 2000, they showed that a small-plots of Borneo forest contained closely related trees together. This suggests that closely related species share features that are favored by the specific environmental factors that differ among plots causing phylogenetic clustering.

For both phylogenetic patterns (phylogenetic overdispersion and phylogenetic clustering), the baseline assumption is that phylogenetically related species are also ecologically similar (H. Burns et al., 2011<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Burns |first1=Jean H. |last2=Strauss |first2=Sharon Y. |date=2011-03-29 |title=More closely related species are more ecologically similar in an experimental test |journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences |volume=108 |issue=13 |pages=5302–5307 |bibcode=2011PNAS..108.5302B |doi=10.1073/pnas.1013003108 |issn=0027-8424 |pmc=3069184 |pmid=21402914 |doi-access=free}}</ref>). There are no significant number of experiments answering to what degree the closely related species are also similar in niche. Due to that, both phylogenetic patterns are not easy to interpret. It's been shown that phylogenetic overdispersion may also result from convergence of distantly related species (Cavender-Bares ''et al.'' 2004;<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Cavender-Bares |first1=J. |author-link=Jeannine Cavender-Bares |last2=Ackerly |first2=D. D. |last3=Baum |first3=D. A. |last4=Bazzaz |first4=F. A. |date=June 2004 |title=Phylogenetic overdispersion in Floridian oak communities |journal=The American Naturalist |volume=163 |issue=6 |pages=823–843 |doi=10.1086/386375 |issn=1537-5323 |pmid=15266381 |bibcode=2004ANat..163..823C |s2cid=2959918}}</ref> Kraft ''et al.'' 2007<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Kraft |first1=Nathan J. B. |last2=Cornwell |first2=William K. |last3=Webb |first3=Campbell O. |last4=Ackerly |first4=David D. |date=August 2007 |title=Trait evolution, community assembly, and the phylogenetic structure of ecological communities |journal=The American Naturalist |volume=170 |issue=2 |pages=271–283 |doi=10.1086/519400 |issn=1537-5323 |pmid=17874377 |bibcode=2007ANat..170..271K |s2cid=7222026}}</ref>). In their study {{Citation needed|date=October 2023}}, they have shown that traits are convergent rather than conserved. While, in another study {{Citation needed|date=October 2023}}, it's been shown that phylogenetic clustering may also be due to historical or bio-geographical factors which prevents species from leaving their ancestral ranges. So, more phylogenetic experiments are required for understanding the strength of species interaction in community assembly.