Range size heritability in carnivora is driven by geographic constraints

American Naturalist

Volumn 177, Issue 6, 2011, Pages 767-779

  Machac, Antonin ^a,b,c   Zrzavý, Jan ^a,b   Storch, David ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH BOHEMIA   (Czech Republic)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS   (Czech Republic)

^c CHARLES UNIVERSITY   (Czech Republic)

Author keywords

Biogeography; Eigenvector; Generalized least squares (GLS); Macroecology; Species selection

Indexed keywords

CARNIVORE; EIGENVALUE; EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY; GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION; HERITABILITY; LIFE HISTORY TRAIT; MACROECOLOGY; NATURAL SELECTION; NUMERICAL MODEL; PHYLOGENETICS; PHYLOGENY; RANGE SIZE;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; CARNIVORA; CLASSIFICATION; ECOSYSTEM; EVOLUTION; GEOGRAPHY; PHYLOGENY; PHYSIOLOGY; POPULATION DYNAMICS; SPECIES DIFFERENCE;

ANIMALS; BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION; CARNIVORA; ECOSYSTEM; GEOGRAPHY; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; PHYLOGENY; POPULATION DYNAMICS; SPECIES SPECIFICITY;

CARNIVORA;

EID: 79957537937     PISSN: 00030147     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1086/659952     Document Type: Article

References (82)

