Re-evaluating models to take on new challenges in ecology and evolution

THE RIGHT ANSWERS TO THE WRONG QUESTIONS:Re-evaluating models to take on new challenges in ecology and evolution

-60˚

-60˚

-65˚

-65˚

-70˚

-70˚

-75˚

-75˚

-80˚

-80˚

-85˚

-85˚

25̊

25˚

20̊

20˚

15̊

15˚

10̊

10˚

0 170 34085Kilometers

5775 m

-8400 m

Elevation or depth

Distance

Cayman Trench

Pinos

Andros

GrandBahama

Long

Exumas

NewProvidence

Inaguas

Abaco

Eleuthera

CatSan Salvador

CrookedMayaguana

Middle Caicos

GrandCayman LittleCaymanCaymanBrac

Gonave

South America

Central America

Hispaniola

Cuba

Jamaica

NorthAmerica

Eustatia

St MartinViequesMona

MarieGalante

Montserrat

St KittsNevis

Saba

AnguillaSt BarthelemySt Croix

AnegadaCulebra

St Thomas

St John

TortolaVirgin Gorda

Île à Vache

TobagoTrinidad

Grenada

Barbados

Guadeloupe

St Lucia

Martinique

PuertoRico

Dominica

St Vincent

AntiguaBarbuda

Grenadines

Margarita

ArubaBonaireCuraçao

Aves

San Andres

Providencia

Cozumel

Swan Island

Spe

cies

rich

ness

1

3.2

10

10 100 1000 10000 100000

1

3.2

10

32

10 100 1000 10000 100000

1

1.5

2.5

4.0

6.3

10

16

25

31.6 100 316 1000 3162

Bahamas island area (km2) Greater Antilles island area (km2) Lesser Antilles island area (km2)

Current

Last GlacialMaximum

log(Spresent) = log(c) + zlog(Apresent),

log(SLGM) = log(c) + zlog(ALGM),

if c and z remain constant

– test using ancova – =>

log(Spresent/SLGM) = zlog(Apresent/ALGM)

Log (present/LGM) area Greater Antilles

−1.2

−1.0

−0.8

−0.6

−0.4

−0.2

0.0

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

��

�

��

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

−3.5 −3.0 −2.5 −2.0 −1.5 −1.0 −0.5

Log (present/LGM) area Bahamas

Log

(pre

sent

/LG

M) s

peci

es

−1.2

−1.0

−0.8

−0.6

−0.4

−0.2

0.0 ��

�

�

��

�

�

�

�

��

�

�

�

��

�

�

��

−4 −3 −2 −1

Figure A1. Relief map (1 km2 grid) of the Caribbean basin with present-day continental outlines. Light gray areas were exposed at the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM), resulting in much larger islands than today. Rich fossil deposits from the LGM and before enable estimating the number of bat species on each of the larger islands.

Figure A2. Species–area curves for three Caribbean archipelagos at the LGM and present. Shaded areas indicate the 95% confidence interval around the mean of the curves. LGM species–area relationships (SARs) were highly significant for the Bahamas and the Greater Antilles (P≤0.0012), but not the Lesser Antilles (P=0.11). Current SARs were highly significant for all archipelagos (P≤0.0003). The slopes of the curves fitted for each time period were not statistically different in the Bahamas or Greater Antilles (P≥0.44), but were significantly different in the Lesser Antilles (P=0.03).

Figure A3. Curves for change in sno. of pecies from the LGM to the present as a function of change in area in two Caribbean archipelagos. Shaded = 95% confidence interval around the mean. All relationships were highly significant (P≤0.0001). This simple relationship can be used to estimate future species loss from rising sea levels. Knowing how many species will go extinct is not enough, though; we also need to find out which ones will survive. By combining the species-area relationship with models based on life history and evolutionary relatedness, we may yet answer this question.

MacrotusLampronycterisMicronycteris minutaMicronycteris schmidtorumMicronycteris hirsutaMicroncyteris megalotisDiphyllaDiaemusDesmodusLonchorhinaMacrophyllumTrachopsChrotopterusVampyrumLophostomaTonatiaPhyllodermaPhyllostomusMimon

AnouraHylonycterisChoeroniscusMusonycterisChoeronycteris

ErophyllaBrachyphyllaMonophyllusGlossophagaLeptonycteris

LonchophyllaLionycterisCarolliaTrinycterisGlyphonycteris daviesiGlyphonycteris sylvestrisRhinophyllaSturnira

MesophyllaVampyressaPlatyrrhinusVampyrodes

Uroderma

Vampyressa bidensVampyressa brocki

Chiroderma

EnchisthenesEctophyllaArtibeusDermanuraAriteusArdopsStenodermaCenturioPygodermaAmetridaSphaeronycteris

