Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Neville Handel Biology 112 Fall 2005 The Dispersal and Evolution of an Idea In April of 1926, M.L. Fernald of the Gray Herbarium at Harvard University published a paper titled “The Antiquity and Dispersal of Vascular Plants”. The paper was a direct and bitingly sarcastic affront to the “age and area” hypothesis that had been put forth by one of Fernald’s contemporaries, Dr. J.C. Willis. The age and area hypothesis asserted that species with the largest distributions are old, having gradually spread out in all directions and expanding their range (given no barriers to dispersal). In contrast, young species have smaller distributions because they have not had time to expand their ranges fully. The idea immediately drew criticism from a number of scientists, including Fernald, who hoped to finally pronounce the theory “a dead issue” (Fernald, 1926) with this paper. Fernald systematically picks apart Willis’ arguments, starting with the rate of migration of plants, which he argues is much faster than Willis asserts. He argues that the widespread boreal forest colonized its’ current range in a matter of a few thousand years after the retreat of the glaciers, which is certainly problematic for age and area and the assertion that migration is a slow process. He points out further that the idea calls for the continual creation of new species but does not deal with the accumulation of older species and extinction, which the expansion of ranges would eventually necessitate. Other points that Fernald takes issue with Willis on are: the world is not static, and therefore no single factor (i.e. age) is “all-controlling” (Fernald, 1926); he bases many of his ideas on information from books and herbaria rather than collection of data from the field, which can lead to misrepresentation of actual distribution, species identification and commonness; he includes many other scientists’ work as supporting his hypothesis, when they themselves make no such claims and often distance themselves from it; many of the scientists who do support his work have shown their incompetence through their own work; he bases much of his ideas upon an inaccurate knowledge of geologic history and ignores that which does not fit into his scheme; evaluations of his hypothesis in the field have cast great doubt upon its’ validity; paleontological evidence shows that many of the oldest species (especially monotypes and endemics) were once widespread and had more congeners, but are now some of the most restricted in range and have fewer or no extant relatives, as extinction is a common occurrence; many of the most widespread species appear to be very young or newly introduced (i.e. weeds); areas that were not glaciated (and are therefore old) tend to have many more endemics than the areas that were glaciated, but Willis’ theory would argue the opposite; some old genera (Rubus, Ranunculus, Crataegus) are very aggressive and vigorous colonizers while others (Liriodendron, Sassafras, Hamamelis) are not expanding their ranges at all, showing that there are no clear correlations between age and area. When discussing endemic species in northeastern North America, Fernald expresses some information gathered from his own work. His conclusion is that the 100 or so endemic species of the Gaspe Peninsula and Western Newfoundland were once widespread across northern North America and even Siberia, but are now relegated to small un-glaciated pockets because the advance of the glaciers removed them from much of their former range. Their closest relatives can be found in un-glaciated locations over 2000 miles to the west in Alaska and British Columbia. Thus, we can witness through such a vicariance event the process of allopatric speciation and formation of endemism or epi-biotic species (Fernald, 1926). Fernald hypothesized that these species failed to colonize the newly exposed habitats after the glaciers retreated because they had waned into a phase of senescence, while the younger more aggressive species quickly moved in. Fernald did acknowledge that old taxa can still be aggressive and vigorous, citing the examples mentioned above in regards to their colonization of newly exposed moraines in New Zealand. These aggressive older taxa subsequently evolved into new species via sympatric speciation in the newly available habitats. Fernald’s ideas on the causes of endemism and disjunctions were based on keen observations and critical thinking, and they led to an explosion of research on these topics, which I will discuss below. In his 1942 review paper, H.M. Raup called Fernald’s ideas on endemism, disjunctions, and senescence some “of the most important developments in floristic geography” (Raup, 1942). Fernald’s concept of senescence of plants after glaciation as an explanation of wide disjunction to distant relatives was a powerful concept. Raup noted that subsequent genetic studies had hinted that the lack of aggressiveness of the relictual “nunatak” species (as observed by Fernald) was not “a function of age necessarily, but rather as a result of reduction in genetic variability” (Raup, 1942). Fernald himself did not claim age to be the cause of this senescence, but he believed senescence