It is thought that speciation in phytophagous insects is often due to colonization of novel host plants, because radiations of plant and insect lineages are typically asynchronous. Recent phylogenetic comparisons have supported this model of diversification for both insect herbivores and specialized pollinators. An exceptional case where contemporaneous plant–insect diversification might be expected is the obligate mutualism between fig trees (Ficus species, Moraceae) and their pollinating wasps (Agaonidae, Hymenoptera). The ubiquity and ecological significance of this mutualism in tropical and subtropical ecosystems has long intrigued biologists, but the systematic challenge posed by >750 interacting species pairs has hindered progress toward understanding its evolutionary history. In particular, taxon sampling and analytical tools have been insufficient for large-scale cophylogenetic analyses. Here, we sampled nearly 200 interacting pairs of fig and wasp species from across the globe. Two supermatrices were assembled: on an average, wasps had sequences from 77% of 6 genes (5.6 kb), figs had sequences from 60% of 5 genes (5.5 kb), and overall 850 new DNA sequences were generated for this study. We also developed a new analytical tool, Jane 2, for event-based phylogenetic reconciliation analysis of very large data sets. Separate Bayesian phylogenetic analyses for figs and fig wasps under relaxed molecular clock assumptions indicate Cretaceous diversification of crown groups and contemporaneous divergence for nearly half of all fig and pollinator lineages. Event-based cophylogenetic analyses further support the codiversification hypothesis. Biogeographic analyses indicate that the present-day distribution of fig and pollinator lineages is consistent with a Eurasian origin and subsequent dispersal, rather than with Gondwanan vicariance. Overall, our findings indicate that the fig-pollinator mutualism represents an extreme case among plant–insect interactions of coordinated dispersal and long-term codiversification. [Biogeography; coevolution; cospeciation; host switching; long-branch attraction; phylogeny.]

Aim Figs (Ficus, Moraceae) are exploited by rich communities of often host-specific phytophagous wasps. Among them, gall-inducing Sycophaginae (Hymenoptera, Chalcidoidea) may share a common history with Ficus and their mutualistic pollinators (Agaonidae). We investigate here, for the first time, the phylogeny and biogeographical history of Sycophaginae and compare the timing of radiation and dispersion of major clades with available data on Ficus and fig pollinators. Reconstructing the history of their host colonization and association over space and time is central to understanding how fig wasp communities were assembled.Location World-wide.Methods Maximum likelihood and Bayesian analyses were conducted on 4267 bp of mitochondrial and nuclear DNA to produce a phylogeny of all genera of Sycophaginae. Two relaxed clock methods with or without rate autocorrelation were used for date estimation. Analyses of ancestral area were also conducted to investigate the geographical origin of the Sycophaginae.

BackgroundNon-pollinating Sycophaginae (Hymenoptera, Chalcidoidea) form small communities within Urostigma and Sycomorus fig trees. The species show differences in galling habits and exhibit apterous, winged or dimorphic males. The large gall inducers oviposit early in syconium development and lay few eggs; the small gall inducers lay more eggs soon after pollination; the ostiolar gall-inducers enter the syconium to oviposit and the cleptoparasites oviposit in galls induced by other fig wasps. The systematics of the group remains unclear and only one phylogeny based on limited sampling has been published to date. Here we present an expanded phylogeny for sycophagine fig wasps including about 1.5 times the number of described species. We sequenced mitochondrial and nuclear markers (4.2 kb) on 73 species and 145 individuals and conducted maximum likelihood and Bayesian phylogenetic analyses. We then used this phylogeny to reconstruct the evolution of Sycophaginae life-history strategies and test if the presence of winged males and small brood size may be correlated.ResultsThe resulting trees are well resolved and strongly supported. With the exception of Apocrytophagus, which is paraphyletic with respect to Sycophaga, all genera are monophyletic. The Sycophaginae are divided into three clades: (i) Eukoebelea; (ii) Pseudidarnes, Anidarnes and Conidarnes and (iii) Apocryptophagus, Sycophaga and Idarnes. The ancestral states for galling habits and male morphology remain ambiguous and our reconstructions show that the two traits are evolutionary labile.ConclusionsThe three main clades could be considered as tribes and we list some morphological characters that define them. The same biologies re-evolved several times independently, which make Sycophaginae an interesting model to test predictions on what factors will canalize the evolution of a particular biology. The ostiolar gall-inducers are the only monophyletic group. In 15 Myr, they evolved several morphological adaptations to enter the syconia that make them strongly divergent from their sister taxa. Sycophaginae appears to be another example where sexual selection on male mating opportunities favored winged males in species with small broods and wingless males in species with large broods. However, some species are exceptional in that they lay few eggs but exhibit apterous males, which we hypothesize could be due to other selective pressures selecting against the re-appearance of winged morphs.

No abstract

AstractEcological theory predicts that communities using the same resources should have similar structure, but evolutionary constraints on colonisation and niche shifts may hamper such convergence. Multitrophic communities of wasps exploiting fig fruits, which first evolved about 75MYA, do not show long-term 'inheritance' of taxonomic (lineage) composition or species diversity. However, communities on three continents have converged ecologically in the presence and relative abundance of five insect guilds that we define. Some taxa fill the same niches in each community (phylogenetic niche conservatism). However, we show that overall convergence in ecological community structure depends also on a combination of niche shifts by resident lineages and local colonisations of figs by other insect lineages. Our study explores new ground, and develops new heuristic tools, in combining ecology and phylogeny to address patterns in the complex multitrophic communities of insect on plants, which comprise a large part of terrestrial biodiversity.

Comparisons of species richness among assemblages using different sample sizes may produce erroneous conclusions due to the strong positive relationship between richness and sample size. A current way of handling the problem is to standardize sample sizes to the size of the smallest sample in the study. A major criticism about this approach is the loss of information contained in the larger samples. A potential way of solving the problem is to apply extrapolation techniques to smaller samples, and produce an estimated species richness expected to occur if sample size were increased to the same size of the largest sample. We evaluated the reliability of 11 potential extrapolation methods over a range of different data sets and magnitudes of extrapolation. The basic approach adopted in the evaluation process was a comparison between the observed richness in a sample and the estimated richness produced by estimators using a sub‐sample of the same sample. The Log‐Series estimator was the most robust for the range of data sets and sub‐sample sizes used, followed closely by Negative Binomial, SO‐J1, Logarithmic, Stout and Vandermeer, and Weibull estimators. When applied to a set of independently replicated samples from a species‐rich assemblage, 95% confidence intervals of estimates produced by the six best evaluated methods were comparable to those of observed richness in the samples. Performance of estimators tended to be better for species‐rich data sets rather than for those which contained few species. Good estimates were found when extrapolating up to 1.8‐2.0 times the size of the sample. We suggest that the use of the best evaluated methods within the range of indicated conditions provides a safe solution to the problem of losing information when standardizing different sample sizes to the size of the smallest sample.

No abstract

No abstract