Pairwise comparison between phylogenetic and trait-based
community structure
For 80 local sampling sites in LSD, nearly but more than a half
assemblages presented clustered phylogenetic dispersion
(SES.MPD< 0) (45, 56.25%); nearly but more than a half
assemblages presented functional clustering (SES.PW< 0) (46,
57.50%) in size-related trait dispersion; less than a half assemblages
exhibited clustering in shape-related trait dispersion (35, 43.75%).
According to two-tailed t-test (α= 0.05), most of rodent assemblages in
LSD performed phylogenetic or/and functional random (Table S3).
Similar to LSD, nearly but less than a half assemblages in RED exhibited
phylogenetic clustering (20, 48.78%); more than one third assemblages
presented functional clustering in size-related attributes (14,
34.15%); nearly but more than a half assemblages were functional
clustering in shape-related attributes (23, 56.10%). According to
two-tailed t-test (α= 0.05) in RED, only one rodent assemblage presented
significant clustering on phylogeny (SES.MPD< -1.975) (1,
2.44%) with the rest all exhibiting phylogenetically random
(-1.975< SES.MPD< 1.975) (40, 97.56%); both size
and shape related morphological structure exhibited functional random in
all rodent assemblages (-1.975< SES.PW< 1.975) (41,
100%) (Table S3).
As most assemblages in LSD and RED were random at phylogenetic and
morphological dimensions, there was extremely high degree of
phylogenetic-trait congruence in the pairwise comparison (Table S4).