Open access peer-reviewed chapter

Are Historical Biogeographical Events Able to Promote Biological Diversification?

Written By

Julián A. Velasco

Submitted: 23 November 2016 Reviewed: 28 April 2017 Published: 20 December 2017

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.69516

From the Edited Volume

Pure and Applied Biogeography

Edited by Levente Hufnagel

Chapter metrics overview

1,512 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics


One of the goals of evolutionary biology is understanding how biological diversification change across spatial and temporal scales. Theoretically, it has been established that external (i.e., dispersals) and internal (i.e., origin of a key innovations) factors can modulate shifts in rates of species diversification. However, the role of historical events as trigger of species diversification rates have not been well understood in empirical studies. I reviewed the literature linking historical biogeographic events and species diversification in many groups. Many of studies conclude that dispersals can be associated with exceptional changes in species diversification rates in insular and mainland areas. I discuss the limitations of some approaches used to discover the link between historical biogeography and macroevolution. I propose some predictions under biogeographic scenarios to gain understanding in how historical events promote biological diversification. I suggest that future studies linking biogeography and macroevolution should incorporate ecologically-relevant traits to discern the mechanisms underlying these historical associations. Although new developments in phylogenetic comparative methods have been done, still is necessary more traditional field-based ecological and evolutionary research. The link between biogeography and diversification still remains narrative and a comprehensive approach is necessary to establish how diversification was triggered by historical events.


  • dispersal
  • vicariance
  • ecological opportunity
  • macroevolution
  • event‐based biogeography

1. Introduction

One the main goals of evolutionary biology is to understand why lineages exhibit differences in species diversification, understood as the difference between speciation and extinction rates in a clade. Three competing hypotheses explain differences in species between clades and geographic regions [10, 51, 69]. The first hypothesis, known as the unbounded hypothesis, proposes that speciation and extinction processes are controlled only by time and diversity is not limited by any ecological process [69]. The second hypothesis, known as the bounded hypothesis, states that diversity reaches a limit imposed by the number of competing coexisting species [51, 52]. And a third recently proposed hypothesis, known as the damped hypothesis [10], states that diversity increases without limit and ecological factors constrain speciation and extinction rates.

The understanding of the historical and ecological circumstances where diversification dynamics occur is key to establish whether diversity is limited or not. Therefore, historical events as dispersals can be associated with shifts in species diversification [40]. However, the mechanisms underlying this association remains elusive for many taxa. For instance, for plant clade Dipsacales, it was found that some increases in species diversification rates were associated with dispersal to new geographic areas [40, 41]. Similarly, in Caribbean Anole lizards, it was found that diversification increases occurred after a lineage colonized an island above a certain island size [30, 50]. These two examples show how diversification dynamics can be linked with historical events and suggest also that macroevolutionary dynamics should be explicitly tested in a historical biogeography context.

With the aim to have a comprehensive understanding of the link between historical biogeography and species diversification, it is necessary to consider which ecological or evolutionary mechanisms were involved in this association. Ecological mechanisms can explain how diversification dynamics take place in a region after a biogeographical event. They also offer a conceptual bridge between historical and ecological biogeography. I assert that historical biogeography events (dispersal and vicariance) can promote biological diversification under some specific ecological and evolutionary mechanisms. For instances, some studies have found that some clades diversified through ecological opportunity [28, 33], biotic interactions [63], and/or climate change [26, 65]). The integration of ecological, phylogenetic, and biogeographic approaches in a comprehensive framework is key to understand why some clades diversify extensively when reach some regions and not others.

Here, I conduct a review of studies evaluating the link between biogeographical events and biological diversification. For biogeographical events, I refer mainly to dispersal and vicariance, which have been considered as competing hypotheses in historical biogeography for many years [45, 60]. Dispersal refers to movements of a lineage to a new region across a geographical (or ecological) barrier. Vicariance refers to the fragmentation of an ancestral geographical range and the emergence of geographical (or ecological) barriers. Here, I first discuss how these two biogeographical events can promote shifts in species diversification (e.g., increases in speciation rates or decreases in extinction rates) or diversification dynamics (from time‐dependent to density‐dependent cladogenesis). Also, I discuss some limitations of methods used to discover this historical link. I establish some basic specific predictions about the expected evolutionary trajectories of ecologically relevant traits under a dispersal or vicariance scenario and how these predictions might be tested using phylogenetic comparative methods. Finally, I provide some possible avenues for an integration of ecological and evolutionary studies with historical biogeography within an explicit modern phylogenetic comparative framework.


2. Materials and methods

I conducted a literature search in Web of Science using the keywords as dispersal, vicariance, species diversification, and biogeography during the last 14 years (2002–2016). I selected only those studies that used statistical biogeographical methods to reconstruct ancestral areas in an explicit phylogenetic context (∼80 studies). I select those studies where (or at least it was tested) a historical link between past biogeographical events and shifts in diversification dynamics was explicit. Although this review is not exhaustive, my aim here is to discuss some limitations and opportunities of current methods used to study biogeography and diversification.


3. Results and discussion

3.1. Historical associations between biogeography and diversification

Many studies identified that past biogeographic movements (i.e., dispersals) between regions acted as a trigger for species diversification. This recent tendency to identify dispersals as drivers of biological diversification have increased with time ( Figure 1 ). This tendency is related with the growing recognition of dispersal not only as a process able to generate congruent distributional patterns [11, 49, 61, 72], but also as a driver of species diversification [41]. It seems that the traditional and senseless dispute about whether vicariance or dispersal explains biotic distribution is a thing of the past [34, 49]. Both biogeographical events contribute to explain current and past geographic distributions and explain how biodiversity evolved in some regions. Accordingly, it is necessary to evaluate simultaneously which of these events were more prevalent through the biogeographic history of a taxa.

Figure 1.

A hypothetical example showing inference of dispersal and vicariance and shifts in diversification dynamics across the phylogenetic diversification of a taxa. Nodes labeled with circles denote the position in the tree where it was inferred a dispersal (square) or a vicariance event (circles). Nodes labeled with stars denote where shifts in macroevolutionary regimes occurred. These shifts might involve increase in speciation rates or decrease in extinction rates or shifts in diversification dynamics from a time‐dependent process to diversity‐dependent cladogenesis (star). Under a dispersal scenario, where a lineage colonizes a new region with ecological opportunity, it is expected that ecologically relevant traits evolved through a pattern of niche divergence (dash). Whether all dispersal events promote speciation through ecological opportunity, it is expected that all events generated the same pattern of niche‐trait divergence. By contrast, in a vicariance event, where the emergence of geographical barriers (e.g., a mountain uplift) promotes allopatric speciation, it is expected that ecologically relevant traits evolved little (i.e., phylogenetic niche conservatism) or under a neutral (drift) process in response to the changing environment (cross). Similarly, it is expected that all vicariant events generated the same pattern of niche conservatism or neutral evolution. Many other dispersal or vicariance events can be nested in the phylogeny; therefore, the inference of an event does not preclude that subsequent speciation events occur in sympatry or allopatry.

Theoretically, dispersal can promote exceptional shifts in species diversification by ecological opportunity (e.g., absence of related competitors) in a new colonized region or climate regime [1, 32, 33, 71, 73]. When lineages disperse to these new selective regimes they are likely to experience ecological release that can promote increases in speciation rates [33, 73]. Ecological opportunity can facilitate changes in diversification dynamics after a dispersal event [33, 73]. This is partially supported by evidence showing that dispersal events did not occur randomly across geography, and for some groups colonizing islands it was a notable increase in speciation rates after that events [4, 16, 21, 56, 57, 61]. For instance, dispersal of the palm tribe Trachycarpeae to different island systems promoted parallel diversifications connected with climatic and geological changes [4]. For bird clades distributed in the Indo‐Pacific archipelago, species diversification rates increased on islands where few dispersal events were inferred, whereas clades occupying islands with high immigration rates exhibited constancy in diversification rates [16]. In the case of Malagasy vangids, early dispersal from Africa to Madagascar promoted an increase in species diversification rates by ecological opportunity followed by a decline through time suggesting an ecological limit for this adaptive radiation [57].

Although these studies suggest a historical association between one or several dispersal events and shifts in net species diversification rates, it is still not clear which mechanisms were involved in this link between biogeography and macroevolution. Even more, it is not clear exactly how these past biogeographic events facilitate speciation in some regions and not in others or the mode of speciation involved in each event.

In contrast to the role of dispersal, vicariance has been associated as the only valid explanation for current distributional patterns and speciation for traditional biogeographers (e.g., Refs. [23, 45, 46]). However, few studies reviewed identified a vicariance event as a trigger of species diversification. Although these associations are congruent with the hypothesis of speciation by vicariance [38], it is still unknown whether the emergence of geographical barriers promoted habitat and reproductive isolation in taxa examined. For instance, rapid Andean uplift during the Miocene, with the concomitant climate changes, likely promoted allopatric speciation in Heliotropium plant lineages, which adapted to new arid conditions in southern South America [31]. Similarly, the Miocene uplift of the Qinghai‐Tibetan plateau promoted allopatric speciation in Asteraceae clades plants [27] and Rheum plants [66]. These two clades of plants evolved as a response of temperature changes and the apparition of dry habitat conditions. It is likely that climate changes facilitated bursts of diversification [19, 27, 66]. Again, although these studies show an association between vicariance and species diversification, likely mediated through climate change or emergence of new barriers, it is not clear which mechanisms were involved here. All these studies suggest that we lack the ecological and evolutionary processes in these narrative biogeographic studies and we should look forward to identify at least which main processes underlying these historical associations.

