Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 472

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 32 of the 32 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The niche of higher plants: evidence for phylogenetic conservatism

Open access
Prinzing, Andreas, Durka, Walter, Klotz, Stefan, Brandl, Roalnd·2001·Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences

Abstract

A species' ecological niche depends on the species' adaptations to its present habitat, but also on the legacy from its ancestors. Most authors argue that such a phylogenetic niche conservatism is of minor importance, although no quantitative analyses across a major taxon is available. Higher plants from central Europe offer a unique opportunity for such an exercise, as the niche positions along various environmental gradients are available for most species. We quantified niche conservatism by two approaches. First, we used a phylogenetic tree and quantified the degree of retention of niches across the tree. Depending on the gradient, the values ranged from 0.43 to 0.22. This was significantly greater than the null expectation. Second, we used a taxonomy and quantified the amount of variance among species that could be explained at higher taxonomic levels. The values ranged from 25 to 72%. Again, this was significantly higher than the null expectation. Thus, both approaches indicated a clear niche conservatism. The distribution of conservatism across taxonomic levels differed considerably among environmental gradients. The differences among environmental gradients could be correlated with the palaeoenvironmental conditions during the radiation of the phylogenetic lineages. Thus, niche conservatism among extant plant species may reflect the opportunities of their ancestors during their diversification.

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 · 10.1098/rspb.2001.1801

Cites

32 of 32 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 32 references

Cited by

See all 472

Metadata

Authors
Prinzing, A., Durka, W., Klotz, S., & Brandl, R.
Venue
Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences
Published
2001-11-22
Volume
268
Issue
1483
Pages
2383-2389
ISSN
  • 0080-4649 (ISSN-L)
  • 0962-8452
  • 1471-2954
OpenAlex
W2067174801
Cited by
472
References
32
FWCI
10.60
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: The niche of higher plants: evidence for phylogenetic conservatism. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1098/rspb.2001.1801
The paper
Prinzing, A., Durka, W., Klotz, S., & Brandl, R. (2001). The niche of higher plants: evidence for phylogenetic conservatism. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2001.1801

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.