4.5 Review

Bipolar distributions in vascular plants: A review

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF BOTANY
卷 104, 期 11, 页码 1680-1694

出版社

BOTANICAL SOC AMER INC
DOI: 10.3732/ajb.1700159

关键词

amphitropical; Antarctic; biogeographic patterns; boreal; dispersal vectors; New Zealand; polar regions; South America

资金

  1. Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness [CGL2012-3874, CGL2016-77401-P]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Bipolar disjunct distributions are a fascinating biogeographic pattern exhibited by about 30 vascular plants, whose populations reach very high latitudes in the northern and southern hemispheres. In this review, we first propose a new framework for the definition of bipolar disjunctions and then reformulate a list of guiding principles to consider how to study bipolar species. Vicariance and convergent evolution hypotheses have been argued to explain the origin of this fragmented distribution pattern, but we show here that they can be rejected for all bipolar species, except for Carex microglochin. Instead, human introduction and dispersal (either direct or by mountain-hopping)-facilitated by standard and nonstandard vectors-are the most likely explanations for the origin of bipolar plant disjunctions. Successful establishment after dispersal is key for colonization of the disjunct areas and appear to be related to both intrinsic (e.g., self-compatibility) and extrinsic (mutualistic and antagonistic interactions) characteristics. Most studies on plant bipolar disjunctions have been conducted in Carex (Cyperaceae), the genus of vascular plants with the largest number of bipolar species. We found a predominant north-tosouth direction of dispersal, with an estimated time of diversification in agreement with major cooling events during the Pliocene and Pleistocene. Bipolar Carex species do not seem to depend on specialized traits for long-distance dispersal and could have dispersed through one or multiple stochastic events, with birds as the most likely dispersal vector.

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

4.5
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