4.7 Article

Explaining the ocean's richest biodiversity hotspot and global patterns of fish diversity

出版社

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2018.1314

关键词

marine biodiversity; fish; time-for-speciation; diversification; freshwater; historical biogeography

资金

  1. Graduate Research Fellowship from the US National Science Foundation [DGE-1143953]
  2. 2016 BrownConnect LINK Award from Brown University
  3. National Top Talent Undergraduate Training Program in 2016
  4. NSF [DEB 1655690]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

For most marine organisms, species richness peaks in the Central Indo-Pacific region and declines longitudinally, a striking pattern that remains poorly understood. Here, we used phylogenetic approaches to address the causes of richness patterns among global marine regions, comparing the relative importance of colonization time, number of colonization events, and diversification rates (speciation minus extinction). We estimated regional richness using distributional data for almost all percomorph fishes (17 435 species total, including approximately 72% of all marine fishes and approximately 33% of all freshwater fishes). The high diversity of the Central Indo-Pacific was explained by its colonization by many lineages 5.3-34 million years ago. These relatively old colonizations allowed more time for richness to build up through in situ diversification compared to other warm-marine regions. Surprisingly, diversification rates were decoupled from marine richness patterns, with clades in low-richness cold-marine habitats having the highest rates. Unlike marine richness, freshwater diversity was largely derived from a few ancient colonizations, coupled with high diversification rates. Our results are congruent with the geological history of the marine tropics, and thus may apply to many other organisms. Beyond marine biogeography, we add to the growing number of cases where colonization and time-for-speciation explain large-scale richness patterns instead of diversification rates.

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

4.7
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