4.8 Article

Climate drives community-wide divergence within species over a limited spatial scale: evidence from an oceanic island

期刊

ECOLOGY LETTERS
卷 23, 期 2, 页码 305-315

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ele.13433

关键词

Arthropod; beetle; climate; dispersal; gene flow; Quaternary; speciation; topography

类别

资金

  1. Spanish MINECO [CGL2013-42589-P, CGL2017-85718-P]
  2. FEDER
  3. ERA-Net NetBiome research framework through Canary Island Government ACIISI [SE-12/04, SE-12/02]
  4. Ministerio de Educacion y Formacion Profesional through the FPU PhD fellowship [FPU014/02948]
  5. MINECO through the Juan de la Cierva Program - Incorporation [IJCI-201419691]
  6. Ramon y Cajal Program [RYC-2016-20506]
  7. Marie Sklodowska-Curie COFUND, Researchers' Night and Individual Fellowships Global (MSCA grant) [747238]
  8. Marie Curie Actions (MSCA) [747238] Funding Source: Marie Curie Actions (MSCA)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Geographic isolation substantially contributes to species endemism on oceanic islands when speciation involves the colonisation of a new island. However, less is understood about the drivers of speciation within islands. What is lacking is a general understanding of the geographic scale of gene flow limitation within islands, and thus the spatial scale and drivers of geographical speciation within insular contexts. Using a community of beetle species, we show that when dispersal ability and climate tolerance are restricted, microclimatic variation over distances of only a few kilometres can maintain strong geographic isolation extending back several millions of years. Further to this, we demonstrate congruent diversification with gene flow across species, mediated by Quaternary climate oscillations that have facilitated a dynamic of isolation and secondary contact. The unprecedented scale of parallel species responses to a common environmental driver for evolutionary change has profound consequences for understanding past and future species responses to climate variation.

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

4.8
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