Back

The tempo of trophic evolution in small-bodied primates

Scott, J. E.

2020-03-20 evolutionary biology
10.1101/2020.03.17.996207 bioRxiv
Show abstract

ObjectivesAs a primary trophic strategy, insectivory is uncommon and unevenly distributed across extant primates. This pattern is partly a function of the challenges that insectivory poses for large-bodied primates. In this study, I demonstrate that the uneven distribution is also a consequence of variation in the rate of trophic evolution among small-bodied lineages. MethodsThe sample consisted of 307 species classified by primary trophic strategy and body size, creating an ordered three-state character: small-insectivorous, small-herbivorous, and large-herbivorous. I tested for rate heterogeneity by partitioning major clades from the rest of the primate tree and estimating separate rates of transition between herbivory and insectivory for small-bodied lineages in each partition. ResultsBayesian analysis of rate estimates indicates that a model with two rates of trophic evolution provides the best fit to the data. According to the model, lorisiforms have a trophic rate that is 4-6 times higher than the rate for other small-bodied lineages. ConclusionsThe rate heterogeneity detected here suggests that lorisiforms are characterized by traits that give them greater trophic flexibility than other primates. Previous discussions of trophic evolution in small-bodied primates focused on the low frequency of insectivory among anthropoids and the possibility that diurnality makes insectivory unlikely to evolve or persist. The present study challenges this idea by showing that a common transition rate can explain the distribution of insectivory in small-bodied anthropoids and nocturnal lemurs and tarsiers. The results of this study offer important clues for reconstructing trophic evolution in early primates.

Matching journals

The top 11 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.