It is evident that dispersal and vicariance events can be associated, either in a narrative or quantitative way, with shifts in species diversification. The link can be inferred directly in some cases [4, 41]; however, again the mechanisms operating behind these events are unknown. Although it is necessary to identify these evolutionary or ecological mechanisms, it is still not clear how these mechanisms can be disentangled. I consider that a full integration of current phylogenetic comparative methods with modern parametrical biogeographical methods and incorporation of ecologically relevant traits might offer new avenues to understand how biodiversity was generated after dispersal or vicariance events.

3.2. Limitations of current methods to link historical events with biological diversification

Some studies only provide a weak evidence of a consistent link between historical biogeographical events and shifts in species diversification rates. In particular, these few studies did not test whether dispersal or vicariance events effectively generated increases in net species diversification rates (e.g., Refs. [4, 7, 9, 68]. For instance, Chaves et al. [9] suggested that Andean uplift promoted increases in species diversification in the Adelomyia hummingbird genus. However, they only provide a correlation between divergence times for Adelomyia clades with some phases of the Andean uplift. Here, it is necessary to test whether Andean clades diversified more than other clades or the entire group. Accordingly, it is possible to suggest with higher confidence that dispersal to the Andes promoted posterior cladogenesis likely through allopatric speciation.

The link between historical biogeography and species diversification need to be explicitly tested using a two‐step framework. First, it is necessary to infer historical biogeographic events with a higher confidence using powerful statistical methods [34]. These methods are ideal to identify rare dispersal events (founder‐event speciation; [34]) and allow us to incorporate explicit geological information (e.g., timing of emergence of island landmasses; see Ref. [48] for an example using Caribbean Anolis lizards). Many empirical datasets show that founder‐event speciation have left a strong imprint on distributional patterns of many taxa [34]. However, it is necessary to develop more complex models allowing the possibility to incorporate life‐history traits and how these traits can affect rates of dispersal between regions (e.g., Ref. [35]). After the historical inference is conducted, it is crucial to identify whether these same nodes where a dispersal or vicariance event was inferred exhibit a notable shift in diversification dynamics [2, 3, 66].

Several methods allow to detect specific shifts in diversification dynamics in phylogenies, particularly increases in diversification rates [36, 37, 43, 53, 54]. These methods can be divided into temporal or topological methods, depending on the phylogenetic dataset at hand [43]. These methods also allow us to identify shifts in macroevolutionary regimes (i.e., shifts in diversification process; e.g., bayesian analysis of macroevolutionary mixtures (BAMM) approach developed by [53]; but see Ref. [42] for a criticism about the statistical power). However, these phylogenetic methods are not integrated fully with methods of historical biogeographic inference. Therefore, the association between dispersal or vicariance events and notables shifts in species diversification or diversification dynamics remains narrative [23]. Therefore, new methodologies are necessary to establish with more confidence whether these biogeographical events promote changes in biological diversification. Even more, it is possible that unmeasured traits (e.g., a “hidden” key innovation) affecting speciation and/or extinction rates evolve in the same nodes of a phylogenetic tree where a dispersal or vicariance event was inferred. In these cases, it might be very hard to distinguish whether diversification was affected by the presence (or absence) of a trait or by the movement to a new region (see Ref. [75]).

More robust methods to link historical biogeography and macroevolution are necessary. However, these new phylogenetic methods only can detect these historical associations, but these are very limited to establish the potential ecological or evolutionary process underlying this association. I consider that an integration of ecological studies (including testable predictions of trait‐niche evolution) with a historical biogeographic approach will be useful to discern these mechanisms promoting speciation. The association between a biogeographic event and shifts in macroevolutionary dynamics is not enough to understand how biodiversity was generated in many regions. For instance, it has been found in warblers (Phylloscopus) that habitat isolation was the first form of niche differentiation to evolve in sympatry, followed by prey‐size selection and feeding strategies [74]. It will be important to evaluate whether lineages diversifying after a dispersal event exhibit more niche differentiation [47] than lineages diversifying after a vicariant event. This can help to establish whether the initial trigger of speciation in a lineage was the colonization of a new region and the subsequent habitat isolation in sympatry [12, 13].

