Ecological niche differentiation in Chiroxiphia and Antilophia manakins (Aves: Pipridae)

Species distribution models are useful for identifying the ecological characteristics that may limit a species' geographic range and for inferring patterns of speciation. Here, we test a hypothesis of niche conservatism across evolutionary time in a group of manakins (Aves: Pipridae), with a fo...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:PloS one 2021-01, Vol.16 (1), p.e0243760-e0243760
Hauptverfasser: Villegas, Mariana, Loiselle, Bette A, Kimball, Rebecca T, Blake, John G
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page e0243760
container_issue 1
container_start_page e0243760
container_title PloS one
container_volume 16
creator Villegas, Mariana
Loiselle, Bette A
Kimball, Rebecca T
Blake, John G
description Species distribution models are useful for identifying the ecological characteristics that may limit a species' geographic range and for inferring patterns of speciation. Here, we test a hypothesis of niche conservatism across evolutionary time in a group of manakins (Aves: Pipridae), with a focus on Chiroxiphia boliviana, and examine the degree of ecological differentiation with other Chiroxiphia and Antilophia manakins. We tested whether allopatric sister species were more or less similar in environmental space than expected given their phylogenetic distances, which would suggest, respectively, ecological niche conservatism over time or ecologically mediated selection (i.e. niche divergence). We modeled the distribution of nine manakin taxa (C. boliviana, C. caudata, C. lanceolata, C. linearis, C. p. pareola, C. p. regina, C. p. napensis, Antilophia galeata and A. bokermanni) using Maxent. We first performed models for each taxon and compared them. To test our hypothesis we followed three approaches: (1) we tested whether C. boliviana could predict the distribution of the other manakin taxa and vice versa; (2) we compared the ecological niches by using metrics of niche overlap, niche equivalency and niche similarity; and (3) lastly, we tested whether niche differentiation corresponded to phylogenetic distances calculated from two recent phylogenies. All models had high training and test AUC values. Mean AUC ratios were high (>0.8) for most taxa, indicating performance better than random. Results suggested niche conservatism, and high niche overlap and equivalency between C. boliviana and C. caudata, but we found very low values between C. boliviana and the rest of the taxa. We found a negative, but not significant, relationship between niche overlap and phylogenetic distance, suggesting an increase in ecological differentiation and niche divergence over evolutionary time. Overall, we give some insights into the evolution of C. boliviana, proposing that ecological selection may have influenced its speciation.
doi_str_mv 10.1371/journal.pone.0243760
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_2477597283</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A648235321</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_1c3c0175a8a3495684bbc01d6090a8a1</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A648235321</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-29bdfe5048c9d68f64601d87158668b8b423ccaa4a8dab1fe1101b6069b22ce03</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNk01v1DAQhiMEoqXwDxBEQkLtYRd_JI7TA9JqVWClSkV8iZs1sZ2Ni9de4qQq_x5nN602qAeUQ-LxM69fT2aS5CVGc0wL_O7a960DO996p-eIZLRg6FFyjEtKZowg-vjg-yh5FsI1QjnljD1NjijNaMkLepz8vJDe-rWRYFNnZKNTZepat9p1BjrjXWpcumxM62_NtjGQglPpIm5av1tuwMEv40J6urjR4Tz9bLatUaDPnidParBBvxjfJ8n3Dxfflp9ml1cfV8vF5UyyknQzUlaq1jnKuCwV4zXLGMKKFziPTnnFq4xQKQEy4AoqXGuMEa4YYmVFiNSIniSv97pb64MYixIEyYoiLwvCaSRWe0J5uBbR3gbaP8KDEbuAb9cC2s5IqwWWVCJc5MCBZmXOeFZVMaAYKlGM4aj1fjytrzZayVimFuxEdLrjTCPW_kYUHDFM8ihwOgq0_nevQyc2JkhtLTjt-51vjmiO2eD7zT_ow7cbqTXECxhX-3iuHETFgmWc0JySwff8ASo-Sm-MjB1UmxifJJxNEiLT6dtuDX0IYvX1y_-zVz-m7NsDttFguyZ42w-tFqZgtgdl60NodX1fZIzEMAB31RDDAIhxAGLaq8MfdJ901_H0L6Ee_vU</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2477597283</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Ecological niche differentiation in Chiroxiphia and Antilophia manakins (Aves: Pipridae)</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><creator>Villegas, Mariana ; Loiselle, Bette A ; Kimball, Rebecca T ; Blake, John G</creator><contributor>Provete, Diogo Borges</contributor><creatorcontrib>Villegas, Mariana ; Loiselle, Bette A ; Kimball, Rebecca T ; Blake, John G ; Provete, Diogo Borges</creatorcontrib><description>Species distribution models are useful for identifying the ecological characteristics that may limit a species' geographic range and for inferring patterns of speciation. Here, we test a hypothesis of niche conservatism across evolutionary time in a group of manakins (Aves: Pipridae), with a focus on Chiroxiphia boliviana, and examine the degree of ecological differentiation with other Chiroxiphia and Antilophia manakins. We tested whether allopatric sister species were more or less similar in environmental space than expected given their phylogenetic distances, which would suggest, respectively, ecological niche conservatism over time or ecologically mediated selection (i.e. niche divergence). We modeled the distribution of nine manakin taxa (C. boliviana, C. caudata, C. lanceolata, C. linearis, C. p. pareola, C. p. regina, C. p. napensis, Antilophia galeata and A. bokermanni) using Maxent. We first performed models for each taxon and compared them. To test our hypothesis we followed three approaches: (1) we tested whether C. boliviana could predict the distribution of the other manakin taxa and vice versa; (2) we compared the ecological niches by using metrics of niche overlap, niche equivalency and niche similarity; and (3) lastly, we tested whether niche differentiation corresponded to phylogenetic distances calculated from two recent phylogenies. All models had high training and test AUC values. Mean AUC ratios were high (&gt;0.8) for most taxa, indicating performance better than random. Results suggested niche conservatism, and high niche overlap and equivalency between C. boliviana and C. caudata, but we found very low values between C. boliviana and the rest of the taxa. We found a negative, but not significant, relationship between niche overlap and phylogenetic distance, suggesting an increase in ecological differentiation and niche divergence over evolutionary time. Overall, we give some insights into the evolution of C. boliviana, proposing that ecological selection may have influenced its speciation.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0243760</identifier><identifier>PMID: 33439873</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Animals ; Biodiversity ; Biology and Life Sciences ; Climate change ; Computer and Information Sciences ; Conservation ; Earth Sciences ; Ecological niches ; Ecological research ; Ecology ; Ecology and Environmental Sciences ; Ecosystem ; Editing ; Genetic Speciation ; Geographical distribution ; Hypotheses ; Museums ; Natural history ; Niche (Ecology) ; Niches ; Origin of species ; Passeriformes - classification ; Phylogenetics ; Phylogeny ; Prediction models ; Reviews ; Sibling species ; Speciation ; Visualization ; Wildlife conservation</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2021-01, Vol.16 (1), p.e0243760-e0243760</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2021 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2021 Villegas et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2021 Villegas et al 2021 Villegas et al</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-29bdfe5048c9d68f64601d87158668b8b423ccaa4a8dab1fe1101b6069b22ce03</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-29bdfe5048c9d68f64601d87158668b8b423ccaa4a8dab1fe1101b6069b22ce03</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-9944-7272</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7806125/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7806125/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,864,885,2100,2926,23864,27922,27923,53789,53791,79370,79371</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33439873$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><contributor>Provete, Diogo Borges</contributor><creatorcontrib>Villegas, Mariana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Loiselle, Bette A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kimball, Rebecca T</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Blake, John G</creatorcontrib><title>Ecological niche differentiation in Chiroxiphia and Antilophia manakins (Aves: Pipridae)</title><title>PloS one</title><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><description>Species distribution models are useful for identifying the ecological characteristics that may limit a species' geographic range and for inferring patterns of speciation. Here, we test a hypothesis of niche conservatism across evolutionary time in a group of manakins (Aves: Pipridae), with a focus on Chiroxiphia boliviana, and examine the degree of ecological differentiation with other Chiroxiphia and Antilophia manakins. We tested whether allopatric sister species were more or less similar in environmental space than expected given their phylogenetic distances, which would suggest, respectively, ecological niche conservatism over time or ecologically mediated selection (i.e. niche divergence). We modeled the distribution of nine manakin taxa (C. boliviana, C. caudata, C. lanceolata, C. linearis, C. p. pareola, C. p. regina, C. p. napensis, Antilophia galeata