The rise and fall of species: implications for macroevolutionary and macroecological studies

Liow, Lee Hsiang; Stenseth, Nils Chr.

doi:10.1098/rspb.2007.1006

Cited by 139 publications

(178 citation statements)

References 43 publications

(63 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

171

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, range sizes have been shown to vary systematically over the geologic history of lineages (Foote 2007;Foote et al 2007;Liow and Stenseth 2007;Liow et al 2010;Tietje and Kiessling 2013), with many lineages exhibiting protracted intervals of range expansion and contraction separated by short-lived peaks in range size, which could also result in little phylogenetic structure to range size. Among Devonian terebratulide genera, however, we show that the distribution of geographic range sizes over the phylogeny is consistent with that expected if range size was evolving under Brownian motion over the Devonian history of the clade.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Phylogenetic signal in extinction selectivity in Devonian terebratulide brachiopods

Harnik¹,

Fitzgerald²,

Payne³

et al. 2014

Paleobiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Determining which biological traits affect taxonomic durations is critical for explaining macroevolutionary patterns. Two approaches are commonly used to investigate the associations between traits and durations and/or extinction and origination rates: analyses of taxonomic occurrence patterns in the fossil record and comparative phylogenetic analyses, predominantly of extant taxa. By capitalizing upon the empirical record of past extinctions, paleontological data avoid some of the limitations of existing methods for inferring extinction and origination rates from molecular phylogenies. However, most paleontological studies of extinction selectivity have ignored phylogenetic relationships because there is a dearth of phylogenetic hypotheses for diverse non-vertebrate higher taxa in the fossil record. This omission inflates the degrees of freedom in statistical analyses and leaves open the possibility that observed associations are indirect, reflecting shared evolutionary history rather than the direct influence of particular traits on durations. Here we investigate global patterns of extinction selectivity in Devonian terebratulide brachiopods and compare the results of taxonomic vs. phylogenetic approaches. Regression models that assume independence among taxa provide support for a positive association between geographic range size and genus duration but do not indicate an association between body size and genus duration. Brownian motion models of trait evolution identify significant similarities in body size, range size, and duration among closely related terebratulide genera. We use phylogenetic regression to account for shared evolutionary history and find support for a significant positive association between range size and duration among terebratulides that is also phylogenetically structured. The estimated range size–duration relationship is moderately weaker in the phylogenetic analysis due to the down-weighting of closely related genera that were both broadly distributed and long lived; however, this change in slope is not statistically significant. These results provide evidence for the phylogenetic conservatism of organismal and emergent traits, yet also the general phylogenetic independence of the relationship between range size and duration.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Phylogenetic signal in extinction selectivity in Devonian terebratulide brachiopods

Harnik¹,

Fitzgerald²,

Payne³

et al. 2014

Paleobiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They found that almost all species showed considerable variation in the size of their ranges throughout the course of their existence (Figure 10; see also Liow and Stenseth, 2007).…”

Section: Phylogenetic Approaches Are Not Suitable For Traits That Evomentioning

confidence: 99%

Seeing the Forest for the Trees: The Limitations of Phylogenies in Comparative Biology

Losos

2011

The American Naturalist

244

241

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The last 30 years have seen a revolution in comparative biology. Prior to that time, systematics was not at the forefront of the biological sciences, and few scientists considered phylogenetic relationships when investigating evolutionary questions. By contrast, systematic biology is now one of the most vigorous disciplines in biology, and the use of phylogenies is not only requisite in macroevolutionary studies, but has been applied to a wide range of topics and fields that no one could possibly have envisioned 30 years ago. My message is simple: phylogenies are fundamental to comparative biology, but they are not the be all and end all. Phylogenies are powerful tools for understanding the past, but like any tool, they have their limitations. In addition, phylogenies are much more informative about pattern than they are about process. The best way to fully understand the past-both pattern and process-is to integrate phylogenies with other types of historical data as well as with direct studies of evolutionary process. 3I start with two observations about evolutionary biology. First, as attendance at the 2010 joint meeting of the American Society of Naturalists, the Society for the Study of Evolution, and the Society of Systematic Biologists attests, evolutionary biology is a thriving science. One sign of the health of this science, evident to any participant at the meeting, is the number of young people entering the field. This leads to my second observation. Evolutionary biology is inherently about history, the progression of life through time.Given these two points, I begin my essay by providing a service to the younger members of the field. In my ASN Presidential Address (from which this essay is adapted), I asked all members of the audience born since 1980 to raise their hands. My estimate, looking out upon the assembled masses, was that approximately 61.31% of the audience (was in this fledgling class. 1 These young workers, then, do not personally know the field of evolutionary biology before the year 2000 or so, much less what it was like in the 1970's, before their birth. So, in the spirit of a historical science, I briefly review what life was like in that ancient time. A Short History of Modern Comparative ApproachesAhh, the 1970's: bell bottoms and big hair. Disco, Abba and Led Zep. Happy Days, Grease, and Star Wars. Tricky Dick and Watergate. Not to mention the Oil Embargo (the result of a time when we relied on oil imported from the Middle East for much of our energy).But what about evolutionary biology? In particular, the more historical, systematic, macroevolutionary side of the field, which is so vibrant today. What was it like? In a word, it was non-existent. The importance of a historical, evolutionary perspective was realized, at least by some (e.g., Mayr, 1976), but systematics itself was a scientific backwater. The construction of phylogenies often was more an art than a science; evolutionary trees were constructed using simplistic algorithms or none at all. The use of phylogenies t...

