Decoupled ecomorphological evolution and diversification in Neogene-Quaternary horses

Cantalapiedra, Juan L.; Prado, José Luis; Fernández, Manuel Hérnandez; Alberdi, María Teresa

doi:10.1126/science.aag1772

Cited by 91 publications

(91 citation statements)

References 81 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, there is increasing empirical (Adams et al ; Cantalapiedra et al . ) and theoretical (Aristide & Morlon ) evidence that this coupling might not be so straightforward. Developing a model where both diversification and phenotypic evolution are influenced by competition for limited resources, Aristide & Morlon () found that niche packing limits speciation and increases extinctions rates, but does not reduce trait evolutionary rates, as frequent extinctions free up ecological space that is rapidly reoccupied.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing the causes of diversification slowdowns: temperature‐dependent and diversity‐dependent models receive equivalent support

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Diversification rates vary over time, yet the factors driving these variations remain unclear. Temporal declines in speciation rates have often been interpreted as the effect of ecological limits, competition, and diversity dependence, emphasising the role of biotic factors. Abiotic factors, such as climate change, are also supposed to have affected diversification rates over geological time scales, yet direct tests of these presumed effects have mainly been limited to few clades well represented in the fossil record. If warmer climatic periods have sustained faster speciation, this could explain slowdowns in speciation during the Cenozoic climate cooling. Here, we apply state‐of‐the art diversity‐dependent and temperature‐dependent phylogenetic models of diversification to 218 tetrapod families, along with constant rate and time‐dependent models. We confirm the prevalence of diversification slowdowns, and find as much support for temperature‐dependent than diversity‐dependent models. These results call for a better integration of these two processes in studies of diversification dynamics.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing the causes of diversification slowdowns: temperature‐dependent and diversity‐dependent models receive equivalent support

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One possibility is that the overall dispersal along geological time‐scales was not constrained by past geographical distances; for example, when land bridges reconnected land masses that had remained isolated for millions of years and/or extinction events erased the signal of tectonic isolation. For instance, this is the case for the Great American Biotic Interchange (GABI) that recently brought new mammalian orders, such as cetartiodactyls and carnivorans, to South America (i.e., in the last 3–15 Ma; Bacon et al, ; Webb, ; Woodburne, ) or during the complex biogeographical history of horses (e.g., Cantalapiedra, Prado, Hernández Fernández, & Alberdi, ). As a result of these recent events, the β‐diversity of deep (e.g., at a time slice of 30 Ma in the current phylogeny) mammalian branches that we observe today between, for example, South and North America does not actually represent what the β‐diversity looked like 30 Ma between these continents.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Global patterns of β‐diversity along the phylogenetic time‐scale: The role of climate and plate tectonics

Mazel

Wüest

Lessard

et al. 2017

Global Ecol Biogeogr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim We aimed to assess the relative influence of the historical and contemporary processes determining global patterns of current β‐diversity. Specifically, we quantified the relative effects of contemporary climate and historical plate tectonics on β‐diversity at different phylogenetic scales. Location Global. Time Period Contemporaneous. Major taxa studied Mammals and birds. Methods We analysed the current β‐diversity patterns of birds and mammal assemblages at sequential depths in the phylogeny, that is, from the tips to deeper branches. This was done by slicing bird and mammal phylogenetic trees into 66 time slices of 1 Ma (from 0 to 65 Ma) and recording the branches within each slice. Using global distribution data, we defined the branches’ geographical distribution as the union of the corresponding downstream species distributions. For each time slice, we (a) computed pairwise β‐diversity across all the grid cells for the whole world and (b) estimated the correlation between this β‐diversity matrix and contemporary climatic and geographical distances, and past geological distances, a proxy for plate tectonics. Results Contemporary climate best explained the β‐diversity of shallow branches (i.e., species). For mammals, the geographical isolation of landmasses generated by plate tectonics best explained the β‐diversity of deeper branches, whereas the effect of past isolation was weaker for birds. Main conclusions Our study shows that the relative influence of contemporary climate and plate tectonics on the β‐diversity of bird and mammal assemblages varies along the phylogenetic time‐scale. Our phylogenetic time‐scale approach is general and flexible enough to be applied to a broad spectrum of study systems and spatial scales.

show abstract

“…with no motivating hypothesis related to alternative processes of range evolution presented by the candidate models. A few examples (of many) are Cantalapiedra, Prado, Hernández Fernández, and Alberdi (), Brown et al (), Givnish et al. (), Skeels and Cardillo () and Kok et al.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conceptual and statistical problems with the DEC+J model of founder‐event speciation and its comparison with DEC via model selection

Ree

Sanmartín

2018

Journal of Biogeography

550

364

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Phylogenetic studies of geographic range evolution are increasingly using statistical model selection methods to choose among variants of the dispersal‐extinction‐cladogenesis (DEC) model, especially between DEC and DEC+J, a variant that emphasizes “jump dispersal,” or founder‐event speciation, as a type of cladogenetic range inheritance scenario. Unfortunately, DEC+J is a poor model of founder‐event speciation, and statistical comparisons of its likelihood with DEC are inappropriate. DEC and DEC+J share a conceptual flaw: cladogenetic events of range inheritance at ancestral nodes, unlike anagenetic events of dispersal and local extinction along branches, are not modelled as being probabilistic with respect to time. Ignoring this probability factor artificially inflates the contribution of cladogenetic events to the likelihood, and leads to underestimates of anagenetic, time‐dependent range evolution. The flaw is exacerbated in DEC+J because not only is jump dispersal allowed, expanding the set of cladogenetic events, its probability relative to non‐jump events is assigned a free parameter, j, that when maximized precludes the possibility of non‐jump events at ancestral nodes. DEC+J thus parameterizes the mode of speciation, but like DEC, it does not parameterize the rate of speciation. This inconsistency has undesirable consequences, such as a greater tendency towards degenerate inferences in which the data are explained entirely by cladogenetic events (at which point branch lengths become irrelevant, with estimated anagenetic rates of 0). Inferences with DEC+J can in some cases depart dramatically from intuition, e.g. when highly unparsimonious numbers of jump dispersal events are required solely because j is maximized. Statistical comparison with DEC is inappropriate because a higher DEC+J likelihood does not reflect a more close approximation of the “true” model of range evolution, which surely must include time‐dependent processes; instead, it is simply due to more weight being allocated (via j) to jump dispersal events whose time‐dependent probabilities are ignored. In testing hypotheses about the geographic mode of speciation, jump dispersal can and should instead be modelled using existing frameworks for state‐dependent lineage diversification in continuous time, taking appropriate cautions against Type I errors associated with such methods. For simple inference of ancestral ranges on a fixed phylogeny, a DEC‐based model may be defensible if statistical model selection is not used to justify the choice, and it is understood that inferences about cladogenetic range inheritance lack any relation to time, normally a fundamental axis of evolutionary models.

show abstract

Decoupled ecomorphological evolution and diversification in Neogene-Quaternary horses

Cited by 91 publications

References 81 publications

Assessing the causes of diversification slowdowns: temperature‐dependent and diversity‐dependent models receive equivalent support

Assessing the causes of diversification slowdowns: temperature‐dependent and diversity‐dependent models receive equivalent support

Global patterns of β‐diversity along the phylogenetic time‐scale: The role of climate and plate tectonics

Conceptual and statistical problems with the DEC+J model of founder‐event speciation and its comparison with DEC via model selection

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About