and A. bokermanni) using Maxent. We first performed models for each taxon and compared them. To test our hypothesis we followed three approaches: (1) we tested whether C. boliviana could predict the distribution of the other manakin taxa and vice versa; (2) we compared the ecological niches by using metrics of niche overlap, niche equivalency and niche similarity; and (3) lastly, we tested whether niche differentiation corresponded to phylogenetic distances calculated from two recent phylogenies. All models had high training and test AUC values. Mean AUC ratios were high (&gt;0.8) for most taxa, indicating performance better than random. Results suggested niche conservatism, and high niche overlap and equivalency between C. boliviana and C. caudata, but we found very low values between C. boliviana and the rest of the taxa. We found a negative, but not significant, relationship between niche overlap and phylogenetic distance, suggesting an increase in ecological differentiation and niche divergence over evolutionary time. Overall, we give some insights into the evolution of C. boliviana, proposing that ecological selection may have influenced its speciation.</description><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Biodiversity</subject><subject>Biology and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Climate change</subject><subject>Computer and Information Sciences</subject><subject>Conservation</subject><subject>Earth Sciences</subject><subject>Ecological niches</subject><subject>Ecological research</subject><subject>Ecology</subject><subject>Ecology and Environmental Sciences</subject><subject>Ecosystem</subject><subject>Editing</subject><subject>Genetic Speciation</subject><subject>Geographical distribution</subject><subject>Hypotheses</subject><subject>Museums</subject><subject>Natural history</subject><subject>Niche (Ecology)</subject><subject>Niches</subject><subject>Origin of species</subject><subject>Passeriformes - classification</subject><subject>Phylogenetics</subject><subject>Phylogeny</subject><subject>Prediction models</subject><subject>Reviews</subject><subject>Sibling species</subject><subject>Speciation</subject><subject>Visualization</subject><subject>Wildlife conservation</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNk01v1DAQhiMEoqXwDxBEQkLtYRd_JI7TA9JqVWClSkV8iZs1sZ2Ni9de4qQq_x5nN602qAeUQ-LxM69fT2aS5CVGc0wL_O7a960DO996p-eIZLRg6FFyjEtKZowg-vjg-yh5FsI1QjnljD1NjijNaMkLepz8vJDe-rWRYFNnZKNTZepat9p1BjrjXWpcumxM62_NtjGQglPpIm5av1tuwMEv40J6urjR4Tz9bLatUaDPnidParBBvxjfJ8n3Dxfflp9ml1cfV8vF5UyyknQzUlaq1jnKuCwV4zXLGMKKFziPTnnFq4xQKQEy4AoqXGuMEa4YYmVFiNSIniSv97pb64MYixIEyYoiLwvCaSRWe0J5uBbR3gbaP8KDEbuAb9cC2s5IqwWWVCJc5MCBZmXOeFZVMaAYKlGM4aj1fjytrzZayVimFuxEdLrjTCPW_kYUHDFM8ihwOgq0_nevQyc2JkhtLTjt-51vjmiO2eD7zT_ow7cbqTXECxhX-3iuHETFgmWc0JySwff8ASo-Sm-MjB1UmxifJJxNEiLT6dtuDX0IYvX1y_-zVz-m7NsDttFguyZ42w-tFqZgtgdl60NodX1fZIzEMAB31RDDAIhxAGLaq8MfdJ901_H0L6Ee_vU</recordid><startdate>20210113</startdate><enddate>20210113</enddate><creator>Villegas, Mariana</creator><creator>Loiselle, Bette A</creator><creator>Kimball, Rebecca T</creator><creator>Blake, John G</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9944-7272</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20210113</creationdate><title>Ecological niche differentiation in Chiroxiphia and Antilophia manakins (Aves: Pipridae)</title><author>Villegas, Mariana ; Loiselle, Bette A ; Kimball, Rebecca T ; Blake, John G</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-29bdfe5048c9d68f64601d87158668b8b423ccaa4a8dab1fe1101b6069b22ce03</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Biodiversity</topic><topic>Biology and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Climate change</topic><topic>Computer and Information Sciences</topic><topic>Conservation</topic><topic>Earth Sciences</topic><topic>Ecological niches</topic><topic>Ecological research</topic><topic>Ecology</topic><topic>Ecology and Environmental Sciences</topic><topic>Ecosystem</topic><topic>Editing</topic><topic>Genetic Speciation</topic><topic>Geographical distribution</topic><topic>Hypotheses</topic><topic>Museums</topic><topic>Natural history</topic><topic>Niche (Ecology)</topic><topic>Niches</topic><topic>Origin of species</topic><topic>Passeriformes - classification</topic><topic>Phylogenetics</topic><topic>Phylogeny</topic><topic>Prediction models</topic><topic>Reviews</topic><topic>Sibling species</topic><topic>Speciation</topic><topic>Visualization</topic><topic>Wildlife conservation</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Villegas, Mariana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Loiselle, Bette A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kimball, Rebecca T</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Blake, John