Search

1AbstractPatterns of biological diversity across the tree of life are the result of millions of years of evolutionary history and are shaped by natural selection. A long-standing proposal is that most morphological diversity at a macroevolutionary scale (among species) arises along a microevolutionary “line of least resistance”. However, we frequently observe major shifts in phenotypes among lineages [1, 2, 3], suggesting that species or clades may also evolve away from the line of least resistance [4]. At the macroevolutionary scale, evolution along a common major axis has been termed elaboration whereas evolution away from that major axis is termed innovation [5]. The extent to which species and clades elaborate or innovate is poorly understood. Of particular importance is the potential contribution of reorientations of phenotypic trait space (innovation) among clades to contribute to the origins and maintenance of biodiversity across scales from the macro-to mega-evolutionary scale. Here we apply new multi-trait methods that model the nested covariance structure of traits to evaluate the magnitude and distribution of elaboration and innovation in the evolution of bird beaks. Our analyses show that elaboration dominates species-level phenotypic divergence, consistent with microevolutionary theory. However, innovation is surprisingly common at the clade level suggesting multiple routes to phenotypic innovation throughout avian evolutionary history. Our results highlight the importance of scale in our understanding of deep time evolution. While we find that elaboration dominates at macroevolutionary scales (i.e. species diverging within clades), the major axis of phenotypic change at megaevolutionary scales is an emergent property of innovation across clades. Taken together we suggest that innovation and elaboration are ubiquitous routes for phenotypic change but that their contribution to diversity is dependent on scale. The macroevolutionary axes of multivariate evolution are frequently reoriented throughout the history of life, opening up new avenues for evolution to explore.

The conversion of tropical forests to farmland is a key driver of the current extinction crisis. With the present rate of deforestation unlikely to subside, secondary forests that regenerate on abandoned agricultural land may provide an option for safeguarding biodiversity. While species richness (SR) may recover as secondary forests get older, the extent to which phylogenetic diversity (PD)—the total amount of evolutionary history present in a community—is conserved is less clear. Maximizing PD has been argued to be important to conserve both evolutionary heritage and ecosystem function.\ud \ud Here, we investigate the effects of secondary forest regeneration on PD in birds. The regeneration of secondary forests could lead to a community of closely related species, despite maintaining comparable SR to primary forests, and thus have diminished biodiversity value with reduced evolutionary heritage.\ud \ud We use a meta‐dataset of paired primary and secondary forest sites to show that, over time, forest specialist species returned across all sites as secondary forest age increased. Forest specialists colonize secondary tropical forests in both the Old World and the New World, but recovery of PD and community composition with time is only evident in the Old World.\ud \ud Synthesis and applications. While preserving primary tropical forests remains a core conservation goal, our results emphasize the important role of secondary forest in maintaining tropical forest biodiversity. Biodiversity recovery differs between Old and New World secondary forests and with proximity to primary forest, highlighting the need to consider local or regional differences in landscape composition and species characteristics, especially resilience to forest degradation and dispersal capability. While farmland abandonment is increasing across marginal areas in the tropics, there remains a critical need to provide long‐term management and protection from reconversion to maximize conservation benefits of secondary forests. Our study suggests such investments should be focused on land in close proximity to primary forests.