3.3. Is it possible to predict some ecological scenarios after a historical biogeographic event?

The ecological and evolutionary processes underlying the historical association between biogeography and diversification have been seldom discussed in the literature. Here, I propose that these contrasting historical events have left different imprints on the lineage diversification of taxa through its evolutionary history.

In a dispersal scenario, some lineages exposed to new ecological conditions (or ecological opportunity) likely experienced rapid diversification and rapid ecological divergence [18, 62, 64, 73]. In these cases, it is assumed that lineages evolved quickly by mechanisms of divergent selection due to ecological release and therefore occurs an increase in species diversification rates with ecological divergence. However, it is still not clear whether ecological or behavioral isolation occurred after the first lineage dispersed to a new region or speciation is driven by vicariance in the new colonized region (e.g., posterior mountain uplift in some islands or regions). Here, it is necessary to test whether a dispersal scenario promotes diversification in a similar fashion and therefore it is crucial to evaluate how species niche‐traits evolved after a dispersal event. The colonization of a new region could not be the initial precursor of a change in macroevolutionary dynamics (e.g., increases in speciation rates) and other processes might be obscured here (e.g., reproductive isolation between ecologically diverging subpopulations inhabiting in sympatry [76]) ( Figure 2 ).

Figure 2.

Number of papers published by year identifying dispersal or vicariance events as drivers of species diversification.

By contrast, in a vicariance scenario I expected that all species diversification processes occur through allopatric divergence. In this scenario, new species emerge through geographical isolation of populations of a widespread ancestral species [12, 39]. Some studies reviewed here suggest that mountain uplift can generate a spatial gradient of climatic or ecological conditions that promote range subdivision and therefore allopatric speciation [5, 31]. However, still we do not know whether the mechanisms involved here will be different from a dispersal scenario. For instance, it is very well‐known that ecological divergence between subpopulations is not a prerequisite for allopatric speciation. Therefore, species might acquire ecological niche differentiation by a pure genetic drift process [6] or species can exhibit strong niche stasis through time [26, 70]. Therefore, to establish whether vicariance effectively promote species diversification, it is crucial to test whether species evolved trait‐niches through a pure drift process or maintain ancestral trait‐niches due to stabilizing selection [6, 26, 70] ( Figure 2 ).

In addition to this, climate change might act as a trigger of species diversification after a dispersal or vicariance event. For instance, many Neotropical diversification have been attributed to quaternary climatic cycles [77], where cooling phases in the Amazon basin facilitated geographic spread of highland species toward lowlands with subsequent range fragmentation and isolation during warm phases [77, 78, 79]. In the context of studies linking biogeographical events and diversification, very few studies have been able to detect a positive correlation between past climatic changes and species (or phenotypic) diversification after a given dispersal or vicariance event. For instance, Gamble et al. [80] suggested that main events of cladogenesis in Gonatodes geckos coincided with a phase of climate cooling in the late Eocence and Oligocene. In addition, Antonelli et al [81] suggested that speciation in an orchid South American group was accelerated by climate cooling after the Middle Miocene Climatic Optimum, 15 million years ago. However, these two studies did not evaluate whether specific shifts in net diversification rates matched temporally with significant decreases in temperature (i.e., cooling) in each region. Although these two studies suggest that climate change might be a trigger of species diversification, they did not mention how cladogenesis can be affected by climate changes, particularly cooling phases. The link between climate change and diversification is still narrative and more research is necessary to establish first whether there is possibility to find a positive association between both phenomena and then to establish the mechanisms driving speciation by climate change oscillations. For the first part, some recently developed models are able to detect whether paleo‐environmental variations (e.g., temperature fluctuations through Cenozoic; [82]) had a significant effect on speciation and extinction rates [43, 83, 84]. These new models allow to establish whether the association is strong and how effectively climate can influence speciation and extinction rates for many groups [85].