G</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Proquest Nursing &amp; Allied Health Source</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science &amp; Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural &amp; Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Villegas, Mariana</au><au>Loiselle, Bette A</au><au>Kimball, Rebecca T</au><au>Blake, John G</au><au>Provete, Diogo Borges</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Ecological niche differentiation in Chiroxiphia and Antilophia manakins (Aves: Pipridae)</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><date>2021-01-13</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>16</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>e0243760</spage><epage>e0243760</epage><pages>e0243760-e0243760</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>Species distribution models are useful for identifying the ecological characteristics that may limit a species' geographic range and for inferring patterns of speciation. Here, we test a hypothesis of niche conservatism across evolutionary time in a group of manakins (Aves: Pipridae), with a focus on Chiroxiphia boliviana, and examine the degree of ecological differentiation with other Chiroxiphia and Antilophia manakins. We tested whether allopatric sister species were more or less similar in environmental space than expected given their phylogenetic distances, which would suggest, respectively, ecological niche conservatism over time or ecologically mediated selection (i.e. niche divergence). We modeled the distribution of nine manakin taxa (C. boliviana, C. caudata, C. lanceolata, C. linearis, C. p. pareola, C. p. regina, C. p. napensis, Antilophia galeata and A. bokermanni) using Maxent. We first performed models for each taxon and compared them. To test our hypothesis we followed three approaches: (1) we tested whether C. boliviana could predict the distribution of the other manakin taxa and vice versa; (2) we compared the ecological niches by using metrics of niche overlap, niche equivalency and niche similarity; and (3) lastly, we tested whether niche differentiation corresponded to phylogenetic distances calculated from two recent phylogenies. All models had high training and test AUC values. Mean AUC ratios were high (&gt;0.8) for most taxa, indicating performance better than random. Results suggested niche conservatism, and high niche overlap and equivalency between C. boliviana and C. caudata, but we found very low values between C. boliviana and the rest of the taxa. We found a negative, but not significant, relationship between niche overlap and phylogenetic distance, suggesting an increase in ecological differentiation and niche divergence over evolutionary time. Overall, we give some insights into the evolution of C. boliviana, proposing that ecological selection may have influenced its speciation.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>33439873</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0243760</doi><tpages>e0243760</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9944-7272</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1932-6203
ispartof PloS one, 2021-01, Vol.16 (1), p.e0243760-e0243760
issn 1932-6203
1932-6203
language eng
recordid cdi_plos_journals_2477597283
source MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Public Library of Science (PLoS); EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry
subjects Animals
Biodiversity
Biology and Life Sciences
Climate change
Computer and Information Sciences
Conservation
Earth Sciences
Ecological niches
Ecological research
Ecology
Ecology and Environmental Sciences
Ecosystem
Editing
Genetic Speciation
Geographical distribution
Hypotheses
Museums
Natural history
Niche (Ecology)
Niches
Origin of species
Passeriformes - classification
Phylogenetics
Phylogeny
Prediction models
Reviews
Sibling species
Speciation
Visualization
Wildlife conservation
title Ecological niche differentiation in Chiroxiphia and Antilophia manakins (Aves: Pipridae)
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-14T07%3A29%3A04IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Ecological%20niche%20differentiation%20in%20Chiroxiphia%20and%20Antilophia%20manakins%20(Aves:%20Pipridae)&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Villegas,%20Mariana&rft.date=2021-01-13&rft.volume=16&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=e0243760&rft.epage=e0243760&rft.pages=e0243760-e0243760&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0243760&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA648235321%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2477597283&rft_id=info:pmid/33439873&rft_galeid=A648235321&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_1c3c0175a8a3495684bbc01d6090a8a1&rfr_iscdi=true