4.5 Article

TESTING FOR ANCIENT ADAPTIVE RADIATIONS IN NEOTROPICAL CICHLID FISHES

期刊

EVOLUTION
卷 67, 期 5, 页码 1321-1337

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/evo.12038

关键词

Diversification; ecological opportunity; ecomorphology; fossil calibration; relaxed molecular clock

资金

  1. U.S. National Science Foundation [DEB 0516831]
  2. National Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada
  3. Royal Ontario Museum
  4. Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Most contemporary studies of adaptive radiation focus on relatively recent and geographically restricted clades. It is less clear whether diversification of ancient clades spanning entire continents is consistent with adaptive radiation. We used novel fossil calibrations to generate a chronogram of Neotropical cichlid fishes and to test whether patterns of lineage and morphological diversification are congruent with hypothesized adaptive radiations in South and Central America. We found that diversification in the Neotropical cichlid clade and the highly diverse tribe Geophagini was consistent with diversity-dependent, early bursts of divergence followed by decreased rates of lineage accumulation. South American Geophagini underwent early rapid differentiation in body shape, expanding into novel morphological space characterized by elongate-bodied predators. Divergence in head shape attributes associated with trophic specialization evolved under strong adaptive constraints in all Neotropical cichlid clades. The South American Cichlasomatini followed patterns consistent with constant rates of morphological divergence. Although morphological diversification in South American Heroini was limited, Eocene invasion of Central American habitats was followed by convergent diversification mirroring variation observed in Geophagini. Diversification in Neotropical cichlids was influenced by the early adaptive radiation of Geophagini, which potentially limited differentiation in other cichlid clades.

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