Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 316

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 24 of the 24 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A test of alternative models of diversification in tropical rainforests: Ecological gradients vs. rainforest refugia

Open access
Schneider, Christopher J., Smith, Thomas B., Larison, Brenda, Moritz, Craig·1999·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

Comparison of mitochondrial and morphological divergence in eight populations of a widespread leaf-litter skink is used to determine the relative importance of geographic isolation and natural selection in generating phenotypic diversity in the Wet Tropics Rainforest region of Australia. The populations occur in two geographically isolated regions, and within each region, in two different habitats (closed rainforest and tall open forest) that span a well characterized ecological gradient. Morphological differences among ancient geographic isolates (separated for several million years, judging by their mitochondrial DNA sequence divergence) were slight, but morphological and life history differences among habitats were large and occurred despite moderate to high levels of mitochondrial gene flow. A field experiment identified avian predation as one potential agent of natural selection. These results indicate that natural selection operating across ecological gradients can be more important than geographic isolation in similar habitats in generating phenotypic diversity. In addition, our results indicate that selection is sufficiently strong to overcome the homogenizing effects of gene flow, a necessary first step toward speciation in continuously distributed populations. Because ecological gradients may be a source of evolutionary novelty, and perhaps new species, their conservation warrants greater attention. This is particularly true in tropical regions, where most reserves do not include ecological gradients and transitional habitats.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.96.24.13869

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 24 references

Cited by

See all 316

Metadata

Authors
Schneider, C. J., Smith, T. B., Larison, B., & Moritz, C.
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
1999-11-23
Volume
96
Issue
24
Pages
13869-13873
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W2161753327
Cited by
316
References
24
FWCI
10.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A test of alternative models of diversification in tropical rainforests: Ecological gradients vs. rainforest refugia. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1073/pnas.96.24.13869
The paper
Schneider, C. J., Smith, T. B., Larison, B., & Moritz, C. (1999). A test of alternative models of diversification in tropical rainforests: Ecological gradients vs. rainforest refugia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.96.24.13869

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.