Tobias, Joseph A., Sheard, Catherine, Pigot, Alex L., Devenish, Adam J. M., Yang, Jingyi, Sayol, Ferran, Neate‐Clegg, Montague H. C., Alioravainen, Nico, Weeks, Thomas L., Barber, Robert A., Walkden, Patrick A., MacGregor, Hannah E. A., Jones, Samuel E. I., Vincent, Claire, Phillips, Anna G., Marples, Nicola M., Montaño‐Centellas, Flavia A., Leandro‐Silva, Victor, Claramunt, Santiago, Darski, Bianca, Freeman, Benjamin G., Bregman, Tom P., Cooney, Christopher R., Hughes, Emma C., Capp, Elliot J. R., Varley, Zoë K., Friedman, Nicholas R., Korntheuer, Heiko, Corrales‐Vargas, Andrea, Trisos, Christopher H., Weeks, Brian C., Hanz, Dagmar M., Töpfer, Till, Bravo, Gustavo A., Remeš, Vladimír, Nowak, Larissa, Carneiro, Lincoln S., Moncada R., Amilkar J., Matysioková, Beata, Baldassarre, Daniel T., Martínez‐Salinas, Alejandra, Wolfe, Jared D., Chapman, Philip M., Daly, Benjamin G., Sorensen, Marjorie C., Neu, Alexander, Ford, Michael A., Mayhew, Rebekah J., Fabio Silveira, Luis, Kelly, David J., Annorbah, Nathaniel N. D., Pollock, Henry S., Grabowska‐Zhang, Ada M., McEntee, Jay P., Carlos T. Gonzalez, Juan, Meneses, Camila G., Muñoz, Marcia C., Powell, Luke L., Jamie, Gabriel A., Matthews, Thomas J., Johnson, Oscar, Brito, Guilherme R. R., Zyskowski, Kristof, Crates, Ross, Harvey, Michael G., Jurado Zevallos, Maura, Hosner, Peter A., Bradfer‐Lawrence, Tom, Maley, James M., Stiles, F. Gary, Lima, Hevana S., Provost, Kaiya L., Chibesa, Moses, Mashao, Mmatjie, Howard, Jeffrey T., Mlamba, Edson, Chua, Marcus A. H., Li, Bicheng, Gómez, M. Isabel, García, Natalia C., Päckert, Martin, Fuchs, Jérôme, Ali, Jarome R., Derryberry, Elizabeth P., Carlson, Monica L., Urriza, Rolly C., Brzeski, Kristin E., Prawiradilaga, Dewi M., Rayner, Matt J., Miller, Eliot T., Bowie, Rauri C. K., Lafontaine, René‐Marie, Scofield, R. Paul, Lou, Yingqiang, Somarathna, Lankani, Lepage, Denis, Illif, Marshall, Neuschulz, Eike Lena, Templin, Mathias, Dehling, D. Matthias, Cooper, Jacob C., Pauwels, Olivier S. G., Analuddin, Kangkuso, Fjeldså, Jon, Seddon, Nathalie, Sweet, Paul R., DeClerck, Fabrice A. J., Naka, Luciano N., Brawn, Jeffrey D., Aleixo, Alexandre, Böhning‐Gaese, Katrin, Rahbek, Carsten, Fritz, Susanne A., Thomas, Gavin H., Schleuning, Matthias (2022): AVONET: morphological, ecological and geographical data for all birds. Ecology Letters 25 (3): 581-597, DOI: 10.1111/ele.13898, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ele.13898

Trapliners are pollinators that visit widely dispersed flowers along circuitous foraging routes. The evolution of traplining in hummingbirds is thought to entail morphological specialization through the reciprocal coevolution of longer bills with the long-tubed flowers of widely dispersed plant species. Specialization, such as that exhibited by traplining hummingbirds, is often viewed as both irreversible and an evolutionary dead end. We tested these predictions in a macroevolutionary framework. Specifically, we assessed the relationship between beak morphology and foraging and tested whether transitions to traplining are irreversible and lead to lower rates of diversification as predicted by the hypothesis that specialization is an evolutionary dead end. We find that there have been multiple independent transitions to traplining across the hummingbird phylogeny, but reversals have been rare or incomplete at best. Multiple independent lineages of trapliners have become morphologically specialized, convergently evolving relatively large bills for their body size. Traplining is not an evolutionary dead end however, since trapliners continue to give rise to new traplining species at a rate comparable to non-trapliners.

Evolution can involve periods of rapid divergent adaptation and expansion in the range of diversity, but evolution can also be relatively conservative over certain timescales due to functional, genetic-developmental, and ecological constraints. One way in which evolution may be conservative is in terms of allometry, the scaling relationship between the traits of organisms and body size. Here, we investigate patterns of allometric conservatism in the evolution of bird beaks with beak size and body size data for a representative sample of over 5000 extant bird species within a phylogenetic framework. We identify clades in which the allometric relationship between beak size and body size has remained relatively conserved across species over millions to tens of millions of years. We find that allometric conservatism is nonetheless punctuated by occasional shifts in the slopes and intercepts of allometric relationships. A steady accumulation of such shifts through time has given rise to the tremendous diversity of beak size relative to body size across birds today. Our findings are consistent with the Simpsonian vision of macroevolution, with evolutionary conservatism being the rule but with occasional shifts to new adaptive zones.

