Niche overlap and divergence times support niche conservatism in eastern Asia–eastern North America disjunct plants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aim The plant species sharing ancestors now disjunctly distributed in eastern Asia (EAS) and eastern North America (ENA) have long been a biogeographic puzzle. Species within the EAS–ENA disjunct genera are presumed to exhibit niche conservatism, the tendency of closely related species to be more ecologically similar, reflecting lineages’ common evolutionary history. However, the hypothesis has not been well examined at the species level. Location EAS and ENA. Time period Current. Major taxa studied Species within the EAS–ENA disjunct genera. Methods We compiled data on climate, species occurrence, growth form, and phylogeny to examine niche conservatism. We first built a phylogenetic tree to select intercontinental congeneric pairwise species and obtained their divergence times. We then quantified the observed niche overlaps with Schoener’s D, which has a 0–1 range, based on species occurrence and climate of species’ native ranges. To obtain projected distributions, each species’ niche was projected to the non‐native region using ensemble ecological niche models. Projected‐related niche overlaps were then calculated using projected distributions and the corresponding climatic conditions. Results Average observed niche overlaps of congeneric pairwise species were relatively small: .124, .211 and .109 for all, herbaceous and woody species, respectively. Both observed and projected‐related niche overlaps had significant negative relationships with divergence times of intercontinental congeneric pairwise species, with niche overlap for herbaceous species being higher than that for woody plants when controlling for divergence times. Main conclusions We conclude that the significant negative relationships between niche overlap and divergence times of congeneric pairwise species confirm niche conservatism among species of EAS–ENA disjunct plants and that the extent of niche conservatism is slightly different for herbaceous and woody plants. These findings suggest the potential role of allopatric speciation in EAS, and could help to understand the evolutionary history and the Asian‐bias diversity pattern of the EAS–ENA disjunct plants.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".