Cited by 496Evolution and Paleontology StudiesPlant Diversity and EvolutionEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies

Speciation has a spatial scale that depends on levels of gene flow

Kisel, Yael, Barraclough, Timothy G.·2010·The American Naturalist

Abstract

Area is generally assumed to affect speciation rates, but work on the spatial context of speciation has focused mostly on patterns of range overlap between emerging species rather than on questions of geographical scale. A variety of geographical theories of speciation predict that the probability of speciation occurring within a given region should (1) increase with the size of the region and (2) increase as the spatial extent of intraspecific gene flow becomes smaller. Using a survey of speciation events on isolated oceanic islands for a broad range of taxa, we find evidence for both predictions. The probability of in situ speciation scales with island area in bats, carnivorous mammals, birds, flowering plants, lizards, butterflies and moths, and snails. Ferns are an exception to these findings, but they exhibit high frequencies of polyploid and hybrid speciation, which are expected to be scale independent. Furthermore, the minimum island size for speciation correlates across groups with the strength of intraspecific gene flow, as is estimated from a meta-analysis of published population genetic studies. These results indicate a general geographical model of speciation rates that are dependent on both area and gene flow. The spatial scale of population divergence is an important but neglected determinant of broad-scale diversity patterns.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1086/650369

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Gene flow between diverging lineages is expected to be common under speciation scenarios driven by divergent adaptation to different local environments.

    “Gene flow between diverging lineages is expected to be common under such speciation scenarios (Kisel and Barraclough, 2010; although see Sianta and Kay, 2022).”

    From Genomics of plant speciation (2023) · cites this paper as Kisel and Barraclough, 2010

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kisel, Y., & Barraclough, T. G.
Affiliations
Natural Environment Research Council (GB)
Corresponding author
  • Kisel, Yael
  • Barraclough, Timothy G.
Venue
The American Naturalist
Published
2010-03
Volume
175
Issue
3
Pages
316-334
ISSN
  • 0003-0147 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-5323
OpenAlex
W2084447002
Cited by
496
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 40 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 67 · 2018: 31 · 2017: 25 · 2016: 42 · 2015: 34 · 2014: 33 · 2013: 25 · 2012: 30
FWCI
20.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The American Naturalist (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Natural Environment Research Council (cpb010001)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Evolution and Paleontology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Plant Diversity and Evolution
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Keywords
speciation, spatial scale, island size, oceanic islands, in situ speciation, population divergence, polyploidy, hybrid speciation, bats, carnivorous mammals, birds, flowering plants, lizards, Lepidoptera, snails, ferns, biodiversity patterns
MeSH terms
Animals, Geography, Phylogeny, Plants, Population Dynamics, Genetic Speciation, Gene Flow

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