Tracking the origin of island diversity: insights from divergence with the continental pool in monocots
Veron, S.; Mouchet, M.; Grandcolas, P.; Govaerts, R.; Haevermans, T.; Pellens, R.
Show abstract
At their early age, a large proportion of island pools were a partial sampling of mainland pools whatever islands are oceanic or fragments of the mainland. Through time, colonization, diversification, extinctions, have deeply transformed insular and continental communities and therefore the degree to which they share species. We studied the relative importance of these mechanisms by looking at the shared evolutionary history between species pools on islands and continents. Indeed, most of these mechanisms are not neutral regarding phylogeny but are linked to species evolutionary relationships. We measured the phylogenetic divergence between continental and insular monocot communities through metrics of beta Mean Pairwise Distance and beta Mean Nearest Taxon Distance. We first tested the influence of spatial and environmental distance to the continent, two main factors of divergence, but whose explanatory power in a phylogenetic context was still unclear. We showed that both dispersal and enviromental filtering were important to explain divergence, although species that could pass these filters were not phylogenetically clustered. There was however a clear distinction between oceanic and continental islands: a stable climate in the latters was key to the survival of the original biota leading to a high proportion of shared lineages between the mainland and islands. But distance to the continent was only part of the story, we investigated additionnal mechanisms of phylogenetic divergence through their relation to island features and community structure. This showed that the most divergent islands occurred in the tropics and that processes of persistence of original species, diversification in remote archipelagos, neutral colonization on easy-to-reach islands, turnover, and high speciation rates may have driven phylogenetic divergence at a world scale. This study showed how phylogenetic approaches may explain how divergence, or similarity may have arisen and provide new insights in the continental origin of plant diversity on islands.
Matching journals
The top 1 journal accounts for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Spatial and lineage dependent processes underpin floristic assembly in the megadiverse Eastern South American mountains 94%
- A shift in the host web occupancy of dew-drop spiders associated with genetic divergence in the Southwest Pacific 94%
- Global biogeographical regions of freshwater fish species 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Universality in biodiversity patterns: Variation in species-temperature and species-productivity relationships reveals a prominent role of productivity in diversity gradients 94%
- Elevated human impact on islands increases the introduction and extinction status of native insular reptiles 93%
- Rapid diversification of the Australian Amitermes group during late Cenozoic climate change 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Combined effects of bird extinctions and introductions in oceanic islands: decreased functional diversity despite increased species richness 93%
- Genetic diversity varies with species traits and latitude in predatory soil arthropods (Myriapoda: Chilopoda) 92%
- The evolution of Hutchinsonian climatic niche hypervolumes in gymnosperms 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- Allopatric speciation is more prevalent than parapatric ecological divergence in a recent high-Andean diversification (Asteraceae: Linochilus) 94%
- Shedding light on the Ophel biome: The Trans-Tethyan phylogeography of the sulfide shrimp Tethysbaena (Peracarida: Thermosbaenacea) in the Levant 92%
- Ecological niche divergence or ecological niche partitioning in a widespread Neotropical bird lineage 92%
Similar papers in this journal
"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.