Literature DB >> 26998589

Is specialization an evolutionary dead end? Testing for differences in speciation, extinction and trait transition rates across diverse phylogenies of specialists and generalists.

E H Day1, X Hua1, L Bromham1.   

Abstract

Specialization has often been claimed to be an evolutionary dead end, with specialist lineages having a reduced capacity to persist or diversify. In a phylogenetic comparative framework, an evolutionary dead end may be detectable from the phylogenetic distribution of specialists, if specialists rarely give rise to large, diverse clades. Previous phylogenetic studies of the influence of specialization on macroevolutionary processes have demonstrated a range of patterns, including examples where specialists have both higher and lower diversification rates than generalists, as well as examples where the rates of evolutionary transitions from generalists to specialists are higher, lower or equal to transitions from specialists to generalists. Here, we wish to ask whether these varied answers are due to the differences in macroevolutionary processes in different clades, or partly due to differences in methodology. We analysed ten phylogenies containing multiple independent origins of specialization and quantified the phylogenetic distribution of specialists by applying a common set of metrics to all datasets. We compared the tip branch lengths of specialists to generalists, the size of specialist clades arising from each evolutionary origin of a specialized trait and whether specialists tend to be clustered or scattered on phylogenies. For each of these measures, we compared the observed values to expectations under null models of trait evolution and expected outcomes under alternative macroevolutionary scenarios. We found that specialization is sometimes an evolutionary dead end: in two of the ten case studies (pollinator-specific plants and host-specific flies), specialization is associated with a reduced rate of diversification or trait persistence. However, in the majority of studies, we could not distinguish the observed phylogenetic distribution of specialists from null models in which specialization has no effect on diversification or trait persistence.
© 2016 European Society For Evolutionary Biology. Journal of Evolutionary Biology © 2016 European Society For Evolutionary Biology.

Keywords:  diversification; macroevolution; null models; phylogenetics; specialization

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26998589     DOI: 10.1111/jeb.12867

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Evol Biol        ISSN: 1010-061X            Impact factor:   2.411


  13 in total

1.  Phenotypic plasticity in chemical defence of butterflies allows usage of diverse host plants.

Authors:  Érika C P de Castro; Jamie Musgrove; Søren Bak; W Owen McMillan; Chris D Jiggins
Journal:  Biol Lett       Date:  2021-03-31       Impact factor: 3.703

2.  Parthenogenesis is self-destructive for scaled reptiles.

Authors:  Matthew Owen Moreira; Carlos Fonseca; Danny Rojas
Journal:  Biol Lett       Date:  2021-05-12       Impact factor: 3.703

3.  The evolution of the traplining pollinator role in hummingbirds: specialization is not an evolutionary dead end.

Authors:  Louie M K Rombaut; Elliot J R Capp; Emma C Hughes; Zoë K Varley; Andrew P Beckerman; Natalie Cooper; Gavin H Thomas
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2022-01-19       Impact factor: 5.349

4.  Host allometry influences the evolution of parasite host-generalism: theory and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Josephine G Walker; Amy Hurford; Jo Cable; Amy R Ellison; Stephen J Price; Clayton E Cressler
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2017-05-05       Impact factor: 6.237

5.  Shifts in diversification rates and host jump frequencies shaped the diversity of host range among Sclerotiniaceae fungal plant pathogens.

Authors:  Olivier Navaud; Adelin Barbacci; Andrew Taylor; John P Clarkson; Sylvain Raffaele
Journal:  Mol Ecol       Date:  2018-03-23       Impact factor: 6.185

6.  Phylogenetic evidence from freshwater crayfishes that cave adaptation is not an evolutionary dead-end.

Authors:  David B Stern; Jesse Breinholt; Carlos Pedraza-Lara; Marilú López-Mejía; Christopher L Owen; Heather Bracken-Grissom; James W Fetzner; Keith A Crandall
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  2017-09-20       Impact factor: 3.694

7.  A genomics approach reveals insights into the importance of gene losses for mammalian adaptations.

Authors:  Virag Sharma; Nikolai Hecker; Juliana G Roscito; Leo Foerster; Bjoern E Langer; Michael Hiller
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2018-03-23       Impact factor: 14.919

8.  Generalist species drive microbial dispersion and evolution.

Authors:  Sira Sriswasdi; Ching-Chia Yang; Wataru Iwasaki
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2017-10-27       Impact factor: 14.919

9.  A subset of chemosensory genes differs between two populations of a specialized leaf beetle after host plant shift.

Authors:  Ding Wang; Stefan Pentzold; Maritta Kunert; Marco Groth; Wolfgang Brandt; Jacques M Pasteels; Wilhelm Boland; Antje Burse
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2018-07-20       Impact factor: 2.912

10.  Trait evolution is reversible, repeatable, and decoupled in the soldier caste of turtle ants.

Authors:  Scott Powell; Shauna L Price; Daniel J C Kronauer
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2020-03-09       Impact factor: 11.205

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.