Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 306

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 55 of the 55 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

IS SPECIALIZATION A DEAD END? THE PHYLOGENY OF HOST USE IN DENDROCTONUS BARK BEETLES (SCOLYTIDAE)

Kelley, Scott T., Farrell, Brian D.·1998·Evolution

Abstract

Ecological explanations for the prevalence of resource specialists are abundant, whereas phylogenetic evidence on their origins is scarce. In this paper, we provide a molecular phylogenetic study of the 19 specialist or generalist species in the bark beetle genus Dendroctonus, which collectively attack species in four different genera in the conifer family Pinaceae. Given substantial variation in diet breadth, we asked two general questions concerning the evolution of resource use in this group. How conservative is the evolution of host use in these insects? Does specialization tend to be derived (i.e., a "dead end")? To answer these questions, we estimated the phylogeny of Dendroctonus using mitochondrial DNA sequences and mapped transitions in resource use on the resulting phylogeny estimate. The evolution of affiliations with Pinus and Picea hosts in Dendroctonus was conservative among beetle species (PTP test; P < 0.012), but there was no significant correspondence between the phylogeny of these beetles and the phylogeny among their Pinaceae hosts (among genera, P = 0.28; among Pinus species, P = 0.82). Degree of specialization, as measured in the proportion of hosts used, was bimodally distributed with "generalist" species utilizing < 60% of the congeneric hosts within their range and six specialist species utilizing < 40% of the available hosts. Among the generalists, we found a strong correlation between the number of hosts encountered and the number of hosts utilized (R = 0.97, P < 0.0001), whereas there was no significant correlation among the specialists (R = 0.27, P = 0.59). The evolution of specialization in Dendroctonus proved highly labile-specialists arose from generalists at least six separate times (without reversal) all in derived positions, and closer examination of some specialists revealed instances where they appear to have lost particular host species from their diet. However, evidence from the ecological literature also suggests that several Dendroctonus generalists may have increased their range of host genera within the Pinaceae.

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 · 10.1111/j.1558-5646.1998.tb02253.x

Cites

55 of 55 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 55 references

Metadata

Authors
Kelley, S. T., & Farrell, B. D.
Venue
Evolution
Published
1998-12
Volume
52
Issue
6
Pages
1731-1743
ISSN
0014-3820 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1967602140
Cited by
306
References
55
FWCI
13.19
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: IS SPECIALIZATION A DEAD END? THE PHYLOGENY OF HOST USE IN DENDROCTONUS BARK BEETLES (SCOLYTIDAE). https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1558-5646.1998.tb02253.x
The paper
Kelley, S. T., & Farrell, B. D. (1998). IS SPECIALIZATION A DEAD END? THE PHYLOGENY OF HOST USE IN DENDROCTONUS BARK BEETLES (SCOLYTIDAE). Evolution. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.1998.tb02253.x

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.