Summarizing, both dispersal and vicariance scenarios can promote shifts in net species diversification rates in contrasting ways. In dispersal scenarios, it is expected as an early ecological niche differentiation through the lineage diversification of co‐occurring species, as has been the case in Caribbean Anolis lizards [29] and Hawaiian spiders [17]. In vicariance scenarios, it is expected, that co‐occurring species exhibit ecological niche conservatism in trait‐niche axes, either in coarse‐grain or fine‐grain scales, or that these trait‐niches likely evolved by a purely drift process. If ecological niche conservatism prevails after allopatric speciation, it is merely a by‐product of the ancestral range fragmentation and therefore it is not possible that it promotes speciation (contra [25]). Otherwise, if there is some degree of niche differentiation between species this is likely due to either neutral evolution [6] or adaptation to a slowly changing environment [22]. The distinction between these two patterns (i.e., neutral versus adaptive niche evolution) will be crucial although it can be difficult to be detected using only phylogenetic comparative methods [44]. Furthermore, it is very likely that other ecological or non‐ecological processes facilitating speciation occur in each one of these biogeographic scenarios [12]. This suggests that reproductive isolation between subpopulations as by‐product of these processes (e.g., polyploidization, hybridization, and genetic drift) is not necessarily driven by historical dispersal or vicariance events. In addition, it is important to remember that inferring an early dispersal event (or vicariance) does not preclude that subsequent cladogenesis occurred by a successive series of vicariance events (or dispersals). For instance, a lineage colonized an oceanic island early in its evolutionary history, but the cladogenetic process that generated in situ diversity was driven by successive mountain uplifts.

3.4. Integration of a historical biogeography perspective with modern phylogenetic approaches and ecological studies

An integration of evidence from multiple study fields is necessary to get a deep understanding about the underlying mechanisms of the link between historical biogeography and diversification. Therefore, it will be crucial to develop and integrate new methodological approaches to generate sound evidence of a link between historical biogeographic events and changes in macroevolutionary dynamics. I consider that the first step necessary is to adopt a phylogenetic perspective to study the historical biogeography of a taxa and infer dispersal or vicariance events through its evolutionary history. Many studies reviewed have adopted such perspective, particularly implementing more complex event‐based methods [60, 61]. New statistical biogeographical methods incorporating increasingly complex models of range evolution are being developed [34, 58]. The next step is to develop increasingly statistical robust methods to detect shifts in diversification dynamics and evaluate whether these shifts coincide with past dispersal or vicariance events and are not confounded by the emergence of hidden innovation key traits [53, 75]. Although there is a current debate about the power of these methods to detect these shifts [42, 53, 55], the BAMM approach ([53]) seems promising to detect these shifts in diversification dynamics across a phylogenetic tree with high confidence. BAMM allows us not only to detect shifts in speciation rates but shifts in the diversification dynamics itself. For instance, BAMM could allows us to detect in which nodes the diversification dynamics follows a time‐dependent process, where only the time for speciation influences speciation rates [69]; or whether it follows a density‐dependent cladogenetic process, where the clade diversity is limited by a carrying capacity [51]. Even more, using BAMM we could establish whether a macroevolutionary regime is more prone to occur.

In addition to the statistical detection of these historical association, I suggest that it is necessary to test the specific predictions that might emerge from each biogeographical scenario. I outlined two specific predictions for phenotypic trait evolutionary trajectories after a dispersal or vicariance event (see above). In that case, it is necessary to collect information about ecologically relevant traits for species to test these predictions. This information can be collected from museum specimens (e.g., morphological traits) or field‐based studies (e.g., habitat use, diet or foraging strategy). Using model‐based phylogenetic comparative methods, it is possible to evaluate whether these traits evolved following a Brownian motion or Ornstein‐Uhlenbeck model [20] or whether traits evolved under a pure drift process lacking its phylogenetic signal (e.g., a white‐noise process [20]). Furthermore, recently developed methods allow to identify shifts in phenotypic trait diversification in nodes of a phylogenetic tree [14, 15, 53, 59, 67]. In these cases, it is possible to evaluate simultaneously whether specific shifts in species or trait diversification evolved as a response to a dispersal or vicariance event. I consider that testing these predictions allows us to establish potential ecological and evolutionary mechanisms driving biological diversity. Some recent studies have begun to adopt a combination of these new methodologies (e.g., Ref. [24]), but still more research is necessary.

Finally, studies undoubtedly need to include detailed research from the field of the genetics of the adaptation to new environments [8, 22]. These studies are useful to understand why some clades diversified extensively after a dispersal or vicariance events and others not. For instance, species widely distributed in archipelagos or species with disjunct distributions will be good candidates for these detailed studies. Information about mechanisms maintaining or disrupting genetic cohesion between populations or lineages is crucial to understand the role of biogeographical events in the generation of biodiversity.


