Absence of mammals and the evolution of New Zealand grasses

Antonelli, Alexandre; Humphreys, Aelys M.; Lee, William G.; Linder, H. Peter

doi:10.1098/rspb.2010.1145

Cited by 29 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Artificial ponds or live‐stocking, for example, can trigger submerged and grazed conditions colonized by lineages adapted to these conditions since many million years (Antonelli et al . ). Ultimately, this may explain why we tend to find particular past phylogenetic lineages in particular present‐day habitats (e.g.…”

Section: Where To Go: Put Evolution Into Community Phylogeneticsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Phylogenetic patterns are not proxies of community assembly mechanisms (they are far better)

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary1. The subdiscipline of 'community phylogenetics' is rapidly growing and influencing thinking regarding community assembly. In particular, phylogenetic dispersion of co-occurring species within a community is commonly used as a proxy to identify which community assembly processes may have structured a particular community: phylogenetic clustering as a proxy for abiotic assembly, that is habitat filtering, and phylogenetic overdispersion as a proxy for biotic assembly, notably competition. 2. We challenge this approach by highlighting (typically) implicit assumptions that are, in reality, only weakly supported, including (i) phylogenetic dispersion reflects trait dispersion; (ii) a given ecological function can be performed only by a single trait state or combination of trait states; (iii) trait similarity causes enhanced competition; (iv) competition causes species exclusion; (v) communities are at equilibrium with processes of assembly having been completed; (vi) assembly through habitat filtering decreases in importance if assembly through competition increases, such that the relative balance of the two can be thus quantified by a single parameter; and (vii) observed phylogenetic dispersion is driven predominantly by local and present-day processes. 3. Moreover, technical sophistication of the phylogenetic-patterns-as-proxy approach trades off against sophistication in alternative, potentially more pertinent approaches to directly observe or manipulate assembly processes. 4. Despite concerns about using phylogenetic dispersion as a proxy for community assembly processes, we suggest there are underappreciated benefits of quantifying the phylogenetic structure of communities, including (i) understanding how coexistence leads to the macroevolutionary diversification of habitat lineage-pools (i.e. phylogenetic-patterns-as-result approach); and (ii) understanding the macroevolutionary contingency of habitat lineage-pools and how it affects present-day species coexistence in local communities (i.e. phylogeneticpatterns-as-cause approach). 5. We conclude that phylogenetic patterns may be little useful as proxy of community assembly. However, such patterns can prove useful to identify and test novel hypotheses on (i) how local coexistence may control macroevolution of the habitat lineage-pool, for example through competition among close relatives triggering displacement and diversification of characters, and (ii) how macroevolution within the habitat lineage-pool may control local coexistence of related species, for example through origin of close relatives that can potentially enter in competition.

show abstract

Section: Where To Go: Put Evolution Into Community Phylogeneticsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Phylogenetic patterns are not proxies of community assembly mechanisms (they are far better)

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Trees were generated using Bayesian and relaxed-clock methods in BEAST, version 1.5.2 (Drummond and Rambaut 2007), and calibrated using a secondary calibration point obtained from Bouchenak-Khelladi et al (2010). Details of the tree generation and molecular dating methods are described in Antonelli et al (2011;see also Humphreys et al 2011). In order to account for topological and dating uncertainty, we used a set of 1,000 trees for all analyses, sampled at regular intervals from the post-burn-in trees generated in BEAST.…”

Section: Climate Availability and Niche Evolution 000mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The grass subfamily Danthonioideae constitutes one such group. Recent research has unraveled the clade's phylogenetic (Pirie et al 2008;Antonelli et al 2011;Humphreys et al 2011) and biogeographic (Linder and Barker 2005;Linder et al 2013) history. The danthonioid grasses' global distribution, primarily in temperate climates, is well documented ( fig.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Available Climate Regimes Drive Niche Diversification during Range Expansion

Wüest

Antonelli²,

Zimmermann³

et al. 2015

The American Naturalist

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Online enhancements: appendixes. Dryad data: http://dx.doi.org/10.5061/dryad.1dc8q.abstract: Climate is a main predictor of biodiversity on a global scale, yet how climate availability affects niche evolution remains poorly explored. Here we assess how intercontinental climate differences may affect the evolution of climate niches and suggest three possible processes: niche truncation along major environmental gradients, intercontinental differences in available climate causing differences in selective regimes, and niche shifts associated with longdistance dispersals leading to a pattern of punctuated evolution. Using the globally distributed danthonioid grasses, we show significant niche differentiation among continents and several instances of niche truncation. The comparison of inferred selective regimes with differences in available climatic space among continents demonstrates adaptation resulting from opportunistic evolution toward available climatic space. Our results suggest that niche evolution in this clade is punctuated, consistent with accelerated niche evolution after long-distance dispersal events. Finally, we discuss how intrinsic constraints (genetic, developmental, or functional) and biotic interactions could have interacted with these three processes during range expansion. Integrating these mechanisms could improve predictions for invasive taxa and long-term evolutionary responses of expanding clades to climate change.

show abstract

“…The phylogenetic hypothesis was taken from Antonelli et al . (). We used the taxon duplication technique of Pirie et al .…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

What determines biogeographical ranges? Historical wanderings and ecological constraints in the danthonioid grasses

Linder

Antonelli

Humphreys

et al. 2013

Journal of Biogeography

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim We sought to understand the variables that limit the distribution range of a clade (here the danthonioid grasses). We tested time, area of origin, habitat suitability, disjunction width and nature, and wind direction as possible range determinants. Location Global, but predominantly the Southern Hemisphere. Methods We mapped the range of the subfamily Danthonioideae, and used 39,000 locality records and an ensemble modelling approach to define areas with suitable danthonioid habitat. We used a well‐sampled, dated phylogeny to estimate the number and direction of historical dispersal events, based on parsimony optimization. We tested for the impact of wind direction on dispersal rate using a likelihood approach, and for the effects of barrier width with a regression approach. Results We found 17 geographically isolated areas with suitable habitats for danthonioids. All currently suitable Southern Hemisphere areas have been occupied, but three apparently suitable areas in the Northern Hemisphere have not. We infer that southern Africa was first occupied in the Oligocene and that dispersal to the other areas was initiated in the middle Miocene. Inferred dispersal rate was correlated with the width of the disjunctions, up to a distance of 5000 km. There was no support for wind direction having influenced differences in dispersal rate. Main conclusions The current range of the Danthonioideae can be predicted ecologically (areas with suitable habitat) and historically (the width of the disjunctions separating the areas with suitable habitat and the area of origin). The direction of dispersal is dictated by the area of origin and by serendipity: there is no evidence for general patterns of dispersal, for example for dispersal occurring more frequently over land than over sea or in an easterly versus a westerly direction around the Southern Hemisphere. Thus the range and range‐filling of Danthonioideae can be accounted for by surprisingly few variables: habitat suitability, distance between suitable areas, and area of origin.

show abstract

Absence of mammals and the evolution of New Zealand grasses

Cited by 29 publications

References 35 publications

Phylogenetic patterns are not proxies of community assembly mechanisms (they are far better)

Phylogenetic patterns are not proxies of community assembly mechanisms (they are far better)

Available Climate Regimes Drive Niche Diversification during Range Expansion

What determines biogeographical ranges? Historical wanderings and ecological constraints in the danthonioid grasses

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About