1. Arnason, U., A. Gullberg, A. Janke, and M. Kullberg. 2007. Mitogenomic analyses of caniform relationships. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 45:863-874.
2. Bardeleben, C., R. L. Moore, and R. K. Wayne. 2005. A molecular phylogeny of the Canidae based on six nuclear loci. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 37:815-831.
3. Baum, B. R. 1992. Combining trees as a way of combining data sets for phylogenetic inference and the desirability of combining gene trees. Taxon 41:3-10.
4. Bininda-Emonds, O. R. P., J. L. Gittleman, and A. Purvis. 1999. Building large trees by combining phylogenetic information: a complete phylogeny of the extant Carnivora (Mammalia). Biological Reviews 74:143-175.
5. Bivand, R., L. Anselin, R. Assuncao, and O. Berke. 2008. Spatial dependence: weighting schemes, statistics and models. R package, version 0.4-21. http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/spdep/index.html.
6. Blackburn, T. M. 2004. Method in macroecology. Basic and Applied Ecology 5:401-412.
7. Blomberg, S. P., T. Garland Jr., and A. R. Ives. 2003. Testing for phylogenetic signal in comparative data: behavioral traits are more labile. Evolution 57:717-745.
8. Bohning-Gaese, K., T. Caprano, K. van Ewijk, and M. Veith. 2006. Range size: disentangling current traits and phylogenetic and biogeographic factors. American Naturalist 167:555-567.
9. Brown, J. H., G. C. Stevens, and D. M. Kaufman. 1996. The geographic range: size, shape, boundaries, and internal structure. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 27:597-623.
10. Carrascal, L. M., J. Seoane, D. Palomino, and V. Polo. 2008. Explanations for bird species range size: ecological correlates and phylogenetic effects in the Canary Islands. Journal of Biogeography 35:2061-2073.
11. Cox, C. B., and P. B. Moore. 2005. Biogeography: an ecological and evolutionary approach. Blackwell, Malden.
12. Cubo, J., F. Ponton, M. Laurin, E. de Margerie, and J. Castanet. 2005. Phylogenetic signal in bone microstructure of sauropsids. Systematic Biology 54:562-574.
13. Currie, D. J. 1991. Energy and large-scale patterns of animal-species and plant-species richness. American Naturalist 137:27-49.
14. Diniz-Filho, J. A., and L. M. Bini. 2005. Modelling geographical patterns in species richness using eigenvector-based spatial filters. Global Ecology and Biogeography 14:177-185.
15. Diniz-Filho, J. A., and N. M. Torres. 2002. Phylogenetic comparative methods and the geographic range size-body size relationship in NewWorld terrestrial carnivora. Evolutionary Ecology 16:351-367.
16. Diniz-Filho, J. A. F., L. C. Terribile, M. J. R. da Cruz, and L. C. G. Vieira. 2010. Hidden patterns of phylogenetic non-stationarity overwhelm comparative analyses of niche conservatism and divergence. Global Ecology and Biogeography 19: 916-926.
17. Elith, J., C. H. Graham, R. P. Anderson, M. Dudik, S. Ferrier, A. Guisan, R. J. Hijmans, et al. 2006. Novel methods improve prediction of species' distributions from occurrence data. Ecography 29:129-151.
18. Fortes, R. R., and R. S. Absalao. 2004. The applicability of Rapoport's rule to the marine molluscs of the Americas. Journal of Biogeography 31:1909-1916.
19. Freckleton, R. P., and W. Jetz. 2009. Space versus phylogeny: disentangling phylogenetic and spatial signals in comparative data. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 276:21-30.
20. Freckleton, R. P., P. H. Harvey, and M. Pagel. 2002. Phylogenetic analysis and comparative data: a test and review of evidence. American Naturalist 160:712-726.
21. Freckleton, R. P., N. Cooper, and W. Jetz. 2011. Comparative methodsas a statistical fix: the dangers of ignoring evolution. American Naturalist (forthcoming).
22. Fulton, T. L., and C. Strobeck. 2006. Molecular phylogeny of the Arctoidea (Carnivora): effect of missing data on supertree and supermatrix analyses of multiple gene data sets. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 41:165-181.
23. Gaston, K. J. 2003. The structure and dynamics of geographic ranges. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
24. Gaston, K. J., T. M. Blackburn, and J. I. Spicer. 1998. Rapoport's rule: time for an epitaph? Trends in Ecology & Evolution 13:70- 74.
25. Gaubert, P., and C. M. Begg. 2007. Re-assessed molecular phylogeny and evolutionary scenario within genets (Carnivora, Viverridae, Genettinae). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 44:920-927.
26. Gaubert, P., and P. Cordeiro-Estrela. 2006. Phylogenetic systematics and tempo of evolution of the Viverrinae (Mammalia, Carnivora, Viverridae) within feliformians: implications for faunal exchanges between Asia and Africa. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 41:266-278.
27. Gittleman, J. L. 1996. Carnivore behavior, ecology, and evolution. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.
28. Gittleman, J. L., and M. Kot. 1990. Adaptation: statistics and a null model for estimating phylogenetic effects. Systematic Zoology 39: 227-241.
29. Goloboff, P. A. 1999. NONA. Version 2.0 (software and manual). Fundación e Instituto Miguel Lillo, Tucumán, Argentina.
