The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
ENVIRONMENTAL NICHE EQUIVALENCY VERSUS CONSERVATISM: QUANTITATIVE APPROACHES TO NICHE EVOLUTION
Abstract
Environmental niche models, which are generated by combining species occurrence data with environmental GIS data layers, are increasingly used to answer fundamental questions about niche evolution, speciation, and the accumulation of ecological diversity within clades. The question of whether environmental niches are conserved over evolutionary time scales has attracted considerable attention, but often produced conflicting conclusions. This conflict, however, may result from differences in how niche similarity is measured and the specific null hypothesis being tested. We develop new methods for quantifying niche overlap that rely on a traditional ecological measure and a metric from mathematical statistics. We reexamine a classic study of niche conservatism between sister species in several groups of Mexican animals, and, for the first time, address alternative definitions of "niche conservatism" within a single framework using consistent methods. As expected, we find that environmental niches of sister species are more similar than expected under three distinct null hypotheses, but that they are rarely identical. We demonstrate how our measures can be used in phylogenetic comparative analyses by reexamining niche divergence in an adaptive radiation of Cuban anoles. Our results show that environmental niche overlap is closely tied to geographic overlap, but not to phylogenetic distances, suggesting that niche conservatism has not constrained local communities in this group to consist of closely related species. We suggest various randomization tests that may prove useful in other areas of ecology and evolutionary biology.
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
Phylogenies and the Comparative Method
Felsenstein, J. (1985) · The American Naturalist · doi:10.1086/284325 · Cited by 9,793
A review of methods for the assessment of prediction errors in conservation presence/absence models
FIELDING, A. H., & BELL, J. F. (1997) · Environmental Conservation · doi:10.1017/s0376892997000088 · Cited by 6,956
Ecologically meaningful transformations for ordination of species data
Legendre, P., & Gallagher, E. D. (2001) · Oecologia · doi:10.1007/s004420100716 · Cited by 5,556
Vaart, A. W. V. D. (1998) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511802256 · Cited by 4,159
Selecting thresholds of occurrence in the prediction of species distributions
Liu, C., Berry, P. M., Dawson, T. P., & Pearson, R. G. (2005) · Ecography · doi:10.1111/j.0906-7590.2005.03957.x · Cited by 2,701
Cited by
The art of modelling range-shifting species: The art of modelling range-shifting species
Elith, J., Kearney, M., & Phillips, S. (2010) · Methods in Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.1111/j.2041-210x.2010.00036.x · Cited by 2,813
Warren, D. L., & Seifert, S. N. (2011) · Ecological Applications · doi:10.1890/10-1171.1 · Cited by 2,312
Self-citationMuscarella, R., Galante, P. J., Soley‐Guardia, M., Boria, R. A., Kass, J. M., Uriarte, M., & Anderson, R. P. (2014) · Methods in Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.1111/2041-210x.12261 · Cited by 1,962
ENMTools: a toolbox for comparative studies of environmental niche models
Warren, D. L., Glor, R. E., & Turelli, M. (2010) · Ecography · doi:10.1111/j.1600-0587.2009.06142.x · Cited by 1,629
Self-citationFourcade, Y., Engler, J. O., Rödder, D., & Secondi, J. (2014) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0097122 · Cited by 1,098
Metadata
- Authors
- Warren, D. L., Glor, R. E., & Turelli, M.
- Venue
- Evolution
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2008-11
- Volume
- 62
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 2868-2883
- ISSN
- 0014-3820 (ISSN-L)
- 1558-5646
- OpenAlex
- W2110888553
- Cited by
- 2,663
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 23.63
- 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
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.