Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 464

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Cospeciation vs host‐shift speciation: methods for testing, evidence from natural associations and relation to coevolution

de Vienne, D. M., Refrégier, G., López‐Villavicencio, M., Tellier, A., Hood, M. E., Giraud, T.·2013·New Phytologist

Abstract

Summary: Hosts and their symbionts are involved in intimate physiological and ecological interactions. The impact of these interactions on the evolution of each partner depends on the time‐scale considered. Short‐term dynamics – ‘coevolution’ in the narrow sense – has been reviewed elsewhere. We focus here on the long‐term evolutionary dynamics of cospeciation and speciation following host shifts. Whether hosts and their symbionts speciate in parallel, by cospeciation, or through host shifts, is a key issue in host–symbiont evolution. In this review, we first outline approaches to compare divergence between pairwise associated groups of species, their advantages and pitfalls. We then consider recent insights into the long‐term evolution of host–parasite and host–mutualist associations by critically reviewing the literature. We show that convincing cases of cospeciation are rare (7%) and that cophylogenetic methods overestimate the occurrence of such events. Finally, we examine the relationships between short‐term coevolutionary dynamics and long‐term patterns of diversification in host–symbiont associations. We review theoretical and experimental studies showing that short‐term dynamics can foster parasite specialization, but that these events can occur following host shifts and do not necessarily involve cospeciation. Overall, there is now substantial evidence to suggest that coevolutionary dynamics of hosts and parasites do not favor long‐term cospeciation. ContentsSummary347I.Introduction348II.Origin of the cospeciation concept349III.Theoretical framework and methods for testing for cospeciation349IV.Studies of natural associations reveal the prevalence of host shifts355V.Relationship between host–symbiont coevolution and symbiont speciation378VI.Conclusion381Acknowledgements381References381Glossary379

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/nph.12150

Cites

3 of 3 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 3 references

Cited by

See all 464

Metadata

Authors
de Vienne, D. M., Refrégier, G., López‐Villavicencio, M., Tellier, A., Hood, M. E., & Giraud, T.
Venue
New Phytologist
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-02-25
Volume
198
Issue
2
Pages
347-385
ISSN
  • 0028-646X (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-8137
OpenAlex
W2171695241
Cited by
464
References
3
FWCI
25.33
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: Cospeciation vs host‐shift speciation: methods for testing, evidence from natural associations and relation to coevolution. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/nph.12150
The paper
de Vienne, D. M., Refrégier, G., López‐Villavicencio, M., Tellier, A., Hood, M. E., & Giraud, T. (2013). Cospeciation vs host‐shift speciation: methods for testing, evidence from natural associations and relation to coevolution. New Phytologist. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.12150

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.