Species coexistence: macroevolutionary relationships and the contingency of historical interactions

Germain, Rachel M.; Weir, Jason T.; Gilbert, Benjamin

doi:10.1098/rspb.2016.0047

Cited by 82 publications

(102 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These results are consistent with the hypothesis that competitive asymmetries can be more pronounced between taxa that evolved in different biogeographical regions (Germain et al. ). Moreover, self‐diversity dependence on speciation in Eurasia is associated preferentially with the clades that migrated from North America, which presumably found plenty ecological opportunity to diversify (Pires et al.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Interactions within and between clades shaped the diversification of terrestrial carnivores

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A longstanding debate in evolutionary biology and paleontology is whether ecological interactions such as competition impose diversity dependence on speciation and extinction rates. Here, we analyze the fossil record of terrestrial mammalian carnivores in North America and Eurasia using a Bayesian framework to assess whether their diversity dynamics were affected by diversity dependence within and between families (12 in Eurasia, 10 in North America). We found eight instances of within-clade diversity dependence suppressing speciation rates and detected between-clade effects increasing extinction rates in six instances. Diversity dependence often involved lineages that migrated between continents and we found that speciation was more responsive to diversity changes within the clade, whereas extinction responded to diversity of taxa in other clades. The analysis of the fossil record of Carnivora suggests that interactions within and between clades are associated with different speciation and extinction regimes, opening room for a broader theory of diversity dependence.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Interactions within and between clades shaped the diversification of terrestrial carnivores

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…, Germain et al. ), but work in other systems has also begun to emerge, including arthropods (Siepielski et al. ), green algae (Narwani et al.…”

Section: Modern Coexistence Theory and The Nichementioning

confidence: 99%

“…, Germain et al. ), but in future empirical work it would be informative to test explicitly for negative stablization and its effects on the outcome of competition.…”

Section: Future Directionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Linking modern coexistence theory and contemporary niche theory

Letten

Fukami

2017

Ecological Monographs

243

331

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Modern coexistence theory and contemporary niche theory represent parallel frameworks for understanding the niche's role in species coexistence. Despite increasing prominence and shared goals, their compatibility and complementarity have received little attention. This paucity of overlap not only presents an obstacle to newcomers to the field, but it also precludes further conceptual advances at their interface. Here, we present a synthetic treatment of the two frameworks. We review their main concepts and explore their theoretical and empirical relationship, focusing on how the resource supply ratio, impact niche, and requirement niche of contemporary niche theory translate into the stabilizing and equalizing processes of modern coexistence theory. We show, for a general consumer–resource model, that varying resource supply ratios reflects an equalizing process; varying impact niche overlap reflects a stabilizing process; and varying requirement niche overlap may be both stabilizing and equalizing, but has no qualitative effect on coexistence. These generalizations provide mechanistic insight into modern coexistence theory, while also clarifying the role of contemporary niche theory's impacts and requirements in mediating coexistence. From an empirical perspective, we recommend a hierarchical approach, in which quantification of the strength of stabilizing mechanisms is used to guide more focused investigation into the underlying niche factors determining species coexistence. Future research that considers alternative assumptions, including different forms of species interaction, spatiotemporal heterogeneity, and priority effects, would facilitate a more complete synthesis of the two frameworks.

show abstract

“…We might also predict that competition and coexistence might be more strongly associated with phylogenetic distances if species have evolved allopatrically and their differences follow simple models that describe trait divergence (Cadotte and Jin , Germain et al. ). Whereas for sympatric species, competition might be unrelated to phylogenetic distances simply because species occurring together have evolved the necessary differences to coexist, even if they are closely related (Davies et al.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…, Germain et al. ). With advances in gene sequencing and availability of phylogenetic data, incorporating phylogenetic information in the interpretation of ecological patterns is now becoming standard.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why phylogenies do not always predict ecological differences

Cadotte

Davies

Peres‐Neto

2017

Ecological Monographs

168

210

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The merger of phylogenies with ecology has given rise to the field of “community phylogenetics,” predicated on the assumption that ecological differences among species can be estimated from phylogenetic relationships (the phylogenetic distance/ecological difference, or PDED, hypothesis). A number of studies have failed to find strong support for this assumption, thus challenging the utility of phylogenetic approaches. This gap might highlight the fact that the PDED relationship is not useful for community assembly, but it is difficult to know because the lack of a relationship might also be due to a number of biological or methodological reasons, including inappropriate phylogenies, skewed distributions of phylogenetic distances, the lack of consideration of models of trait evolution, or the absence of sufficient niche space in experimental and observational venues. Each of these limitations, separately or combined, may confound recent experimental or observational results that examine relationships between phylogenetic distance and ecological differences. Notably, common evolutionary models can support alternative conclusions about the relationship between evolutionary distances and ecological differences than typically assumed and can change interpretations of community‐based phylogenetic analyses. Here we review a number of issues that may lead to confounded effects in community phylogenetic analyses. In light of these potential pitfalls, we provide a number of guidelines for researchers to follow and stress that they need to address methodological shortcomings before concluding that ecological differences are unrelated to phylogenetic distances.

show abstract

Species coexistence: macroevolutionary relationships and the contingency of historical interactions

Cited by 82 publications

References 46 publications

Interactions within and between clades shaped the diversification of terrestrial carnivores

Interactions within and between clades shaped the diversification of terrestrial carnivores

Linking modern coexistence theory and contemporary niche theory

Why phylogenies do not always predict ecological differences

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About