ArticleFrontiers in genetics2014
Revisiting the vanishing refuge model of diversification.
Article in Frontiers in genetics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Repeated divergence of amphibians and reptiles across an elevational gradient in northern Madagascar.Ecology and evolution · 2023Article
- Natural history predicts patterns of thermal vulnerability in amphibians from the Atlantic Rainforest of Brazil.Ecology and evolution · 2021Article
- Tectonics, climate and the diversification of the tropical African terrestrial flora and fauna.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2021Article
- Local adaptation in mainland anole lizards: Integrating population history and genome-environment associations.Ecology and evolution · 2018Article
- Speciation through the lens of biomechanics: locomotion, prey capture and reproductive isolation.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Much of the debate around speciation and historical biogeography has focused on the role of stabilizing selection on the physiological (abiotic) niche, emphasizing how isolation and vicariance, when associated with niche conservatism, may drive tropical speciation. Yet, recent re-emphasis on the ecological dimensions of speciation points to a more prominent role of divergent selection in driving genetic, phenotypic, and niche divergence. The vanishing refuge model (VRM), first described by Vanzolini and Williams (1981), describes a process of diversification through climate-driven habitat fragmentation and exposure to new environments, integrating both vicariance and divergent selection. This model suggests that dynamic climates and peripheral isolates can lead to genetic and functional (i.e., ecological and phenotypic) diversity, resulting in sister taxa that occupy contrasting habitats with abutting distributions. Here, we provide predictions for populations undergoing divergence according to the VRM that encompass habitat dynamics, phylogeography, and phenotypic differentiation across populations. Such integrative analyses can, in principle, differentiate the operation of the VRM from other speciation models. We applied these principles to a lizard species, Coleodactylus meridionalis, which was used to illustrate the model in the original paper. We incorporate data on inferred historic habitat dynamics, phylogeography and thermal physiology to test for divergence between coastal and inland populations in the Atlantic Forest of Brazil. Environmental and genetic analyses are concordant with divergence through the VRM, yet physiological data are not. We emphasize the importance of multidisciplinary approaches to test this and alternative speciation models while seeking to explain the extraordinarily high genetic and phenotypic diversity of tropical biomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.