Aim: Higher-elevation areas on islands and continental mountains tend to be separated by longer distances, predicting higher endemism at higher elevations; our study is the first to test the generality of the predicted pattern. We also compare it empirically with contrasting expectations from hypotheses invoking higher speciation with area, temperature and species richness. Location: 32 insular and 18 continental elevational gradients from around the world. Methods: We compiled entire floras with elevation-specific occurrence information, and calculated the proportion of native species that are endemic ('percent endemism') in 100 m bands, for each of the 50 elevational gradients. Using generalized linear models, we tested the relationships between percent endemism and elevation, isolation, temperature, area and species richness. Results: Percent endemism consistently increased monotonically with elevation, globally. This was independent of richness-elevation relationships, which had varying shapes but decreased with elevation at high elevations. The endemism-elevation relationships were consistent with isolationrelated predictions, but inconsistent with hypotheses related to area, richness and temperature. Main conclusions: Higher per-species speciation rates caused by increasing isolation with elevation are the most plausible and parsimonious explanation for the globally consistent pattern of higher endemism at higher elevations that we identify. We suggest that topography-driven isolation increases speciation rates in mountainous areas, across all elevations, and increasingly towards the equator. If so, it represents a mechanism that may contribute to generating latitudinal diversity gradients in a way that is consistent with both present-day and palaeontological evidence.
Aim Plants in islands have often evolved through adaptive radiation, providing the classical model of evolution of closely related species each with strikingly different morphological and ecological features and with low levels of genetic divergence. We emphasize the importance of an alternative (anagenetic) model of evolution, whereby a single island endemic evolves from a progenitor and slowly builds up genetic variation through time.
Location Continental and oceanic islands.
Methods We surveyed 2640 endemic angiosperm species in 13 island systems of the world, both oceanic and continental, for anagenetic and cladogenetic patterns of speciation. Genetic data were evaluated from a progenitor and derivative species pair in Ullung Island, Korea, and Japan.
Results We show that the anagenetic model of evolution is much more important in oceanic islands than previously believed, accounting for levels of endemic specific diversity from 7% in the Hawaiian Islands to 88% in Ullung Island, Korea, with a mean for all islands of 25%. Examination of an anagenetically derived endemic species in Ullung Island reveals genetic (amplified fragment length polymorphism) variation equal or nearly equal to that of its continental progenitor.
Main conclusions We hypothesize that, during anagenetic speciation, initial founder populations proliferate, and then accumulate genetic variation slowly through time by mutation and recombination in a relatively uniform environment, with drift and/or selection yielding genetic and morphological divergence sufficient for the recognition of new species. Low‐elevation islands with low habitat heterogeneity are highly correlated with high levels of anagenetic evolution, allowing prediction of levels of the two models of evolution from these data alone. Both anagenetic and adaptive radiation models of speciation are needed to explain the observed levels of specific and genetic diversity in oceanic islands.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.