to be real. Raup believed that advances in genetics and cytology would help to clarify many of the problems that had been plaguing plant bio-geographers, such as relationships between disjunct populations, causes of endemism, and taxonomic classification. In their 1965 paper “Endemism and Speciation in the California Flora”, G.L. Stebbins and Jack Major show this hope beginning to have come to fruition. As they noted, genetic research was allowing botanists to learn more accurately the relationships between different species. In California, a state with a large number of endemic species, the implementation of genetic research helped to clarify the picture of their evolutionary histories. Stebbins and Major clarified the distinction between paleo- and neo-endemics. The former are defined as “relatively old… known in essentially their present form from fossil remains… their present endemic condition is the result of the restriction of a formerly more extensive geographic distribution” (Stebbins and Major, 1965). In contrast, they note that “some of the most narrowly restricted endemic species are closely related to neighboring species of the same genus, occur in ecologically recent habitats, and so are almost certainly recently evolved species which have never been widespread” (Stebbins and Major, 1965). They stated that paleo- and neo-endemics are at opposite ends of a spectrum of endemism and that various types of endemism likely exist between the two. It was their conviction that areas with high levels of endemism should be extensively studied to find out the ecological factors that contribute to this phenomenon, a sentiment that is still held and being researched today (Heads, 2004; Tribsch, 2004). In a 1972 paper titled “Morphology and Phytogeography: The Classical Approach to the Study of Disjunctions”, C.E. Wood noted that much of the geologic and taxonomic work that Fernald had based his ideas upon had been incorrect or later revised, so that his hypothesis on senescence of nunatak species did not represent what in reality likely happened. Nevertheless, Fernald’s general point that glacial advancement and retreat had fractured a once widespread flora and led to endemism and disjunctions on opposite ends of North America was still validated. Wood noted that as knowledge of floras around the world changed, it was likely that our notions of species migrations and relationships would change as well. He lamented that the patchy nature of the fossil record would never give us a complete or wholly accurate picture of past conditions, thus hindering our understanding of the historical influences on species distribution and endemism. Indeed this sentiment is still echoed today by authors such as A.S. Harold and R.D. Mooi, who note that “areas of endemism are fundamentally historical entities, not distributional ones, and their definition should take history into account” (Harold and Mooi, 1994). In a study of glacial disjuncts in the Alps, Schonswetter et al conclude that “interpretation of the phenomenon ‘rarity’ must take into account the history of the investigated taxa and the ecological factors leading to their present day restriction” (Schonswetter et al, 2003). Fortunately, advancements in genetic research and in our abilities to understand the nature of past climatic conditions has allowed us to more accurately decipher the nature of historical influences on species distributions and endemism. Numerous studies have utilized updated historical information and genetic research to uncover the causes of endemism and the phylogeny of taxa. Studying the origin of the Streptanthus glandulosus complex on serpentine soil-based habitat “islands” in California, Mayer et al calculated genetic diversity between and among populations to uncover their relationships. They concluded that the complex was likely the result of both paleo- and neo-endemism, with S. glandulosus being historically widespread across both serpentine and non-serpentine habitats as a single species. However, the nonserpentine habitats were gradually lost to land use change while the serpentine soils were not cultivated. As a result, the isolation of the widely separated serpentine habitats and the lack of gene flow between populations allowed for the evolution of neo-endemic subspecies with high intra-population diversities, a factor that further ruled out long-distance dispersal by a small population as a cause of their founding (Mayer et al, 1994). Morrell et al also found support for both paleo- and neo endemism in their genetic evaluation of the relationship between a rare California and Oregon coastal endemic, Gilia millefoliata and two South American Gilia species. Unlike the previous study, this example involved a bird-facilitated long distance dispersal event in which a G. millefoliata-like ancestor’s seeds were transported to coastal Chile, where in turn two new Gilia species evolved in isolation (Morell et al, 2000). While these cases show that genetic analyses can help clarify the phylogenetic picture with regards to endemic species, other authors have noted that our understanding of the evolution of endemic species, and thus our classification of them, are most accurate when genetic analyses are coupled with