Группа авторов

Biogeography


Скачать книгу

with range evolution, as in GeoSSE and ClaSSE, allows statistical testing of classical hypotheses, such as whether widespread ranges lead to higher speciation rates (Goldberg et al. 2011) or whether extinction rates are dependent on area size or environmental heterogeneity (Meseguer et al. 2015). A shortcoming of SSE models is their computational complexity. The stationary distributions and parameter probabilities in SSE models are estimated through numerical integration, rather than analytically by matrix exponentiation as in DEC. One attractive avenue forward to tackle these computationally intractable models is the probabilistic programming language (PPL) framework (Ronquist et al. 2020).

      2.5.3. Ecology-integrative models

      Similarly, for overland dispersal, both the physical bridge and the right environmental conditions along the corridor are a requisite (Donoghue 2008). Ecological niche models can be used to find areas that are within the environmental tolerances of a species, and this information can be used in a biogeographic analysis for modeling the probability of dispersal along corridors or across barriers (Smith and Donoghue 2010). The ecological preferences of ancestors can also be incorporated through the inclusion of fossil, extinct taxa in the analysis; this offers great potential for reconstructing species distributions over the distant past (Meseguer et al. 2015). Ecological processes such as competition and environmental filtering can be modeled in Quintero and Landis’s (2019) composite biogeographic-trait evolutionary model: the rates of range expansion and range contraction depend on the trait values of other co-distributed species (effect of competition on biogeography), while the rate of divergence and convergence of trait values in a species depends on its sympatry with other species, gained or lost via colonization and extinction rates (effect of biogeography on traits).

      2.6. Population-level and individual-based models

      One class of expanding simulation models is forward-time, individual-based models, also termed in silico or automat models (Gotelli et al. 2009; Overcast et al. 2019). These models set up a series of rules by which speciation, extinction and dispersal of lineages can occur within an environmentally heterogeneous, two-dimensional gridded landscape; they are therefore spatially explicit models (Gotelli et al. 2009). These models have been used for testing macroecological hypotheses on species richness and distribution patterns, but some incorporate evolutionary predictions (Rangel et al. 2018). Recently, simulation modeling has experienced a spur forward, especially within the realm of phylogeography (Overcast et al. 2019), with the introduction of machine learning approaches and the integration of genetic data. Both in silico and machine learning approaches use simulations under pre-specified scenarios, as well as statistical comparison of observations against the distribution of simulated values to discriminate among alternative biogeographic scenarios. These models are less efficient for parameter inference than parametric approaches such as DEC or BIB, because a large range of values needs to be explored via simulation. Conversely, simulation models are more powerful in modeling complex phylogeographic scenarios involving multiple interacting parameters, since there is no need to derive the likelihood function and parameter dependencies. In particular, machine-learning methods are extremely flexible, with no cap on the number of parameters, and have been used for merging ecological and evolutionary processes (Overcast et al. 2019), trait-based biogeography (Sukumaran et al. 2016) or the integration of the spatial landscape (Tagliocollo et al. 2015). Some ML approaches do not rely on summary statistics and can be more efficient than ABC methods for phylogeographic inference (Fonseca et al. 2020).

      2.7. References

      Beaumont, M.A. (2010). Approximate Bayesian computation in evolution and ecology. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst., 41, 379–406.

      Bloomquist, E.W., Lemey, P., Suchard, M.A. (2010). Three roads diverged? Routes to phylogeographic inference. Trends Ecol. Evol., 25, 626–632.

      Bremer, K. and Janssen, T. (2006). Gondwanan origin of major monocot groups inferred from dispersal-vicariance analysis. Aliso, 22, 22–27.

      Bribiesca-Contreras, G., Verbruggen, H., Hugall, A.F., O’Hara, T.D. (2019). Global biogeographic structuring of tropical shallow-water brittle stars. J. Biogeogr., 46, 1287–1299.

      Brooks, D.R. (2005). Historical biogeography in the age of complexity: Expansion and integration. Rev. Mex. Biodivers., 76, 79–94.

      Buerki, S., Forest, F., Alvarez, N., Nylander, J.A.A., Arrigo, N., Sanmartin, I. (2011). An evaluation of new parsimony-based versus parametric inference methods in biogeography: A case study using the globally distributed plant family Sapindaceae. J. Biogeogr., 38, 531–550.

      Cybis, G.B., Sinsheimer, J.S., Lemey, P., Suchard, M.A. (2013). Graph hierarchies for phylogeography. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B, 368, 20120206.

      Darwin, C. (1859). On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life. John Murray, London.

      De Maio, N., Wu, C.-H., O’Reilly, K.M., Wilson, D. (2015). New routes to phylogeography: A Bayesian structured coalescent approximation. PLoS Genet., 11(8), e1005421.

      Donoghue, M.J. (2008). A phylogenetic perspective on the distribution of plant