Low rate of lineage diversification High rates of lineage diversification Ancestral trait innovation Evolutionary dead ends (e.g. specialization hypothesis) Key innovation hypothesis for diversity Low rate of trait diversification no special name? Non-adaptive radiation High rate of trait diversification Adaptive divergence? Local adaptation? Adaptive radiation Niche conservatism
35
Embed
Low rate of lineage diversification High rates of lineage diversification Ancestral trait innovation Evolutionary dead ends (e.g. specialization hypothesis)
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Low rate of lineage diversification
High rates of lineage diversification
Ancestral trait innovation
Evolutionary dead ends (e.g. specialization hypothesis)
Key innovation hypothesis for diversity
Low rate of trait diversification
no special name? Non-adaptive radiation
High rate of trait diversification
Adaptive divergence? Local adaptation?
Adaptive radiation
Niche conservatism
Hodges 95Nectar spurs in Aquilegia
Hodges and Arnold 1995 Proc Roy Soc.
Hodges 97 table
Hodges and Arnold 1995 Proc Roy Soc.
zygomorphiclaterally symmetric
actinomorphicradially symmetric
Sargent 2004 Proc. Roy. Soc. London B.
D>0: 14D<0: 5
Maddison 2006 Evolution
Maddison et al. 2007 Evolution
Maddison et al. 2007 Evolution
Parameter estimation on
simulated trees, N=500 taxa
Mayrose et al. 2011 Science
Anolis ecomorphs
Losos 98
Losos et al. 1998 Science
Losos 98 - 2a
Losos et al. 1998 Science
Losos 98 - 2a
Losos et al. 1998 Science
Losos 98 - 2a
Losos et al. 1998 Science
Glor et al. 2003 Evolution
Harmon 03
Har
mon
et
al.
2003
Sci
ence
lineage diversity index = sum(obs – exp)positive value = early accumulation of lineages
Measuring niche conservatism - phylogenetic signal
K: Blomberg et al. (2003) Evolution; examples: Ackerly, PNAS in review
Blomberg’s K: measures degree of similarity among close relatives, relative to expectations based on Brownian motion
K<<1 K~1 K>>1
convergence brownian conserved
Har
mon
et
al.
2003
Sci
ence
mean subclade disparity/total disparityhigh values = high within group relative to among group variance = low phylo signal
Morphological disparity index = sum(obs-exp): positive values= deep clades span similar trait range, i.e. convergence across clades and low signal
Harmon 03-3
Harmon et al. 2003 Science
early diversification -> greater phylogenetic signal
Diversification of height in maples, Ceanothus and silverswords
~30 mya
~45 mya
rate = 0.014 felsens 0.10 felsens 0.79 felsens
height data: Ackerly, unpubl., Hickman (1993), Wagner (1999) phylogenies: Renner et al .(2008), Hardig et al. (2000), Baldwin & Sanderson (1998)
~5.2 mya
Are there differences among clades in trait diversification (= disparification) rates
O’Meara et al. 2006
Nested ML test:Does a 2 rate model provide a sufficiently better fit than a 1 rate model?