Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30333206›Full record

ArticleProceedings. Biological sciences2018

The evolution of fungal substrate specificity in a widespread group of crustose lichens.

Philipp Resl, Fernando Fernández-Mendoza, Helmut Mayrhofer, Toby Spribille

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings. Biological sciences, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

4 authors.

Philipp ReslFaculty of Biology, Department I, Systematic Botany and Mycology, University of Munich (LMU), Menzinger Straße 67, 80638 München, Germany philipp.resl@bio.lmu.de.ORCID 0000-0002-7841-6060
Fernando Fernández-MendozaInstitute of Biology, Division of Plant Sciences, NAWI Graz, University of Graz, Holteigasse 6, 8010 Graz, Austria.
Helmut MayrhoferInstitute of Biology, Division of Plant Sciences, NAWI Graz, University of Graz, Holteigasse 6, 8010 Graz, Austria.
Toby SpribilleDepartment of Biological Sciences CW405, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2R3.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Lichens exhibit varying degrees of specialization with regard to the surfaces they colonize, ranging from substrate generalists to strict substrate specialists. Though long recognized, the causes and consequences of substrate specialization are poorly known. Using a phylogeny of a 150-200 Mya clade of lichen fungi, we asked whether substrate niche is phylogenetically conserved, which substrates are ancestral, whether specialists arise from generalists or vice versa and how specialization affects speciation/extinction processes. We found strong phylogenetic signal for niche conservatism. Specialists evolved into generalists and back again, but transitions from generalism to specialism were more common than the reverse. Our models suggest that for this group of fungi, 'escape' from specialization for soil, rock and bark occurred, but specialization for wood foreclosed evolution away from that substrate type. In parallel, speciation models showed positive diversification rates for soil and rock dwellers but not other specialists. Patterns in the studied group suggest that fungal substrate specificity is a key determinant of evolutionary trajectory for the entire lichen symbiosis.

Indexed as

Biological EvolutionSymbiosisAscomycotaLichensPhylogenydiversificationfungal nichenichephylogenetic comparative methodsphylogenetic uncertaintysymbiosis

Identifiers

PMID30333206
PMCPMC6234878

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.