morphological analyses (Debussche and Thompson, 2002). Returning more directly to the ideas first asserted by Fernald, a slew of papers concerning the relationship between glaciation and endemism have recently been put forth, drawing heavily upon the advances in genetics, geology, biogeography, and paleoclimatology I alluded to above. Reisch et al used genetic analyses to verify the commonly-held belief that disjunct Saxifraga paniculata populations in central Europe are glacial relicts (Reisch et al, 2003). Schonswetter et al found that disjunctions in Androsace wulfeniana populations in the Alps are the result of glaciation and not recent long distance dispersal events, as they contain high levels of intra-population genetic variation (Schonswetter et al, 2003). They argue that these high levels of genetic variation, coupled with A. wufleniana’s lack of post-glacial colonization, refute the claim that low diversity caused the “senescence” described by Fernald. Tribsch used biogeographic analysis and paleo-climatic information to determine that “vicariance resulting from Pleistocene glaciations is the most important factor causing distributional patterns of endemic plants and the formation of areas of endemism” in the eastern Alps. (Tribsch, 2004). However, it must be taken into account that environmental variables such as edaphic conditions can be essential in determining present ranges by limiting dispersal and establishment of particular species (Clark and Funk, 2005; Schonswetter et al, 2003). These examples are the modern progeny of the evolution of Fernald’s ideas regarding species distributions, endemism, and disjunct populations. Advances in genetics, technology, and our understanding of geologic and climatic history have enabled us to more accurately determine the causes of endemism and disjunctions than Fernald was capable of doing in his time, though his work was nevertheless brilliant given the information he had access to. In light of this, I believe that as advances in our ability to reconstruct paleoenvironments and climates occur, we will be able to more accurately understand why and how the process of extinction occurred, and what the effects of these processes on current species distributions is. I believe that learning the likely effects of invasive species and disrupted or enhanced disturbance regimes on native ecosystems is an essential question that we will need to deal with if we want to maintain “natural” ranges of species distributions and minimize the loss of narrow endemics. Lastly, I think it would be interesting to learn what is really at the cause of the “senescence” that Fernald describes, as it appears to be neither related to age nor genetic intra-population genetic diversity, but plays a vital role in the inability to disperse to newly available habitats. Bibliography Clark, HD; Funk, VA. 2005. Using checklists and collections data to investigate plant diversity: II An analysis of five florulas from northeastern South America. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 154: 29-37. Debussche, M; Thompson, JD; 2002 Morphological differentiation among closely related species with disjunct distributions: a case study of Mediterranean Cyclamen L. subgen. Psilanthum Schwarz (Primulaceae), Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 139(1): 133-144. Fernald, ML; 1926 The Antiquity and Dispersal of Vascular Plants, The Quarterly Review of Biology 1 (2): 212-245. Harold, AS; Mooi, RD; 1994 Areas of endemism: Definition and Recognition Criteria, Systematic Biology 43 (2): 261-266. Heads, M. 2004 What is a node? Journal of Biogeography, 31 (12):1883-1891. Mayer, MS; Soltis, PS; Soltis, DE; 1994 The evolution of the Streptanthus glandulosus complex (Cruciferae): Genetic Divergence and Gene Flow in Serpentine Endemics, American Journal of Botany, 81 (10): 1288-1299. Morell, PL; Porter, JM; Friar, EA 2000 Intercontinental dispersal: The origin of the widespread South American plant species Gilia laciniata (Polemoniaceae) from a rare California and Oregon Coastal endemic, Plant Systematics and Evolution, 224 (1-2): 1332. Raup, HM; 1942 Trends in the Development of Geographic Botany, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 32 (4): 319-354. Reisch, C; Poschlod, P; Wingender, R. 2003 Genetic variation of Saxifraga paniculata Mill (Saxifragaceae); molecular evidence for glacial relict endemism in central Europe, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 80 (1): 11-21. Schonswetter, P; Tribsch, A; Schneeweis, GM; et al. 2003 Disjunctions in relict alpine plants: phylogeography of Androsace brevis and A. wulfeniana (Primulaceae), Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 141 (4): 437-446. Stebbins, GL; Major, J; 1965 Endemism and Speciation in the California Flora, Ecological Monographs, 35 (1): 1-35. Tribsch, A; 2004 Areas of endemism of vascular plants in the Eastern Alps in relation to Pleistocene glaciation, Journal of Biogeography, 31 (5): 747-760. Wood, CE; 1972 Morphology and Phytogeography: The Classical Approach to the Study of Disjunctions, Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden, 59 (2): 107-124. Well thought through analysis of the development of research based on Fernald’s ideas. 25/26