show abstract

“…Thus, existing studies do not readily allow direct comparisons of past losses of EH with those predicted for anthropogenic extinctions. Although temporal durations of species in the fossil record are more difficult to estimate reliably than those of higher taxa (23), a number of paleontological studies have used fossil species successfully to test important evolutionary and biogeographic hypotheses (21,(51)(52)(53)(54)(55)(56) as well as various aspects of the extinction process (57)(58)(59). With the increasing availability of large, taxonomically standardized paleontological databases, analyses of age selectivity of extinctions at the species level, such as the one undertaken here, are now feasible, especially on regional scales.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fossils, phylogenies, and the challenge of preserving evolutionary history in the face of anthropogenic extinctions

Huang

Goldberg

Roy

2015

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Anthropogenic impacts are endangering many long-lived species and lineages, possibly leading to a disproportionate loss of existing evolutionary history (EH) in the future. However, surprisingly little is known about the loss of EH during major extinctions in the geological past, and thus we do not know whether human impacts are pruning the tree of life in a manner that is unique in the history of life. A major impediment to comparing the loss of EH during past and current extinctions is the conceptual difference in how ages are estimated from paleontological data versus molecular phylogenies. In the former case the age of a taxon is its entire stratigraphic range, regardless of how many daughter taxa it may have produced; for the latter it is the time to the most recent common ancestor shared with another extant taxon. To explore this issue, we use simulations to understand how the loss of EH is manifested in the two data types. We also present empirical analyses of the marine bivalve clade Pectinidae (scallops) during a major Plio-Pleistocene extinction in California that involved a preferential loss of younger species. Overall, our results show that the conceptual difference in how ages are estimated from the stratigraphic record versus molecular phylogenies does not preclude comparisons of age selectivities of past and present extinctions. Such comparisons not only provide fundamental insights into the nature of the extinction process but should also help improve evolutionarily informed models of conservation prioritization.extinction | phylogenetic diversity | phylogeny | fossil record | bivalves E xtinction of any species or higher taxon invariably results in some loss of existing evolutionary history (EH), but a major concern about extinctions driven by anthropogenic impacts is that they may remove a disproportionately large amount of such history (1-3). In groups as varied as birds, mammals, and plants, studies have shown that extinctions of species currently on the International Union for the Conservation of Nature Red List of Threatened Species would lead to a much larger loss of EH than expected under randomly distributed extinction of the same number of species (4-6). This disproportionate loss of EH stems from phylogenetic clustering of anthropogenic extinctions (1) with a bias toward the loss of species-poor and geologically old taxa (7-9). Such predictions, along with the realization that not all species currently threatened by human activities can be saved, have motivated the development of various strategies for minimizing the loss of EH (8, 10, 11). These approaches primarily target lineages that are old but species poor in an attempt to protect large amounts of EH and, presumably, also unique traits and functions that may affect future evolutionary potential (10,12).Although the disproportionate loss of EH caused by anthropogenic extinctions is increasingly evident, surprisingly little is known about the loss of EH during extinctions in the geological past. The rich archive of extinctions pres...

show abstract

The rise and fall of species: implications for macroevolutionary and macroecological studies

Cited by 139 publications

References 43 publications

Phylogenetic signal in extinction selectivity in Devonian terebratulide brachiopods

Phylogenetic signal in extinction selectivity in Devonian terebratulide brachiopods

Seeing the Forest for the Trees: The Limitations of Phylogenies in Comparative Biology

Fossils, phylogenies, and the challenge of preserving evolutionary history in the face of anthropogenic extinctions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About