Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27547326›Full record

ArticleEcology and evolution2016

Phylogenetic test of speciation by host shift in leaf cone moths (Caloptilia) feeding on maples (Acer).

Ryosuke Nakadai, Atsushi Kawakita

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ecology and evolution, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
5.5field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Two new species ofZooKeys · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. The Evolution of Endophagy in Herbivorous Insects.Frontiers in plant science · 2020
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ryosuke NakadaiCenter for Ecological Research Kyoto University Hirano 2-509-3 Otsu Shiga 520-2113 Japan.
Atsushi KawakitaCenter for Ecological Research Kyoto University Hirano 2-509-3 Otsu Shiga 520-2113 Japan.
Kyoto University · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The traditional explanation for the exceptional diversity of herbivorous insects emphasizes host shift as the major driver of speciation. However, phylogenetic studies have often demonstrated widespread host plant conservatism by insect herbivores, calling into question the prevalence of speciation by host shift to distantly related plants. A limitation of previous phylogenetic studies is that host plants were defined at the family or genus level; thus, it was unclear whether host shifts predominate at a finer taxonomic scale. The lack of a statistical approach to test the hypothesis of host-shift-driven speciation also hindered studies at the species level. Here, we analyze the radiation of leaf cone moths (Caloptilia) associated with maples (Acer) using a newly developed, phylogeny-based method that tests the role of host shift in speciation. This method has the advantage of not requiring complete taxon sampling from an entire radiation. Based on 254 host plant records for 14 Caloptilia species collected at 73 sites in Japan, we show that major dietary changes are more concentrated toward the root of the phylogeny, with host shift playing a minor role in recent speciation. We suggest that there may be other roles for host shift in promoting herbivorous insect diversification rather than facilitating speciation per se.

Indexed as

Diversificationherbivorous insecthost planthost shiftspeciation

Identifiers

PMID27547326
PMCPMC4979720
OpenAlexW2464617467

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.