4. Conclusions

There is a growing interest in establishing the historical causes of biological diversification phenomena. However, we are still far behind to understand the process and mechanisms generating this realized diversification. In this chapter, I discussed some limitations of current methodologies employed to infer how biogeographical events as dispersal and vicariance can promote biological diversification shifts across the evolutionary history of lineages. The majority of studies reviewed here only were able to detect a historical association between a given biogeographic event and shifts in species (or phenotypic) diversification. Although we have established that spatial and temporal changes in diversification rates are modulated by abiotic (e.g., geography and climate) and biotic factors (e.g., food availability, predator presences, and intensity), still there is a lack of understanding about specific mechanisms underlying these historical associations and what factors were important. Furthermore, I have showed that the inference of these historical associations is not a trivial matter and more robust methodologies are necessary to establish a joint inference of biogeographical events and shifts in species diversification. In addition, I outlined specific predictions for evolutionary outcomes after a given biogeographical event which can be tested using current phylogenetic comparative methods and ecologically relevant traits. However, the adoption of phylogenetic methodological approaches will not be sufficient to generate a complete understanding of how species radiated after a given dispersal or vicariance event. Accordingly, traditional ecological and genetic field‐based approaches used in speciation studies will be important here.



Funding was provided by a graduate scholarship grant from CONACYT and a postdoctoral research grant from DGAPA at Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM). My ideas about biogeography and diversification were greatly benefited from discussions with Enrique Martinez Meyer, Oscar Flores Villela, Luna Sanchez Reyes and Mark. E. Olson. Thanks to Mark E. Olson to read several draft versions of this manuscript and for his continuous thoughtful comments. All remaining errors are my own.


