Integrating selection, niche, and diversification into a hierarchical conceptual framework
- 275 Downloads
Recently, new phylogenetic comparative methods have been proposed to test for the association of biological traits with diversification patterns, with species ecological “niche” being one of the most studied traits. In general, these methods implicitly assume natural selection acting at the species level, thus implying the mechanism of species selection. However, natural selection acting at the organismal level could also influence diversification patterns (i.e., effect macroevolution). Owing to our scarce knowledge on multi-level selection regarding niche as a trait, we propose a conceptual model to discuss and guide the test between species selection and effect macroevolution within a hierarchical framework. We first assume niche as an organismal as well as a species’ trait that interacts with the environment and results in species-level differential fitness. Then, we argue that niche heritability, a requirement for natural selection, can be assessed by its phylogenetic signal. Finally, we propose several predictions that can be tested in the future by disentangling both types of evolutionary processes (species selection or effect macroevolution). Our framework can have important implications for guiding analyses that aim to understand the hierarchical perspective of evolution.
KeywordsIndividual-based models Niche conservatism Macroevolution Phylogenetic comparative methods Species selection Trait
We are indebted to Thiago F. Rangel and Tiago B. Quental for thorough discussions and suggestions. We thank Michael Schmitt for grateful suggestions in the manuscript. FV thanks Mark E. Olson for introducing him to macroevolutionary theory and for endless discussions on theory and science. DMCCA was supported by a “Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior” (CAPES) doctoral fellowship. FV was supported by a “Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico” (CNPq) Science without Borders grant (BJT 301540/2014-4). JAFDF is continuously supported by a “Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico” (CNPq) productivity fellowship.
- Birand, A., Vose, A., & Gavrilets, S. (2012). Patterns of species ranges, speciation, and extinction. The American Naturalist, 179, 1–21.Google Scholar
- Burin, G., Kissling, W.D., Guimarães Jr, P.R., Şekercioğlu, Ç.H., & Quental, T.B. (2016). Omnivory in birds is a macroevolutionary sink. Nature Communications, 7.Google Scholar
- Cardillo, M. (2015). Geographic range shifts do not erase the historic signal of speciation in mammals. The American Naturalist, 185, 343–353.Google Scholar
- Darwin, C. (1859). On the origin of species. London: J. Murray.Google Scholar
- Eldredge, N., & Gould, S. J. (1972). Punctuated equilibria: an alternative to phyletic gradualism. In T. J. M. Schopf (Ed.), Models in Paleobiology (pp. 82–115). San Francisco: Freeman, Cooper and Company.Google Scholar
- Freckleton, R. P., Harvey, P. H., & Pagel, M. (2002). Phylogenetic analysis and comparative data: a test and review of evidence. The American Naturalist, 160, 712–726.Google Scholar
- Harvey, P. H., & Pagel, M. D. (1991). The comparative method in evolutionary biology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Hubbell, S. P. (2001). The unified neutral theory of biodiversity and biogeography. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Hutchinson, G. E. (1978). An introduction to population ecology. Yale University Press.Google Scholar
- Kozak, K. H., & Wiens, J. J. (2010). Accelerated rates of climatic‐niche evolution underlie rapid species diversification. Ecology Letters, 13, 1378–1389.Google Scholar
- Machac, A., Zrzavý, J., & Storch, D. (2011). Range size heritability in Carnivora is driven by geographic constraints. The American Naturalist, 177, 767–779.Google Scholar
- Maddison, W. P., Midford, P. E., & Otto, S. P. (2007). Estimating a binary character's effect on speciation and extinction. Systematic biology, 56, 701–710.Google Scholar
- Morlon, H. (2014). Phylogenetic approaches for studying diversification. Ecology letters, 17, 508–525.Google Scholar
- Myers, C. E., & Saupe, E. E. (2013). A macroevolutionary expansion of the modern synthesis and the importance of extrinsic abiotic factors. Palaeontology, 56, 1179–1198.Google Scholar
- Pearman, P. B., Guisan, A., Broennimann, O., & Randin, C. F. (2008). Niche dynamics in space and time. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 23, 149–158.Google Scholar
- Reed, D. H., Lowe, E. H., Briscoe, D. A., & Frankham, R. (2003). Inbreeding and extinction: effects of rate of inbreeding. Conservation genetics, 4, 405–410.Google Scholar
- Reed, D. H. (2005). Relationship between population size and fitness. Conservation Biology, 19, 563–568.Google Scholar
- Revell, L. J., Harmon, L. J., & Collar, D. C. (2008). Phylogenetic signal, evolutionary process, and rate. Systematic Biology, 57, 591–601.Google Scholar
- Rolland, J., & Salamin, N. (2016). Niche width impacts vertebrate diversification. Global Ecology and Biogeography. doi: 10.1111/geb.12482.
- Simpson, G. G. (1944). Tempo and mode in evolution. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
- Soberón, J., & Peterson, A. T. (2005). Interpretation of models of fundamental ecological niches and species’ distributional areas. Biodiversity Informatics, 2, 1–10 (2005). doi: 10.17161/bi.v2i0.4.
- Vrba, E. S. (1987). Ecology in relation to speciation rates: some case histories of Miocene-Recent mammal clades. Evolutionary Ecology, 1, 283–300.Google Scholar
- Webb, T. J., & Gaston, K. J. (2003). On the heritability of geographic range sizes. The American Naturalist, 161, 553–566.Google Scholar