| Literature DB >> 35672668 |
Mauricio Ocampo1,2,3, Daniel Pincheira-Donoso4, Ferran Sayol5, Rodrigo S Rios6,7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Diet is a key component of a species ecological niche and plays critical roles in guiding the trajectories of evolutionary change. Previous studies suggest that dietary evolution can influence the rates and patterns of species diversification, with omnivorous (animal and plant, 'generalist') diets slowing down diversification compared to more restricted ('specialist') herbivorous and carnivorous diets. This hypothesis, here termed the "dietary macroevolutionary sink" hypothesis (DMS), predicts that transitions to omnivorous diets occur at higher rates than into any specialist diet, and omnivores are expected to have the lowest diversification rates, causing an evolutionary sink into a single type of diet. However, evidence for the DMS hypothesis remains conflicting. Here, we present the first test of the DMS hypothesis in a lineage of ectothermic tetrapods-the prolific Liolaemidae lizard radiation from South America.Entities:
Keywords: Comparative phylogeny; Dietary evolution; Generalist; Liolaemidae; Macroevolutionary sink; Net diversification rate; Specialist
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35672668 PMCID: PMC9175459 DOI: 10.1186/s12862-022-02028-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Ecol Evol ISSN: 2730-7182
Fig. 1Ancestral reconstruction of dietary diversification throughout the Liolaemidae evolutionary history (pie charts at nodes represent posterior probabilities of each diet class), averaged across 100 trees. (1) Phymaturus palluma group; (2) Phymaturus patagonicus group; (3) Liolaemus walkeri group; (4) Liolaemus subgenus; (5) Liolaemus nigromaculatus section; (6) Liolaemus chiliensis section; (7) Eulaemus subgenus; (8) Liolaemus lineomaculatus series; (9) Liolaemus montanus series.
Model comparison for independent and dependent diet diversification, including models with hidden traits or with equal rates of transition
| Model type | Hidden trait (A/B) | Equal transition rates (Q) | Speciation rates (λi) | Extinction rates (μi) | Transition rates (Qi) | Sum of params | LogLik | AICc |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Diet independent speciation and extinction rates | No | Yes | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | − 675.3 | 1356.7 |
| No | No | 1 | 1 | 6 | 8 | − 659.5 | 1335.9 | |
| Yes | Yes | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | − 701.2 | 1408.6 | |
| Yes | No | 1 | 1 | 18 | 20 | − 701.2 | 1447.6 | |
| Diet-dependent speciation and independent extinction rate | No | Yes | 3 | 1 | 1 | 5 | − 675.1 | 1360.5 |
| − | ||||||||
| Yes | Yes | 6 | 1 | 1 | 8 | − 857.8 | 1732.4 | |
| Yes | No | 6 | 1 | 18 | 25 | − 788.0 | 1634.2 | |
| Independent speciation and diet-dependent extinction rates | No | Yes | 1 | 3 | 1 | 5 | − 670.5 | 1351.2 |
| No | No | 1 | 3 | 6 | 10 | − 656.8 | 1335.0 | |
| Yes | Yes | 1 | 6 | 1 | 8 | − 794.2 | 1598.7 | |
| Yes | No | 1 | 6 | 18 | 25 | − 795.2 | 1648.5 | |
| Diet-dependent speciation and extinction rates | No | Yes | 3 | 3 | 1 | 7 | − 663.9 | 1342.5 |
| No | No | 3 | 3 | 6 | 12 | − 659.5 | 1344.8 | |
| Yes | Yes | 6 | 6 | 1 | 13 | − 839.1 | 1706.4 | |
| Yes | No | 6 | 6 | 18 | 30 | − 805.6 | 1683.4 |
Values in bold indicate the best model
Number of inferred rates for speciation (λ), extinction (μ) and transition (Q) are specified in each case, and LogLik and AICc values are shown
Fig. 2Distribution patterns of evolutionary rates across diets of the liolaemid family. Probability densities from the MuSSE model for a speciation rates associated with different dietary types, herbivory (green), omnivory (blue), and insectivory (red), and for b extinction rates across all the trees. Box plots within panels show the variation of rates in quartiles within and across diets. Different diet types show significant differences as compared with EMMs adjusted by means of the Tukey as a post-hoc test
Fig. 3Trait conservatism and transition rates estimated across dietary states, where values are total cumulative rates for each diet type. The lower half of the circle shows the proportion that each diet contributes to trait conservatism (within the same diet) and transition to other diet types, and the upper half of the circle shows the contribution that each diet receives from transition events, whether is from its own dietary state (a trait conservatism process) or from other diets during all the speciation events on the phylogenetic tree