The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Plant–Insect Interactions: Double-Dating Associated Insect and Plant Lineages Reveals Asynchronous Radiations
Abstract
An increasing number of plant-insect studies using phylogenetic analysis suggest that cospeciation events are rare in plant-insect systems. Instead, nonrandom patterns of phylogenetic congruence are produced by phylogenetically conserved host switching (to related plants) or tracking of particular resources or traits (e.g., chemical). The dominance of host switching in many phytophagous insect groups may make the detection of genuine cospeciation events difficult. One important test of putative cospeciation events is to verify whether reciprocal speciation is temporally plausible. We explored techniques for double-dating of both plant and insect phylogenies. We use dated molecular phylogenies of a psyllid (Hemiptera)-Genisteae (Fabaceae) system, a predominantly monophagous insect-plant association widespread on the Atlantic Macaronesian islands. Phylogenetic reconciliation analysis suggests high levels of parallel cladogenesis between legumes and psyllids. However, dating using molecular clocks calibrated on known geological ages of the Macaronesian islands revealed that the legume and psyllid radiations were not contemporaneous but sequential. Whereas the main plant radiation occurred some 8 million years ago, the insect radiation occurred about 3 million years ago. We estimated that >60% of the psyllid speciation has resulted from host switching between related hosts. The only evidence for true cospeciation is in the much more recent and localized radiation of genistoid legumes in the Canary Islands, where the psyllid and legume radiations have been partially contemporaneous. The identification of specific cospeciation events over this time period, however, is hindered by the phylogenetic uncertainty in both legume and psyllid phylogenies due to the apparent rapidity of the species radiations.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
A nonparametric approach to estimating divergence times in the absence of rate constancy.
Sanderson, M. J. (1997) · Molecular Biology and Evolution · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a025731 · Cited by 1,156 · cited 2×
“We therefore imposed rate homogeneity using nonparametric rate smoothing (NPRS) (Sanderson, 1997) of the ITS and CO data.”
Method
Cited by
BIOTIC INTERACTIONS AND MACROEVOLUTION: EXTENSIONS AND MISMATCHES ACROSS SCALES AND LEVELS
Jablonski, D. (2008) · Evolution · doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.2008.00317.x · Cited by 294
Ehrlich and Raven revisited: mechanisms underlying codiversification of plants and enemies
Janz, N. (2011) · Annual Review of Ecology Evolution and Systematics · doi:10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-102710-145024 · Cited by 234
Metadata
- Authors
- Percy, D. M., Page, R. D. M., & Cronk, Q. C. B.
- Venue
- Systematic Biology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2004-02-01
- Volume
- 53
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 120-127
- ISSN
- 1063-5157 (ISSN-L)
- 1076-836X
- OpenAlex
- W2166782990
- Cited by
- 182
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 13.60
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Plant–Insect Interactions: Double-Dating Associated Insect and Plant Lineages Reveals Asynchronous Radiations. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/10635150490264996
- The paper
- Percy, D. M., Page, R. D. M., & Cronk, Q. C. B. (2004). Plant–Insect Interactions: Double-Dating Associated Insect and Plant Lineages Reveals Asynchronous Radiations. Systematic Biology. https://doi.org/10.1080/10635150490264996
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.