4.6 Article

Regional Variation Exaggerates Ecological Divergence in Niche Models

期刊

SYSTEMATIC BIOLOGY
卷 59, 期 3, 页码 298-306

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/sysbio/syq005

关键词

Allopatric speciation; cohesion species concept; ecological divergence; ecological niche model; environmental gradients; species delimitation; species distributions

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [DEB-0516841]
  2. Canadian National Science and Engineering Research Council
  3. University of Idaho
  4. National Institutes of Health/National Center for Research Resources [P20RR16448, P20RR016454]
  5. National Science Foundation
  6. U.S. Department of Homeland Security
  7. U.S. Department of Agriculture [EF-0832858]
  8. University of Tennessee, Knoxville
  9. NATIONAL CENTER FOR RESEARCH RESOURCES [P20RR016448, P20RR016454] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Traditionally, the goal of systematics has been to produce classifications that are both strongly supported and biologically meaningful. In recent years several authors have advocated complementing phylogenetic analyses with measures of another form of evolutionary change, ecological divergence. These analyses frequently rely on ecological niche models to determine if species have comparable environmental requirements, but it has heretofore been difficult to test the accuracy of these inferences. To address this problem, I simulate the geographic distributions of allopatric species with identical environmental requirements. I then test whether existing analyses based on geographic distributions will correctly infer that the 2 species' requirements are identical. This work demonstrates that when taxa disperse to different environments, many analyses can erroneously infer changes in environmental requirements, but the severity of the problem depends on the method used. As this could exaggerate the number of ecologically distinct taxa in a clade, I suggest diagnostics to mitigate this problem.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据