Understanding the biogeographical patterns, and evolutionary and environmental drivers, underpinning morphological diversity are key for determining its origins and conservation. Using a comprehensive set of continuous morphological traits extracted from museum collections of 8353 bird species, including geometric morphometric beak shape data, we find that avian morphological diversity is unevenly distributed globally, even after controlling for species richness, with exceptionally dense packing of species in hyper-diverse tropical hotspots. At the regional level, these areas also have high morphological variance, with species exhibiting high phenotypic diversity. Evolutionary history likely plays a key role in shaping these patterns, with evolutionarily old species contributing to niche expansion, and young species contributing to niche packing. Taken together, these results imply that the tropics are both 'cradles' and 'museums' of phenotypic diversity.

Biodiversity is facing a global extinction crisis that will reduce ecological trait diversity, evolutionary history, and ultimately ecosystem functioning and services.

Competition for shared resources represents a fundamental driver of biological diversity. However, the tempo and mode of phenotypic evolution in deep-time has been predominantly investigated using trait evolutionary models which assume that lineages evolve independently from each other. Consequently, the role of species interactions in driving macroevolutionary dynamics remains poorly understood. Here, we quantify the prevalence for signatures of competition between related species in the evolution of ecomorphological traits across the bird radiation. We find that mechanistic trait models accounting for the effect of species interactions on phenotypic divergence provide the best fit for the data on at least one trait axis in 27 out of 59 clades ranging between 21 and 195 species. Where it occurs, the signature of competition generally coincides with positive species diversity-dependence, driven by the accumulation of lineages with similar ecologies, and we find scarce evidence for trait-dependent or negative diversity-dependent phenotypic evolution. Overall, our results suggest that the footprint of interspecific competition is often eroded in long-term patterns of phenotypic diversification, and that other selection pressures may predominantly shape ecomorphological diversity among extant species at macroevolutionary scales.

Heterogeneity in rates of trait evolution is widespread, but it remains unclear which processes drive fast and slow character divergence across global radiations. Here, we test multiple hypotheses for explaining rate variation in an ecomorphological trait (beak shape) across a globally distributed group (birds). We find low support that variation in evolutionary rates of species is correlated with life history, environmental mutagenic factors, range size, number of competitors, or living on islands. Indeed, after controlling for the negative effect of species' age, 80% of variation in species‐specific evolutionary rates remains unexplained. At the clade level, high evolutionary rates are associated with unusual phenotypes or high species richness. Taken together, these results imply that macroevolutionary rates of ecomorphological traits are governed by both ecological opportunity in distinct adaptive zones and niche differentiation among closely related species.

The origin and expansion of biological diversity is regulated by both developmental trajectories and limits on available ecological niches. As lineages diversify, an early and often rapid phase of species and trait proliferation gives way to evolutionary slow-downs as new species pack into ever more densely occupied regions of ecological niche space. Small clades such as Darwin's finches demonstrate that natural selection is the driving force of adaptive radiations, but how microevolutionary processes scale up to shape the expansion of phenotypic diversity over much longer evolutionary timescales is unclear. Here we address this problem on a global scale by analysing a crowdsourced dataset of three-dimensional scanned bill morphology from more than 2,000 species. We find that bill diversity expanded early in extant avian evolutionary history, before transitioning to a phase dominated by packing of morphological space. However, this early phenotypic diversification is decoupled from temporal variation in evolutionary rate: rates of bill evolution vary among lineages but are comparatively stable through time. We find that rare, but major, discontinuities in phenotype emerge from rapid increases in rate along single branches, sometimes leading to depauperate clades with unusual bill morphologies. Despite these jumps between groups, the major axes of within-group bill-shape evolution are remarkably consistent across birds. We reveal that macroevolutionary processes underlying global-scale adaptive radiations support Darwinian and Simpsonian ideas of microevolution within adaptive zones and accelerated evolution between distinct adaptive peaks.

Nature 542, 344–347 (2017); doi:10.1038/nature21074 In this Letter, two files were inadvertently omitted from the Supplementary Information. The two files (‘Prum_merge_taxonomy_CRC_v2.csv’ and ‘PrumTreeMerge_CRC_v1.csv’) are needed to replicate the alternative phylogeny of Prum et al. (ref. 43) presented in Extended Data Figure 4.