Three explanations for biodiversity hotspots: small range size, geographical overlap and time for species accumulation. An Australian case study

Published on Jul 1, 2015in New Phytologist7.30
· DOI :10.1111/nph.13199
Lynette Gai Cook17
Estimated H-index: 17
(UQ: University of Queensland),
Nate B. Hardy16
Estimated H-index: 16
(AU: Auburn University),
Michael D. Crisp37
Estimated H-index: 37
(ANU: Australian National University)
Summary To understand the generation and maintenance of biodiversity hotspots, we tested three major hypotheses: rates of diversification, ecological limits to diversity, and time for species accumulation. Using dated molecular phylogenies, measures of species' range size and geographical clade overlap, niche modelling, and lineages-through-time plots of Australian Fabaceae, we compared the southwest Australia Floristic Region (SWAFR; a global biodiversity hotspot) with a latitudinally equivalent non-hotspot, southeast Australia (SEA). Ranges of species (real and simulated) were smaller in the SWAFR than in SEA. Geographical overlap of clades was significantly greater for Daviesia in the SWAFR than in SEA, but the inverse for Bossiaea. Lineage diversification rates over the past 10 Myr did not differ between the SWAFR and SEA in either genus. Interaction of multiple factors probably explains the differences in measured diversity between the two regions. Steeper climatic gradients in the SWAFR probably explain the smaller geographical ranges of both genera there. Greater geographical overlap of clades in the SWAFR, combined with a longer time in the region, can explain why Daviesia is far more species-rich there than in SEA. Our results indicate that the time for speciation and ecological limits hypotheses, in concert, can explain the differences in biodiversity.
  • References (80)
  • Citations (21)
#1Dan L. Warren (Macquarie University)H-Index: 17
#2Marcel Cardillo (ANU: Australian National University)H-Index: 32
Last.Daniel I. Bolnick (University of Texas at Austin)H-Index: 51
view all 4 authors...
#1H. Peter Linder (UZH: University of Zurich)H-Index: 36
#2Daniel L. Rabosky (UM: University of Michigan)H-Index: 35
Last.Ralf Ohlemüller (University of Otago)H-Index: 12
view all 5 authors...
#1Etienne Laliberté (UWA: University of Western Australia)H-Index: 29
#2James B. Grace (USGS: United States Geological Survey)H-Index: 61
Last.David A. Wardle (SLU: Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences)H-Index: 88
view all 7 authors...
#1Giovanni Di Virgilio (UNSW: University of New South Wales)H-Index: 6
#2Shawn W. Laffan (UNSW: University of New South Wales)H-Index: 26
Last.Malte C. Ebach (UNSW: University of New South Wales)H-Index: 21
view all 3 authors...
Cited By21
#1Javier Igea (University of Cambridge)H-Index: 8
#2J. Igea (University of Cambridge)H-Index: 1
Last.Andrew J. Tanentzap (University of Cambridge)H-Index: 18
view all 2 authors...
#1Byron B. Lamont (Curtin University)H-Index: 51
#2Tianhua He (Curtin University)H-Index: 20
Last.Zhaogui Yan (HAU: Huazhong Agricultural University)H-Index: 1
view all 3 authors...
#1Javier Igea (University of Cambridge)H-Index: 8
#2Andrew J. Tanentzap (University of Cambridge)H-Index: 18
#1Philip W. Rundel (UCLA: University of California, Los Angeles)H-Index: 5
#2Mary T. K. Arroyo (University of Chile)H-Index: 38
Last.Pablo Vargas (CSIC: Spanish National Research Council)H-Index: 38
view all 7 authors...
#1Hanghui Kong (CAS: Chinese Academy of Sciences)H-Index: 6
#2Fabien L. Condamine (University of Montpellier)H-Index: 9
Last.Ming Kang (CAS: Chinese Academy of Sciences)H-Index: 19
view all 8 authors...
View next paperBiodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities