For over half a century, it has been known that the rate of morphological evolution appears to vary with the time frame of measurement. Rates of microevolutionary change, measured between successive generations, were found to be far higher than rates of macroevolutionary change inferred from the fossil record. More recently, it has been suggested that rates of molecular evolution are also time dependent, with the estimated rate depending on the timescale of measurement. This followed surprising observations that estimates of mutation rates, obtained in studies of pedigrees and laboratory mutation-accumulation lines, exceeded long-term substitution rates by an order of magnitude or more. Although a range of studies have provided evidence for such a pattern, the hypothesis remains relatively contentious. Furthermore, there is ongoing discussion about the factors that can cause molecular rate estimates to be dependent on time. Here we present an overview of our current understanding of time-dependent rates. We provide a summary of the evidence for time-dependent rates in animals, bacteria and viruses. We review the various biological and methodological factors that can cause rates to be time dependent, including the effects of natural selection, calibration errors, model misspecification and other artefacts. We also describe the challenges in calibrating estimates of molecular rates, particularly on the intermediate timescales that are critical for an accurate characterization of time-dependent rates. This has important consequences for the use of molecular-clock methods to estimate timescales of recent evolutionary events.

The discovery of the molecular clock--a relatively constant rate of molecular evolution--provided an insight into the mechanisms of molecular evolution, and created one of the most useful new tools in biology. The unexpected constancy of rate was explained by assuming that most changes to genes are effectively neutral. Theory predicts several sources of variation in the rate of molecular evolution. However, even an approximate clock allows time estimates of events in evolutionary history, which provides a method for testing a wide range of biological hypotheses ranging from the origins of the animal kingdom to the emergence of new viral epidemics.

Abstract. The evolution of salt tolerance is interesting for several reasons. First, since salt-tolerant plants (halophytes) employ several different mechanisms to deal with salt, the evolution of salt tolerance represents a fascinating case study in the evolution of a complex trait. Second, the diversity of mechanisms employed by halophytes, based on processes common to all plants, sheds light on the way that a plant's physiology can become adapted to deal with extreme conditions. Third, as the amount of salt-affected land increases around the globe, understanding the origins of the diversity of halophytes should provide a basis for the use of novel species in bioremediation and conservation. In this review we pose the question, how many times has salt tolerance evolved since the emergence of the land plants some 450-470 million years ago? We summarise the physiological mechanisms underlying salt-tolerance and provide an overview of the number and diversity of salt-tolerant terrestrial angiosperms (defined as plants that survive to complete their life cycle in at least 200 mM salt). We consider the evolution of halophytes using information from fossils and phylogenies. Finally, we discuss the potential for halophytes to contribute to agriculture and land management and ask why, when there are naturally occurring halophytes, it is proving to be difficult to breed salt-tolerant crops.

Although temporal calibration is widely recognized as critical for obtaining accurate divergence-time estimates using molecular dating methods, few studies have evaluated the variation resulting from different calibration strategies. Depending on the information available, researchers have often used primary calibrations from the fossil record or secondary calibrations from previous molecular dating studies. In analyses of flowering plants, primary calibration data can be obtained from macro- and mesofossils (e.g., leaves, flowers, and fruits) or microfossils (e.g., pollen). Fossil data can vary substantially in accuracy and precision, presenting a difficult choice when selecting appropriate calibrations. Here, we test the impact of eight plausible calibration scenarios for Nothofagus (Nothofagaceae, Fagales), a plant genus with a particularly rich and well-studied fossil record. To do so, we reviewed the phylogenetic placement and geochronology of 38 fossil taxa of Nothofagus and other Fagales, and we identified minimum age constraints for up to 18 nodes of the phylogeny of Fagales. Molecular dating analyses were conducted for each scenario using maximum likelihood (RAxML + r8s) and Bayesian (BEAST) approaches on sequence data from six regions of the chloroplast and nuclear genomes. Using either ingroup or outgroup constraints, or both, led to similar age estimates, except near strongly influential calibration nodes. Using "early but risky" fossil constraints in addition to "safe but late" constraints, or using assumptions of vicariance instead of fossil constraints, led to older age estimates. In contrast, using secondary calibration points yielded drastically younger age estimates. This empirical study highlights the critical influence of calibration on molecular dating analyses. Even in a best-case situation, with many thoroughly vetted fossils available, substantial uncertainties can remain in the estimates of divergence times. For example, our estimates for the crown group age of Nothofagus varied from 13 to 113 Ma across our full range of calibration scenarios. We suggest that increased background research should be made at all stages of the calibration process to reduce errors wherever possible, from verifying the geochronological data on the fossils to critical reassessment of their phylogenetic position.

Interdisciplinary research is widely considered a hothouse for innovation, and the only plausible approach to complex problems such as climate change. One barrier to interdisciplinary research is the widespread perception that interdisciplinary projects are less likely to be funded than those with a narrower focus. However, this commonly held belief has been difficult to evaluate objectively, partly because of lack of a comparable, quantitative measure of degree of interdisciplinarity that can be applied to funding application data. Here we compare the degree to which research proposals span disparate fields by using a biodiversity metric that captures the relative representation of different fields (balance) and their degree of difference (disparity). The Australian Research Council's Discovery Programme provides an ideal test case, because a single annual nationwide competitive grants scheme covers fundamental research in all disciplines, including arts, humanities and sciences. Using data on all 18,476 proposals submitted to the scheme over 5 consecutive years, including successful and unsuccessful applications, we show that the greater the degree of interdisciplinarity, the lower the probability of being funded. The negative impact of interdisciplinarity is significant even when number of collaborators, primary research field and type of institution are taken into account. This is the first broad-scale quantitative assessment of success rates of interdisciplinary research proposals. The interdisciplinary distance metric allows efficient evaluation of trends in research funding, and could be used to identify proposals that require assessment strategies appropriate to interdisciplinary research.