  1. 1. Algar AC, Mahler DL. Area, climate heterogeneity, and the response of climate niches to ecological opportunity in island radiations of Anolis lizards. Global Ecology and Biogeography. 2015;25:781-791
  2. 2. Almeida EAB, Pie MR, Brady SG, Danforth BN. Biogeography and diversification of colletid bees (Hymenoptera: Colletidae): Emerging patterns from the southern end of the world. Journal of Biogeography. 2011;39:526-544
  3. 3. Antonelli A, Sanmartin I. Mass extinction, gradual cooling, or rapid radiation? Reconstructing the spatiotemporal evolution of the ancient angiosperm genus hedyosmum (Chloranthaceae) using empirical and simulated approaches. Systematic Biology. 2001;60:596-615
  4. 4. Bacon CD, Baker WJ, Simmons MP. Miocene dispersal drives island radiations in the palm tribe Trachycarpeae (Arecaceae). Systematic Biology. 2012;61:426-42
  5. 5. Blisniuk PM, Stern LA, Chamberlain CP, Idleman B, Zeitler PK. Climatic and ecologic changes during Miocene surface uplift in the Southern Patagonian Andes. Earth and Planetary Science Letters. 2005;230:125-142
  6. 6. Boucher FC, Thuiller W, Davies TJ, Lavergne S. Neutral biogeography and the evolution of climatic niches. The American Naturalist. 2014;183:573-584
  7. 7. Brumfield RT, Edwards SV. Evolution into and out of the Andes: A Bayesian analysis of historical diversification in Thamnophilus antshrikes. Evolution. 2007;61:346-367
  8. 8. Campbell-Staton SC, Edwards SV, Losos JB. Climate-mediated adaptation after mainland colonization of an ancestrally subtropical island lizard, Anolis carolinensis. Journal of Evolutionary Biology. 2016;29:2168-2180
  9. 9. Chaves JA, Weir JT, Smith TB. Diversification in Adelomyia hummingbirds follows Andean uplift. Molecular Ecology. 2011;20:4564-4576
  10. 10. Cornell HV. Is regional species diversity bounded or unbounded? Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society. 2013;88:140-165
  11. 11. Cowie RH, Holland BS. Dispersal is fundamental to biogeography and the evolution of biodiversity on oceanic islands. Journal of Biogeography. 2006;33:193-198
  12. 12. Coyne JA, Orr HA. Speciation. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA. 2004
  13. 13. Dieckmann U, Doebeli M. On the origin of species by sympatric speciation. Nature. 1999;400:354-357
  14. 14. Diniz-Filho JAF, Alves DMCC, Villalobos F, Sakamoto M, Brusatte SL, Bini LM. Phylogenetic eigenvectors and nonstationarity in the evolution of theropod dinosaur skulls. Journal of Evolutionary Biology. 2015;28:1410-1416
  15. 15. Eastman JM, Alfaro ME, Joyce P, Hipp AL, Harmon LJ. A novel comparative method for identifying shifts in the rate of character evolution on trees. Evolution. 2011;65:3578-3589
  16. 16. Fritz SA, Jønsson KA, Fjeldså J, Rahbek C. Diversification and biogeographic patterns in four island radiations of passerine birds. Evolution. 2012;66:179-190
  17. 17. Gillespie R. Community assembly through adaptive radiation in Hawaiian spiders. Science. 2004;303:356-359
  18. 18. Glor RE. Phylogenetic insights on adaptive radiation. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics. 2010;41:251-270
  19. 19. Guo ZT, Ruddiman WF, Hao QZ, Wu HB, Qiao YS. Onset of Asian desertification by 22 Myr ago inferred from loess deposits in China. Nature. 2002;416:159-163
  20. 20. Harmon LJ, Losos JB, Jonathan Davies T, Gillespie RG, Gittleman JL, Bryan JW, Purvis A. Early bursts of body size and shape evolution are rare in comparative data. Evolution. 2010;64:2385-2396
  21. 21. Hedges B, Maxson R. Caribbean biogeography: Molecular evidence for dispersal in West Indian terrestrial vertebrates. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 1992;89:1909-1913
  22. 22. Holt RD, Barfield M, Gomulkiewicz R. Temporal variation can facilitate niche evolution in harsh sink environments. The American Naturalist. 2004;164:187-200
  23. 23. Humphries CJ, Parenti LR. Cladistic Biogeography: Interpreting Patterns of Plant and Animal Distributions. Oxford University Press, New York; 1999
  24. 24. Kennedy JD, Borregaard MK, Jønsson KA, Holt B, Fjeldså J, Rahbek C. Does the colonization of new biogeographic regions influence the diversification and accumulation of clade richness among the Corvides (Aves: Passeriformes)? Evolution. 2016;71:38-50
  25. 25. Kozak KH, Wiens JJ. Does niche conservatism promote speciation? A case study in North American salamanders. Evolution. 2006;60:2604-2621
  26. 26. Kozak KH, Wiens JJ. Accelerated rates of climatic‐niche evolution underlie rapid species diversification. Ecology letters. 2010;13:1378-1389
  27. 27. Liu J‐Q, Wang Y‐J, Wang A‐L, Hideaki O, Abbott RJ. Radiation and diversification within the Ligularia‐Cremanthodium‐Parasenecio complex (Asteraceae) triggered by uplift of the Qinghai‐Tibetan Plateau. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution. 2006;38:31-49
  28. 28. Losos JB. Adaptive radiation, ecological opportunity, and evolutionary determinism. The American Naturalist. 2010;175:623-639
  29. 29. Losos JB, Jackman TR, Larson A, de Queiroz K, Rodríguez‐Schettino L. Contingency and determinism in replicated adaptive radiations of island lizards. Science. 1998;279:2115-2118
  30. 30. Losos JB, Schluter D. Analysis of an evolutionary species‐area relationship. Nature. 2000;408:847-850
  31. 31. Luebert F, Hilger HH, Weigend M. Diversification in the Andes: Age and origins of South American Heliotropium lineages (Heliotropiaceae, Boraginales). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution. 2011;61:90-102
  32. 32. Mahler DL, Revell LJ, Glor RE, Losos JB. Ecological opportunity and the rate of morphological evolution in the diversification of Greater Antillean anoles. Evolution. 2010;64:2731-2745
