1 / 35

Niche conservatism

Niche conservatism. Nectar spurs in Aquilegia. Hodges 95. Hodges and Arnold 1995 Proc Roy Soc. Hodges 97 table. Hodges and Arnold 1995 Proc Roy Soc. zygomorphic laterally symmetric. actinomorphic radially symmetric. D>0: 14. D<0: 5. Sargent 2004 Proc. Roy. Soc. London B.

drake
Download Presentation

Niche conservatism

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Niche conservatism

  2. Nectar spurs in Aquilegia Hodges 95 Hodges and Arnold 1995 Proc Roy Soc.

  3. Hodges 97 table Hodges and Arnold 1995 Proc Roy Soc.

  4. zygomorphic laterally symmetric actinomorphic radially symmetric

  5. D>0: 14 D<0: 5 Sargent 2004 Proc. Roy. Soc. London B.

  6. Maddison 2006 Evolution

  7. Maddison et al. 2007 Evolution

  8. Parameter estimation on simulated trees, N=500 taxa Maddison et al. 2007 Evolution

  9. Mayrose et al. 2011 Science

  10. Anolis ecomorphs

  11. Losos 98 Losos et al. 1998 Science

  12. Losos 98 - 2a Losos et al. 1998 Science

  13. Losos 98 - 2a Losos et al. 1998 Science

  14. Losos 98 - 2a Losos et al. 1998 Science

  15. Glor et al. 2003 Evolution

  16. lineage diversity index = sum(obs – exp) positive value = early accumulation of lineages Harmon 03 Harmon et al. 2003 Science

  17. Measuring niche conservatism - phylogenetic signal Blomberg’s K: measures degree of similarity among close relatives, relative to expectations based on Brownian motion convergence brownian conserved K<<1 K~1 K>>1 K: Blomberg et al. (2003) Evolution; examples: Ackerly, PNAS in review

  18. mean subclade disparity/total disparity high values = high within group relative to among group variance = low phylo signal Morphological disparity index = sum(obs-exp): positive values= deep clades span similar trait range, i.e. convergence across clades and low signal Harmon et al. 2003 Science

  19. early diversification -> greater phylogenetic signal Harmon 03-3 Harmon et al. 2003 Science

  20. rate = 0.014 felsens 0.10 felsens 0.79 felsens Diversification of height in maples, Ceanothus and silverswords ~5.2 mya ~30 mya ~45 mya height data: Ackerly, unpubl., Hickman (1993), Wagner (1999) phylogenies: Renner et al .(2008), Hardig et al. (2000), Baldwin & Sanderson (1998)

  21. Are there differences among clades in trait diversification (= disparification) rates Nested ML test: Does a 2 rate model provide a sufficiently better fit than a 1 rate model? O’Meara et al. 2006

  22. Martin and Wainright 2011

  23. Martin and Wainright 2011

  24. Martin and Wainright 2011

  25. Martin and Wainright 2011

  26. change by factor of e million yrs Quantifying rates of phenotypic evolution 1 darwin = Haldane (1949) Evolution; Gingerich (1983) Science

  27. 1 Var(loge(trait)) million yrs 1 felsen = time Rates of phenotypic diversification under Brownian motion var(x) Ackerly, PNAS 2009

  28. North temperate California Hawai’i Rates of phenotypic diversification (estimated for Brownian motion model) Height Leaf size ±1 s.e. Rate (felsens) Acer Acer Aesculus Aesculus lobelioids lobelioids Ceanothus Ceanothus Arbutoideae Arbutoideae silverswords silverswords Ackerly, PNAS 2009

  29. Becerra Becerra 2005 PNAS

  30. Lineages-through-time (LTT) plot Becerra LTT Becerra 2005 PNAS

  31. Inga Richardson et al. 2001 Science

  32. Phylica Richardson et al. 2001 Nature

More Related