English   español  
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10261/113313
Share/Impact:
Statistics
logo share SHARE logo core CORE   Add this article to your Mendeley library MendeleyBASE

Visualizar otros formatos: MARC | Dublin Core | RDF | ORE | MODS | METS | DIDL | DATACITE
Exportar a otros formatos:

Title

Key innovations and island colonization as engines of evolutionary diversification: A comparative test with the Australasian diplodactyloid geckos

AuthorsGarcía Porta, Joan ; Ord, Terry J.
KeywordsToepads
Snakelike phenotype
Padless
Lizard
Evolutionary rate
Body size disparity
Adaptive radiation
Issue DateDec-2013
PublisherJohn Wiley & Sons
CitationJournal of Evolutionary Biology 26(12): 2662-2680 (2013)
AbstractThe acquisition of key innovations and the invasion of new areas constitute two major processes that facilitate ecological opportunity and subsequent evolutionary diversification. Using a major lizard radiation as a model, the Australasian diplodactyloid geckos, we explored the effects of two key innovations (adhesive toepads and a snake-like phenotype) and the invasion of new environments (island colonization) in promoting the evolution of phenotypic and species diversity. We found no evidence that toepads had significantly increased evolutionary diversification, which challenges the common assumption that the evolution of toepads has been responsible for the extensive radiation of geckos. In contrast, a snakelike phenotype was associated with increased rates of body size evolution and, to a lesser extent, species diversification. However, the clearest impact on evolutionary diversification has been the colonization of New Zealand and New Caledonia, which were associated with increased rates of both body size evolution and species diversification. This highlights that colonizing new environments can drive adaptive diversification in conjunction or independently of the evolution of a key innovation. Studies wishing to confirm the putative link between a key innovation and subsequent evolutionary diversification must therefore show that it has been the acquisition of an innovation specifically, not the colonization of new areas more generally, that has prompted diversification. © 2013 European Society For Evolutionary Biology.
DescriptionAll data compiled by our study have been archived in the Dryad Digital Repository http://dx.doi.org/10.5061/dryad.56vf1
Publisher version (URL)http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jeb.12261
URIhttp://hdl.handle.net/10261/113313
DOI10.1111/jeb.12261
Identifiersdoi: 10.1111/jeb.12261
issn: 1010-061X
e-issn: 1420-9101
Appears in Collections:(IBE) Artículos
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
accesoRestringido.pdf15,38 kBAdobe PDFThumbnail
View/Open
Show full item record
Review this work
 

Related articles:


WARNING: Items in Digital.CSIC are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.