A phylogenetic comparative method for evaluating trait coevolution across two phylogenies for sets of interacting species

Adams, Dean C.; Nason, John D.

doi:10.1111/evo.13415

Cited by 8 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 87 publications

(169 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We carried out multivariate permutation‐based PGLS analyses based on a Brownian motion model according to Adams and Nason (). This method is also suitable when each taxon interacts with multiple partners, as is the case in our data set (Adams & Nason, ). Since the origin of Rediviva predates that of Diascia (origin of Rediviva : ~29 Ma; Kahnt et al, , origin of Diascia : ~17 Ma; G. Cron, W. N. Hattingh, M. Kuhlman, T. van der Niet., in preparation) we treated Rediviva as host, i.e., independent, taxon and Diascia as the dependent taxon.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Foreleg and spur length data correspond to species means as calculated by Pauw et al (). Phylogenetic regression of Rediviva foreleg and Diascia spur length was carried out with the R script of Adams and Nason () using the packages ape v. 5.1 (Paradis, Claude, & Strimmer, ) and geiger v. 2.0.6 (Harmon, Weir, Brock, Glor, & Challenger, ). The null distribution for significance testing of the trait association was generated using 9,999 permutations of trait interactions.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A significant correlation between species traits would provide further support for the hypothesis that the traits represent adaptations (either reciprocal or unilateral, due to co‐evolution or host/pollinator shifts, respectively). We carried out multivariate permutation‐based PGLS analyses based on a Brownian motion model according to Adams and Nason (). This method is also suitable when each taxon interacts with multiple partners, as is the case in our data set (Adams & Nason, ).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We carried out multivariate permutation-based PGLS analyses based on a Brownian motion model according to Adams and Nason (2017). This method is also suitable when each taxon interacts with multiple partners, as is the case in our data set (Adams & Nason, 2017). Since the origin of Rediviva predates that of Diascia Diascia as the dependent taxon.…”

Section: Trait Correlations Controlling For Phylogenetic Nonindepenmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Should I stay or should I go? Pollinator shifts rather than cospeciation dominate the evolutionary history of South African Rediviva bees and their Diascia host plants

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Plant–pollinator interactions are often highly specialised, which may be a consequence of co‐evolution. Yet when plants and pollinators co‐evolve, it is not clear if this will also result in frequent cospeciation. Here, we investigate the mutual evolutionary history of South African oil‐collecting Rediviva bees and their Diascia host plants, in which the elongated forelegs of female Rediviva have been suggested to coevolve with the oil‐producing spurs of their Diascia hosts. After controlling for phylogenetic nonindependence, we found Rediviva foreleg length to be significantly correlated with Diascia spur length, suggestive of co‐evolution. However, as trait correlation could also be due to pollinator shifts, we tested if cospeciation or pollinator shifts have dominated the evolution of Rediviva–Diascia interactions by analysing phylogenies in a cophylogenetic framework. Distance‐based cophylogenetic analyses (PARAFIT, PACo) indicated significant congruence of the two phylogenies under most conditions. Yet, we found that phylogenetic relatedness was correlated with ecological similarity (the spectrum of partners that each taxon interacted with) only for Diascia but not for Rediviva, suggesting that phylogenetic congruence might be due to phylogenetic tracking by Diascia of Rediviva rather than strict (reciprocal) co‐evolution. Furthermore, event‐based reconciliation using a parsimony approach (CORE‐PA) on average revealed only 11–13 cospeciation events but 58–80 pollinator shifts. Probabilistic cophylogenetic analyses (COALA) supported this trend (8–29 cospeciations vs. 40 pollinator shifts). Our study suggests that diversification of Diascia has been largely driven by Rediviva (phylogenetic tracking, pollinator shifts) but not vice versa. Moreover, our data suggest that, even in co‐evolving mutualisms, cospeciation events might occur only infrequently.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Trait Correlations Controlling For Phylogenetic Nonindepenmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Should I stay or should I go? Pollinator shifts rather than cospeciation dominate the evolutionary history of South African Rediviva bees and their Diascia host plants

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Despite the fact that many species pairs that are co-speciating are likely to experience reciprocal selection, co-speciation does not require a change to lineage diversification rates, as envisioned in escape-and-radiate coevolution. Recent advances have improved analytical methods that account for phylogenies in trait correlations (Adams et al 2018), allowing for more robust studies of co-diversification, host switching, and extinction in potentially coevolving species. Nonetheless, novel comparative methodologies that explicitly test coevolutionary hypotheses (Table 1) within the context of co-diversification are sorely needed.…”

Section: Current and Future Directions In Macroevolutionary Coevolutionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The evolution of coevolution in the study of species interactions

Agrawal

Zhang

2021

Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The study of reciprocal adaptation in interacting species has been an active and inspiring area of evolutionary research for nearly 60 years. Perhaps owing to its great natural history and potential consequences spanning population divergence to species diversification, coevolution continues to capture the imagination of biologists. Here we trace developments following Ehrlich and Raven's classic paper, with a particular focus on the modern influence of two studies by Dr. May Berenbaum in the 1980s. This series of classic work presented a compelling example exhibiting the macroevolutionary patterns predicted by Ehrlich and Raven and also formalized a microevolutionary approach to measuring selection, functional traits, and understanding reciprocal adaptation between plants and their herbivores. Following this breakthrough was a wave of research focusing on diversifying macroevolutionary patterns, mechanistic chemical ecology, and natural selection on populations within and across community types. Accordingly, we breakdown coevolutionary theory into specific hypotheses at different scales: reciprocal adaptation between populations within a community, differential coevolution among communities, lineage divergence, and phylogenetic patterns. We highlight progress as well as persistent gaps, especially the link between reciprocal adaptation and diversification.

show abstract

Uncovering Cryptic Coevolution

Nuismer¹,

Week²,

Harmon³

2022

The American Naturalist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Studies of coevolution in the wild have largely focused on reciprocally specialized species pairs with striking and exaggerated phenotypes. Textbook examples include interactions between toxic newts and their garter snake predators, long-tongued flies and the flowers they pollinate, and weevils with elongated rostra used to bore through the defensive pericarp of their host plants. Although these studies have laid a foundation for understanding coevolution in the wild, they have also contributed to the widespread impression that coevolution is a rare and quirky sideshow to the day-to-day grind of ecology and evolution. In this perspective, we argue that the focus of coevolution has been biased towards the obvious and ignored the cryptic. We have focused on the obvious -studies of reciprocally specialized species pairs with exaggerated phenotypes -mainly because we have lacked the statistical tools required to study coevolution in more generalized and phenotypically mundane systems. Building from well-established coevolutionary theory, we illustrate how model-based approaches can be used to remove this barrier and begin estimating the strength of coevolutionary selection indirectly using routinely collected data, thus uncovering cryptic coevolution in more typical communities. By allowing the distribution of coevolutionary selection to be estimated across genomes, phylogenies, communities, and over deep time scales, these novel approaches have the potential to revolutionize the way we study coevolution. As we develop a roadmap to these next generation approaches, we highlight recent studies making notable progress in this direction. 2

show abstract

A phylogenetic comparative method for evaluating trait coevolution across two phylogenies for sets of interacting species

Cited by 8 publications

References 87 publications

Should I stay or should I go? Pollinator shifts rather than cospeciation dominate the evolutionary history of South African Rediviva bees and their Diascia host plants

Should I stay or should I go? Pollinator shifts rather than cospeciation dominate the evolutionary history of South African Rediviva bees and their Diascia host plants

The evolution of coevolution in the study of species interactions

Uncovering Cryptic Coevolution

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About