lowhigh

Bayesian posteriorprobability

Diphylla Diaemus

Desmodus Brachyphylla

Erophylla Phyllonycteris

Platalina Lonchophylla

Lionycteris Monophyllus

Glossophaga Leptonycteris

Anoura Hylonycteris

Lichonycteris Scleronycteris Choeroniscus Musonycteris

Choeronycteris Phylloderma

Phyllostomus Macrophyllum

Lonchorhina Mimon crenulatum

Mimon bennettii Trachops

Tonatia Chrotopterus

Vampyrum Trinycteris

Glyphonycteris Lampronycteris

Macrotus Micronycteris minutaMicronycteris hirsuta

Micronycteris megalotisRhinophylla

Carollia Sturnira

Enchisthenes hartiiArtibeus concolor

Artibeus jamaicensisArtibeus cinereus

Uroderma Platyrrhinus

Vampyrodes Chiroderma

Vampyressa bidensVampyressa nymphaea

Vampyressa pusillaEctophylla

Mesophylla Ametrida Centurio

Sphaeronycteris Pygoderma

Phyllops Stenoderma

Ariteus Ardops ≥ high

< low

≥ medium

Bootstrappercent

Evolutionary relationshipsBased on DNA sequences Based on anatomical features

Thisis

morecloselyrelated

tothese

Thisismorecloselyrelatedtothese

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

0

200

400

600

0 1000 2000

Evolutionary divergence

Ana

tom

ical

cha

nges

Anatomical changes

�

�

�

Finite changesmodel

Observed

Ordered changesmodel

b

a

0

9.5

19

0

1.3

2.6

3.9

From D

NA

observationFrom

anatomical obervation

Freq

uenc

y (p

erce

nt)

Pairwise dissimilarity between DNA observations

Rel

ativ

e de

nsity

of

anat

omic

al d

issi

mila

rity

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

−2

0

2

Supp

ort f

or n

ecta

r−fe

edin

g gr

oup

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

��

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

��

�

�

�

��

�

�

�

0 100 200

Anatomical observation

Dental observations�

�

MandibularMaxillary

� CanineIncisors

MolarsPremolars

� Significant

Figure B1. Evolutionary relationships among New World Leaf-nosed bats (Mammalia: Phyllostomidae) based on DNA sequences (left),and anatomical observations (right). The highlighted examplars show discordant relationships depending on the kind of observations —DNA or anatomy— analyzed.

Figure B2. Analyses of anatomical observations. A linearrelationship between evolutionary divergence and anatomical changes is expected if anatomy varies in relation to common ancestry. This hypothesis was rejected (P≤0.0001). Instead,ordering of anatomical changes, in which extreme anatomies beget more extreme anatomies was a good fit to the observations.

Thesefeed

onnectar

Thesefeedonnectar

Figure B3. Location of support for nectar-feeding bats forming a group. Significance testing was obtained

by simulating anatomical variation based on evolutionary relationships and comparing the fit of simulations and observations to the trees of Figure B1. By identifying anatomical regions that conflict with DNA relationships, conflicting regions can be excluded in subsequent analyses.

Figure B4. Frequency distributions of pairwise dissimilarities from different types of observations. If DNA sequences and anatomical observations had similar patterns of variation, the frequency distributions of their dissimilarities would be similar (dashed line in b). As expected if anatomy was subject to natural selection and developmental constraints, the patterns observed are much more similar to one another than those of DNA sequences. Approaches such as that of Figure B3 are needed to estimate the evolutionaryrelationships of the 99% of species that have gone extinct.

Forest Pasture

25

30

35

40

45

50

2001 2004 2007 201025

30

35

40

2001 2004 2007 2010Per

cent

age

land

are

a

�

�

�

��

�

�

��

��

��

�

�

�

� �

�

�

�

20

30

40

30,000 60,000 90,000

Cattle

Perc

enta

ge la

nd p

astu

re

30,000

60,000

90,000

10

20

30

Year

Cat

tleB

eef p

rice

(pes

os/K

g)R

anch

ing

GD

P(1

09 p

esos

)

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

1,600

1,800

2,000

2,200

Calamar

El Retorno

San Jose

Figure C1. Land use trajectories through time in the Guaviare province of Colombia (northern South America).

Figure C2. Trajectory of pasture as a land use in the three municipalities in the study. The conventional explanation for forest conversion to other uses is the growth of local populations. Rural populations, however, are generally declining.

Figure C3. Pasture land use as a function ofheads of cattle (P=0.0001).

Calamar

El RetornoSan Jose

2010

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

20

30

40

50

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

Year

Con

stru

ctio

n G

DP

(109

pes

os)

Pro

perty

Tax

(106

pes

os/c

apita

)

Figure C4. Demand for beef is thought to drive the expansion of the cattle herd. Economic data, however, do not support this: the cattle herd has grown considerably (top), but the price of beef rose <8% (middle). Revenues from cattle in Guaviare have plummeted (bottom), suggesting cattle are not profitable. The herd expands in part because cattle have value as capital for obtaining loans, and having cattle bolsters land claims.

Figure C5. Tax receipts have increased (top), and those monies are invested in construction of infrastructure (bottom). With the growth of the financial sector (not shown)these data suggest a local financial boom. Urbanization may explain pasture expansion, not because of beef consumption, but because of expected transactions in urban land markets.

Thanks!A. Corthals; members of Dávalos lab: S. Bishop, R. Dahan, S. DelSerra, O. Warsi, L. Yohe. Collaborators: D. Armenteras, L. Correa, J. Holmes, N. Rodriguez, A. Russell, N. Simmons, P. Smits, and P. Velazco; CIPRES.Liliana M. Dávalos, CIDER & Ecology and Evolution, SUNY Stony Brook, [email protected]

Scan the barcode for the abstract, a PDF of the poster & links to relevant papers.

20

25

30

35

Calamar

30.0

32.5

35.0

37.5

40.0

42.5

Retorno

30

35

40

45

San Jose

4,000

4,250

4,500

4,750

5,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

30,000

32,500

35,000

37,500

40,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

2001 2004 2007 2010

11,200

11,400

11,600

2001 2004 2007 2010

19,000

19,500

20,000

20,500

2001 2004 2007 2010

Urb

anP

opul

atio

nR

ural

Pop

ulat

ion

Per

cent

land

Pas

ture

How many species? How did they evolve? Why habitat loss?

Science

Re-evaluating models to take on new challenges in ecology and evolution