30. Gotelli, N. J. 2001. Research frontiers in null model analysis. Global Ecology and Biogeography 10:337-343.
31. Gould, S. J., and E. A. Lloyd. 1999. Individuality and adaptation across levels of selection: how shall we name and generalize the unit of Darwinism? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 96:11904-11909.
32. Grantham, T. A. 1995. Hierarchical approaches to macroevolution: recent work on species selection and the effect hypothesis. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 26:301-321.
33. Guisan, A., and W. Thuiller. 2005. Predicting species distribution: offering more than simple habitat models. Ecology Letters 8:993-1009.
34. Guisan, A., and N. E. Zimmermann. 2000. Predictive habitat distribution models in ecology. Ecological Modelling 135:147-186.
35. Harmon, L. J., J. T. Weir, C. D. Brock, R. E. Glor, and W. Challenger. 2008. GEIGER: investigating evolutionary radiations. Bioinformatics 24:129-131.
36. Hijmans, R. J., S. E. Cameron, J. L. Parra, P. G. Jones, and A. Jarvis. 2005. Very high resolution interpolated climate surfaces for global land areas. International Journal of Climatology 25:1965-1978.
37. Hunt, G., K. Roy, and D. Jablonski. 2005. Species-level heritability reaffirmed: a comment on ''On the heritability of geographic range sizes.'' American Naturalist 166:129-135.
38. Hurlbert, A. H., and W. Jetz. 2007. Species richness, hotspots, and the scale dependence of range maps in ecology and conservation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 104: 13384-13389.
39. IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature). 2010. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. http://www.iucnredlist.org.
40. Jablonski, D. 1987. Heritability at the species level: analysis of geographic ranges of cretaceous mollusks. Science 238:360-363.
41. Jablonski, D. 2008. Species selection: theory and data. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 39:501-524.
42. Johnson, W. E., E. Eizirik, J. Pecon-Slattery, W. J. Murphy, A. Antunes, E. Teeling, and S. J. O'Brien. 2006. The Late Miocene radiation of modern Felidae: a genetic assessment. Science 311:73- 77.
43. Jones, K. E., W. Sechrest, and J. L. Gittleman. 2005. Age and area revisited: identifying global patterns and implications for conservation. Pages 141-165 in A. Purvis, J. L. Gittleman, and T. Brooks, eds. Phylogeny and conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
44. Kadmon, R., O. Farber, and A. Danin. 2003. A systematic analysis of factors affecting the performance of climatic envelope models. Ecological Applications 13:853-867.
45. Kembel, S. W., P. D. Cowan, M. R. Helmus, W. K. Cornwell, H. Morlon, D. D. Ackerly, S. P. Blomberg, and C. O. Webb. 2010. Picante: R tools for integrating phylogenies and ecology. Bioinformatics 26:1463-1464.
46. Koepfli, K. P., S. M. Jenks, E. Eizirik, T. Zahirpour, B. Van Valkenburgh, and R. K.Wayne. 2006. Molecular systematics of the Hyaenidae: relationships of a relictual lineage resolved by a molecular supermatrix. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 38:603-620.
47. Koepfli, K. P., M. E. Gompper, E. Eizirik, C. C. Ho, L. Linden, J. E. Maldonado, and R. K.Wayne. 2007. Phylogeny of the Procyonidae (Mammalia: Carnivora): molecules, morphology and the Great American Interchange. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 43: 1076-1095.
48. Koepfli, K. P., K. A. Deere, G. J. Slater, C. Begg, K. Begg, L. Grassman, M. Lucherini, G. Veron, and R. K. Wayne. 2008. Multigene phylogeny of the Mustelidae: resolving relationships, tempo and biogeographic history of a mammalian adaptive radiation. BMC Biology 6, http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7007/6/10.
49. Krause, J., T. Unger, A. Nocon, A. S. Malaspinas, S. O. Kolokotronis, M. Stiller, L. Soibelzon, et al. 2008. Mitochondrial genomes reveal an explosive radiation of extinct and extant bears near the Miocene-Pliocene boundary. BMC Evolutionary Biology 8, http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/8/220.
50. Legendre, P., M. R. T. Dale, M. J. Fortin, J. Gurevitch, M. Hohn, and D. Myers. 2002. The consequences of spatial structure for the design and analysis of ecological field surveys. Ecography 25:601-615.
51. Lindblad-Toh, K., C. M. Wade, T. S. Mikkelsen, E. K. Karlsson, D. B. Jaffe, M. Kamal, M. Clamp, et al. 2005. Genome sequence, comparative analysis and haplotype structure of the domestic dog. Nature 438:803-819.
52. Liu, F. G. R., M. M. Miyamoto, N. P. Freire, P. Q. Ong, M. R. Tennant, T. S. Young, and K. F. Gugel. 2001. Molecular and morphological supertrees for eutherien (placental) mammals. Science 291:1786- 1789.
53. Losos, J. B. 2008. Phylogenetic niche conservatism, phylogenetic signal and the relationship between phylogenetic relatedness and ecological similarity among species. Ecology Letters 11:995-1003.
54. Machac, A., M. Janda, R. R. Dunn, and N. J. Sanders. 2010. Elevational gradients in phylogenetic structure of ant communities reveal the interplay of biotic and abiotic constraints on diversity. Ecography (forthcoming), doi:10.1111/j.1600-0587.2010.06629.x.
