| Literature DB >> 25029229 |
Fabio L Lobato1, Diego R Barneche2, Alexandre C Siqueira1, Ana M R Liedke1, Alberto Lindner1, Marcio R Pie3, David R Bellwood4, Sergio R Floeter1.
Abstract
The disparity in species richness among evolutionary lineages is one of the oldest and most intriguing issues in evolutionary biology. Although geographical factors have been traditionally thought to promote speciation, recent studies have underscored the importance of ecological interactions as one of the main drivers of diversification. Here, we test if differences in species richness of closely related lineages match predictions based on the concept of density-dependent diversification. As radiation progresses, ecological niche-space would become increasingly saturated, resulting in fewer opportunities for speciation. To assess this hypothesis, we tested whether reef fish niche shifts toward usage of low-quality food resources (i.e. relatively low energy/protein per unit mass), such as algae, detritus, sponges and corals are accompanied by rapid net diversification. Using available molecular information, we reconstructed phylogenies of four major reef fish clades (Acanthuroidei, Chaetodontidae, Labridae and Pomacentridae) to estimate the timing of radiations of their subclades. We found that the evolution of species-rich clades was associated with a switch to low quality food in three of the four clades analyzed, which is consistent with a density-dependent model of diversification. We suggest that ecological opportunity may play an important role in understanding the diversification of reef-fish lineages.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25029229 PMCID: PMC4100817 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0102094
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Number of sampled and missing species from phylogenetic reconstructions (Fig. 1) according to the total number of species in each subclade.
| Tree | Subclades | N° species sampled | N° species missing | Total N° species | % species not represented due to missing genera | % species using LQD |
| Acanthuroidei | Luvaridae | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Zanclidae | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | |
| Acanthuridae | 7 | 74 | 81 | 0 | 77 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Chaetodontidae | Bannerfishes | 17 | 9 | 26 | 0 | 0 |
|
| 2 | 9 | 11 | 0 | 0 | |
|
| 52 | 39 | 91 | 0 | 99 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Labridae | Labridae 1b | 2 | 10 | 12 | 58 | 92 |
| Labridae 2b | 6 | 90 | 96 | 10 | 100 | |
| Labridae 2g | 7 | 19 | 25 | 48 | 36 | |
| Other labrids | 69 | 414 | 484 | 9 | 2 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Pomacentridae |
| 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Pomacentridae 1 | 19 | 48 | 67 | 0 | 100 | |
| Pomacentridae 2 | 21 | 88 | 109 | 0 | 0 | |
| Pomacentridae 3 | 9 | 11 | 20 | 0 | 0 | |
| Pomacentridae 4 | 54 | 130 | 184 | 0 | 60 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Percentage of species not represented in the analyses due to missing genera and the percentage of species using Low-quality diet (LQD) in each subclade are also shown.
Lognormal distribution, priors and references for the calibration points.
| Tree | node | hard-lower bound (Ma) | 95% soft-upper bound (Ma) | ln(mean) | ln(SD) | References |
| Acanthuroidei | Acanthuridae | 50 | 65 | 1.0 | 1.04 | Bellwood, 1996 |
| Chaetodontidae | Outgroup | 50 | 65 | 1.0 | 1.04 | Bellwood |
| Labridae | Labridae 2b | 15 | 50 | 1.5 | 1.25 | Bellwood, 1990 |
| Labridae 1 | 50 | 65 | 1.0 | 1.04 | Bellwood, 1990 | |
| Labridae 2 | 50 | 65 | 1.0 | 1.04 | Bannikov & Sorbini, 1995 | |
| root | 50 | 65 | 1.0 | 0.8 | Bellwood, 1990 | |
| Pomacentridae | root | 50 | 65 | 1.0 | 0.8 | Bellwood, 1990 |
Figure 1BEAST chronogram showing optimized character under diet quality of: A) Acanthuroidei; B) Chaetodontidae; C) Labridae; D) Pomacentridae. Black branches represent high-quality feeders, green branches represent low-quality feeders and gray branches mean equivocal character.
Red names represent subclades that showed significant higher than expected species richness under rG conditioned to different extinction rates. Bars on nodes represent the 95% HPD of subclades mean age. White dots indicate calibration points. The blue bar represents the expansion of IWP reefs in the Oligo-Miocene period among 25–20 Ma [2], [5], [80].
Mean evolutionary rate (MER), Yule process birth rate (Yule), coefficient of variance (CV) and mean covariance (MC) for each of the ultrametric trees reconstructed using BEAST.
| Tree | MER | Yule | CV | MC |
| 95% HPD | 95% HPD | 95% HPD | 95% HPD | |
| Acanthuroidei | 1.24E-3 | 1.19E-2 | 0.54 | −0.11 |
| 8.2E-4–1.6E-3 | 6.1E-3–1.8E-2 | 0.3–0.7 | −0.4–0.1 | |
| Chaetodontidae | 5.51E-3 | 8.4E-2 | 0.37 | −1.3E-2 |
| 3.9E-3–7.2E-3 | 5.6E-2–0.1 | 0.2–0.4 | −0.1–0.1 | |
| Labridae | 3.89E-3 | 4.7E-2 | 0.48 | 7.3E-2 |
| 3.4E-4–4.3E-3 | 3.6E-2–5.8E-2 | 0.4–0.5 | −0.07–0.2 | |
| Pomacentridae | 2,66E-3 | 5.1E-2 | 0.47 | 8.7E-2 |
| 2E-4–3.2E-3 | 3.9E-3–6.5E-2 | 0.4–0.5 | −0.04–0.2 |
95% HPD = high-posterior density interval of 95% for each value estimated.
Figure 2Individual net diversification rate (rG) of subclades vs. subclades ages.
Black circles represent high-quality feeders, green circles represent low-quality feeders. Dashed line represents the rG value over which all clades showed significant higher than expected species richness. Crown ages are according to mean node ages in BEAST analysis. Circle sizes are proportional to the number of species in each clade.