4.4 Article

Evolutionary Assembly of Communities in Butterfly Mimicry Rings

期刊

AMERICAN NATURALIST
卷 189, 期 4, 页码 E58-E76

出版社

UNIV CHICAGO PRESS
DOI: 10.1086/690907

关键词

phylogenetic community ecology; community dynamics; island biogeography; Batesian mimicry; Mullerian mimicry

资金

  1. Ramanujan Fellowship (Department of Science and Technology, Government of India)
  2. National Centre for Biological Sciences (NCBS)
  3. NCBS Campus Fellowship
  4. DST [SB/YS/LS-191/2013]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Species co-occurrence in ecological communities is thought to be influenced by multiple ecological and evolutionary processes, especially colonization and competition. However, effects of other interspecific interactions and evolutionary relationships are less explored. We examined evolutionary histories of community members and roles of mutualistic and parasitic interactions (Mullerian and Batesian mimicry, respectively) in the assembly of mimetic butterfly communities called mimicry rings in tropical forests of the Western Ghats, India. We found that Mullerian mimics were phylogenetically clustered, sharing aposematic signals due to common ancestry. On the other hand, Batesian mimics joined mimicry rings through convergent evolution and random phylogenetic assembly. Since the Western Ghats are a habitat island, we compared species diversity and composition in its mimicry rings with those of habitat mainland to test effects of biogeographic connectivity. The Western Ghats consisted of fewer mimicry rings and an overall smaller number of aposematic species and mimics compared to habitat mainland. The depauperate mimicry rings in the Western Ghats could have resulted from stochastic processes, reflecting their long temporal and spatial isolation and trickling colonization by the mimetic butterfly communities. These results highlight how evolutionary history, biogeographic isolation, and stochastic colonization influence the evolutionary assembly and diversity of ecological communities.

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

4.4
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