4.6 Article

Phylogenetic tests for evolutionary innovation: the problematic link between key innovations and exceptional diversification

出版社

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2016.0417

关键词

speciation; extinction; adaptive radiation; phenotypic novelty; diversity-dependence

类别

资金

  1. David and Lucile Packard Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Evolutionary innovation contributes to the spectacular diversity of species and phenotypes across the tree of life. 'Key innovations' are widely operationalized within evolutionary biology as traits that facilitate increased diversification rates, such that lineages bearing the traits ultimately contain more species than closely related lineages lacking the focal trait. In this article, I briefly review the inference, analysis and interpretation of evolutionary innovation on phylogenetic trees. I argue that differential rates of lineage diversification should not be used as the basis for key innovation tests, despite the statistical tractability of such approaches. Under traditional interpretations of the macroevolutionary 'adaptive zone', we should not necessarily expect key innovations to confer faster diversification rates upon lineages that possess them relative to their extant sister clades. I suggest that a key innovation is a trait that allows a lineage to interact with the environment in a fundamentally different way and which, as a result, increases the total diversification-but not necessarily the diversification rate-of the parent clade. Considered alone, branching patterns in phylogenetic trees are poorly suited to the inference of evolutionary innovation due to their inherently low information content with respect to the processes that produce them. However, phylogenies may be important for identifying transformational shifts in ecological and morphological space that are characteristic of innovation at the macroevolutionary scale. This article is part of the themed issue 'Process and pattern in innovations from cells to societies'.

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