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 accessAbstract
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.
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
MacClade 4.0: analysis of phylogeny and character evolution
(2001) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.39-2183 · Cited by 5,554
The comparative method in evolutionary biology
(1992) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.29-5104 · Cited by 4,931
Species diversity in space and time
(1996) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.33-2720 · Cited by 4,573
The Comparative Method in Evolutionary Biology
Harvey, P. H., & Pagel, M. D. (1991) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198546412.001.0001 · Cited by 4,337
Species Diversity in Space and Time
Rosenzweig, M. L. (1995) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511623387 · Cited by 3,690
The Niche-Relationships of the California Thrasher
Grinnell, J. (1917) · The Auk · doi:10.2307/4072271 · Cited by 1,751
THE RETENTION INDEX AND THE RESCALED CONSISTENCY INDEX
Farris, J. S. (1989) · Cladistics · doi:10.1111/j.1096-0031.1989.tb00573.x · Cited by 1,645
An Ordinal Classification for the Families of Flowering Plants
(1998) · Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden · doi:10.2307/2992015 · Cited by 1,465
Macclade: Analysis of Phylogeny and Character Evolution/Version 3
Maddison, W. P., & Maddison, D. R. (1992) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 1,448
Flowering Plants: Evolution Above the Species Level
Stebbins, G. L. (1974) · Harvard University Press eBooks · doi:10.4159/harvard.9780674864856 · Cited by 1,366
Cited by
TESTING FOR PHYLOGENETIC SIGNAL IN COMPARATIVE DATA: BEHAVIORAL TRAITS ARE MORE LABILE
Blomberg, S. P., Garland, T., & Ives, A. R. (2003) · Evolution · doi:10.1111/j.0014-3820.2003.tb00285.x · Cited by 4,678
Phylogenies and Community Ecology
Webb, C. O., Ackerly, D. D., McPeek, M. A., & Donoghue, M. J. (2002) · Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics · doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.33.010802.150448 · Cited by 4,609
Plant Ecological Strategies: Some Leading Dimensions of Variation Between Species
Westoby, M., Falster, D. S., Moles, A. T., Vesk, P. A., & Wright, I. J. (2002) · Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics · doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.33.010802.150452 · Cited by 3,069
Niche Conservatism: Integrating Evolution, Ecology, and Conservation Biology
Wiens, J. J., & Graham, C. H. (2005) · Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics · doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.36.102803.095431 · Cited by 2,615
The merging of community ecology and phylogenetic biology
Cavender‐Bares, J., Kozak, K. H., Fine, P. V. A., & Kembel, S. W. (2009) · Ecology Letters · doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01314.x · Cited by 2,321
Metadata
- Authors
- Prinzing, A., Durka, W., Klotz, S., & Brandl, R.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences
- Publisher
- The Royal Society
- 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.