55. Mouillot, D., and K. Gaston. 2009. Spatial overlap enhances geographic range size conservatism. Ecography 32:671-675.
56. Olson, D. M., E. Dinerstein, E. D. Wikramanayake, N. D. Burgess, G. V. N. Powell, E. C. Underwood, J. A. D'Amico, et al. 2001. Terrestrial ecoregions of the worlds: a new map of life on Earth. BioScience 51:933-938.
57. Pagel, M. D., R. M. May, and A. R. Collie. 1991. Ecological aspects of the geographical distribution and diversity of mammalian species. American Naturalist 137:791-815.
58. Paradis, E., J. Claude, and K. Strimmer. 2004. APE: analyses of phylogenetics and evolution in R language. Bioinformatics 20:289- 290.
59. Patou, M. L., R. Debruyne, A. P. Jennings, A. Zubaid, J. J. Rovie-Ryan, and G. Veron. 2008. Phylogenetic relationships of the Asian palm civets (Hemigalinae & Paradoxurinae, Viverridae, Carnivora). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 47:883-892.
60. Patou, M. L., P. A. McLenachan, C. G. Morley, A. Couloux, A. P. Jennings, and G. Veron. 2009. Molecular phylogeny of the Herpestidae (Mammalia, Carnivora) with a special emphasis on the Asian Herpestes. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 53:69-80.
61. Pechlakova, E. 2006. Macroecology of the Carnivora: patterns in the geographic ranges with respect to phylogeny. MSc thesis. University of South Bohemia, Ceske Budejovice.
62. Peterson, A. T., J. Soberon, and V. Sanchez-Cordero. 1999. Conservatism of ecological niches in evolutionary time. Science 285:1265- 1267.
63. Rabosky, D. L., and A. R. McCune. 2010. Reinventing species selection with molecular phylogenies. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 25:68-74.
64. Ragan, M. A. 1992. Phylogenetic inference based on matrix representation of trees. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 1:53- 58.
65. Rahbek, C., and G. R. Graves. 2001. Multiscale assessment of patterns of avian species richness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 98:4534-4539.
66. Rangel, T., J. A. F. Diniz-Filho, and L. M. Bini. 2006. Towards an integrated computational tool for spatial analysis in macroecology and biogeography. Global Ecology and Biogeography 15:321-327.
67. R Development Core Team. 2009. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna.
68. Revell, L. J., L. J. Harmon, and D. C. Collar. 2008. Phylogenetic signal, evolutionary process, and rate. Systematic Biology 57:591- 601.
69. Ricklefs, R. E., and R. E. Latham. 1992. Intercontinental correlation of geographical ranges suggests stasis in ecological traits of relict genera of temperate perennial herbs. American Naturalist 139: 1305-1321.
70. Sato, J. J., M. Wolsan, S. Minami, T. Hosoda, M. H. Sinaga, K. Hiyama, Y. Yamaguchi, and H. Suzuki. 2009. Deciphering and dating the red panda's ancestry and early adaptive radiation of Musteloidea. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 53:907-922.
71. Smith, F. D. M., R. M. May, and P. H. Harvey. 1994. Geographical ranges of Australian mammals. Journal of Animal Ecology 63:441- 450.
72. Soberon, J., and M. Nakamura. 2009. Niches and distributional areas: concepts, methods, and assumptions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 106:19644-19650.
73. Stone, L., T. Dayan, and D. Simberloff. 1996. Community-wide assembly patterns unmasked: the importance of species' differing geographical ranges. American Naturalist 148:997-1015.
74. Swenson, N. G., and B. J. Enquist. 2007. Ecological and evolutionary determinants of a key plant functional trait: wood density and its community-wide variation across latitude and elevation. American Journal of Botany 94:451-459.
75. Taylor, C. M., and N. J. Gotelli. 1994. The macroecology of Cyprinella: correlates of phylogeny, body size, and geographical range. American Naturalist 144:549-569.
76. Ter Braak, C. J. F., and P. Smilauer 2002. CANOCO 4.5 reference manual and CanoDraw for Windows. User's guide to CANOCO for Windows: software for canonical community ordination. Microcomputer Power, Ithaca, NY.
77. Tucker, C. J., J. E. Pinzon, M. E. Brown, D. A. Slayback, E. W. Pak, R. Mahoney, E. F. Vermote, and N. El Saleous. 2005. An extended VHRR 8-km NDVI dataset compatible with MODIS and SPOT egetation NDVI data. International Journal of Remote Sensing 6:4485-4498.
78. Waldron, A. 2007. Null models of geographic range size evolution eaffirm its heritability. American Naturalist 170:221-231.
79. Webb, C. O., D. D. Ackerly, and S. W. Kembel. 2008. Phylocom: oftware for the analysis of phylogenetic community structure and rait evolution. Bioinformatics 24:2098-2100.
80. Webb, T. J., and K. J. Gaston. 2003. On the heritability of geographic range sizes. American Naturalist 161:553-566.
81. Webb, T. J., and K. J. Gaston. 2005. Heritability of geographic range sizes revisited: a reply to Hunt et al. American Naturalist 1646:136-143.
82. Wilson, J. B. 1995. Null models for assembly rules: the Jack Horner effect is more insidious than the narcissus effect. Oikos 72:139- 144.