The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Phylogenetic niche conservatism and the evolutionary basis of ecological speciation
Abstract
Phylogenetic niche conservatism (PNC) typically refers to the tendency of closely related species to be more similar to each other in terms of niche than they are to more distant relatives. This has been implicated as a potential driving force in speciation and other species‐richness patterns, such as latitudinal gradients. However,PNC has not been very well defined in most previous studies. Is it a pattern or a process? What are the underlying endogenous (e.g. genetic) and exogenous (e.g. ecological) factors that cause niches to be conserved? What degree of similarity is necessary to qualify as PNC? Is it possible for the evolutionary processes causing niches to be conserved to also result in niche divergence in different habitats? Here, we revisit these questions, codifying a theoretical and operational definition of PNC as a mechanistic evolutionary process resulting from several factors. We frame this both from a macroevolutionary and population‐genetic perspective. We discuss how different axes of physical (e.g. geographic) and environmental (e.g. climatic) heterogeneity interact with the fundamental process of PNC to produce different outcomes of ecological speciation. We also review tests for PNC, and suggest ways that these could be improved or better utilized in future studies. Ultimately,PNC as a process has a well‐defined mechanistic basis in organisms, and future studies investigating ecological speciation would be well served to consider this, and frame hypothesis testing in terms of the processes and expected patterns described herein. The process of PNC may lead to patterns where niches are conserved (more similar than expected), constrained (divergent within a limited subset of available niches), or divergent (less similar than expected), based on degree of phylogenetic relatedness between species.
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
The Comparative Method in Evolutionary Biology
Harvey, P. H., & Pagel, M. D. (1991) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198546412.001.0001 · Cited by 4,337
Pearson, R. G., & Dawson, T. P. (2003) · Global Ecology and Biogeography · doi:10.1046/j.1466-822x.2003.00042.x · Cited by 4,252
Erosion of Lizard Diversity by Climate Change and Altered Thermal Niches
Sinervo, B., Méndez-de-la-Cruz, F., Miles, D. B., Heulin, B., Bastiaans, E., Villagrán-Santa Cruz, M., Lara-Resendiz, R., Martínez-Méndez, N., Calderón-Espinosa, M. L., Meza-Lázaro, R. N., et al. (2010) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1184695 · Cited by 1,902
Harmon, L. J., Losos, J. B., Jonathan Davies, T., Gillespie, R. G., Gittleman, J. L., Bryan Jennings, W., Kozak, K. H., McPeek, M. A., Moreno-Roark, F., Near, T. J., et al. (2010) · Evolution · doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.2010.01025.x · Cited by 834
Cited by
Cryptic species as a window into the paradigm shift of the species concept
Fišer, C., Robinson, C. T., & Malard, F. (2018) · Molecular Ecology · doi:10.1111/mec.14486 · Cited by 574
Cryptic species conservation: a review
Hending, D. (2025) · Biological Reviews · doi:10.1111/brv.13139 · Cited by 113
Metadata
- Authors
- Pyron, R. A., Costa, G. C., Patten, M. A., & Burbrink, F. T.
- Venue
- Biological Reviews
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2014-11-26
- Volume
- 90
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1248-1262
- ISSN
- 0006-3231 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-7931
- 1469-185X
- OpenAlex
- W1956587275
- Cited by
- 361
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 4.94
- 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: Phylogenetic niche conservatism and the evolutionary basis of ecological speciation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/brv.12154
- The paper
- Pyron, R. A., Costa, G. C., Patten, M. A., & Burbrink, F. T. (2015). Phylogenetic niche conservatism and the evolutionary basis of ecological speciation. Biological Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12154
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.