  33. 33. Mahler DL, Losos JB. Adaptive radiation: The interaction of ecological opportunity, adaptation, and speciation. In: Bell MA, Futuyma DJ, Eanes WF, Levinton JS, editors. Evolution Since Darwin: The First 150 Years. Sunderland, Massachusetts: Sinauer Associates; 2010. pp. 381-420
  34. 34. Matzke NJ. Model selection in historical biogeography reveals that founder‐event speciation is a crucial process in island clades. Systematic Biology. 2014;63:951-970
  35. 35. Matzke NJ. Trait‐dependent dispersal models for phylogenetic biogeography, in the R package BioGeoBEARS. Integrative and Comparative Biology. 2016;56:E330‐E330
  36. 36. May MR, Moore BR. How well can we detect Lineage‐Specific Diversification‐Rate shifts? A simulation study of sequential AIC methods. Systematic Biology. 2016;65:1076-1084
  37. 37. May MR, Höhna S, Moore BR. A Bayesian approach for detecting the impact of mass-extinction events on molecular phylogenies when rates of lineage diversification may vary. Methods in Ecology and Evolution. 2016;7:947-959
  38. 38. Mayr E. Systematics and the Origin of Species, from the Viewpoint of a Zoologist. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA; 1942
  39. 39. Mayr E. Animal Species and Evolution. 1963. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA; 1969
  40. 40. Moore BR, Donoghue MJ. Correlates of diversification in the plant clade Dipsacales: Geographic movement and evolutionary innovations. The American Naturalist. 2007;170(Suppl):S28-55
  41. 41. Moore BR, Donoghue. A Bayesian approach for evaluating the impact of historical events on rates of diversification. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2009;106:4307-4312
  42. 42. Moore BR, Höhna S, May MR, Rannala B, Huelsenbeck JP. Critically evaluating the theory and performance of Bayesian analysis of macroevolutionary mixtures. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2016;113(34):9569-9574
  43. 43. Morlon H. Phylogenetic approaches for studying diversification. Ecology Letters. 2014;17:508-525
  44. 44. Münkemüller T, Boucher FC, Thuiller W, Lavergne S. Phylogenetic niche conservatism – common pitfalls and ways forward. Functional Ecology. 2014;29:627-639
  45. 45. Nelson G, Platnick NI. Systematics and Biogeography: Cladistics and Vicariance. New York: Columbia University Press; 1981
  46. 46. Parenti LR, Ebach MC. Comparative Biogeography. Discovering and Classifying Biogeographical Patterns of a Dynamic Earth. Berkeley and Los Angeles, California: University of California Press; 2009
  47. 47. Peterson AT, Holt RD. Niche differentiation in Mexican birds: Using point occurrences to detect ecological innovation. Ecology Letters. 2003;6:774-782
  48. 48. Poe S, Nieto‐Montes de Oca A, Torres‐Carvajal O, de Queiroz K, Velasco JA, Truett B, Gray LN, Ryan MJ, Köhler G, Ayala‐Varela F, Latella I. A phylogenetic, biogeographic, and taxonomic study of all extant species of anolis (Squamata; Iguanidae). Systematic Biology. 2017. DOI: 10.1093/sysbio/syx029
  49. 49. de Queiroz A. The resurrection of oceanic dispersal in historical biogeography. Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 2005;20:68-73
  50. 50. Rabosky D, Glor R. Equilibrium speciation dynamics in a model adaptive radiation of island lizards. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2010;107:22178-22183
  51. 51. Rabosky DL. Ecological limits and diversification rate: Alternative paradigms to explain the variation in species richness among clades and regions. Ecology Letters. 2009;12:735-743
  52. 52. Rabosky DL. Testing the time‐for‐speciation effect in the assembly of regional biotas. Methods in Ecology and Evolution. 2012;3:224-233
  53. 53. Rabosky DL. Automatic detection of key innovations, rate shifts, and diversity‐dependence on phylogenetic trees. PloS One. 2014;9:e89543
  54. 54. Rabosky DL, Grundler M, Anderson C, Shi JJ, Brown JW, Huang H, Larson JG. BAMMtools: An R package for the analysis of evolutionary dynamics on phylogenetic trees. Methods in Ecology and Evolution. 2014;5:701-707
  55. 55. Rabosky DL, Mitchell JS, Chang J. Is BAMM flawed? Theoretical and practical concerns in the analysis of multi‐rate diversification models. Systematic Biology. 2017. DOI: 10.1093/sysbio/syx037
  56. 56. Raxworthy CJ, Forstner MRJ, Nussbaum RA. Chameleon radiation by oceanic dispersal. Nature. 2002;415:784-787
  57. 57. Reddy S, Driskell A, Rabosky DL, Hackett SJ, Schulenberg TS. Diversification and the adaptive radiation of the vangas of Madagascar. Proceedings of the Royal Society B. 2012;279:2062-2071. DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2011.2380
  58. 58. Ree RH, Smith SA. Maximum likelihood inference of geographic range evolution by dispersal, local extinction, and cladogenesis. Systematic Biology. 2008;57:4-14
  59. 59. Revell LJ, Mahler DL, Peres-Neto PR, Redelings BD. A new phylogenetic method for identifying exceptional phenotypic diversification. Evolution. 2012;66:135-146
  60. 60. Sanmartin I. Event‐Based biogeography: Integrating patterns, processes, and time. In: Ebach MC, Tangney R, editors. Biogeography in a Changing World. Taylor and Francis, Boca Raton, FL; 2007. pp. 135-156
  61. 61. Sanmartín I, Van der Mark P, Ronquist F. Inferring dispersal: A Bayesian approach to phylogeny‐based island biogeography, with special reference to the Canary Islands. Journal of Biogeography. 2008;35:428-449
  62. 62. Simpson GG. Major Features of Evolution. New York: Columbia University Press; 1955
  63. 63. Schemske D. Biotic interactions and speciation in the tropics. In: Butlin RK, Bridle J, Schluter D, editor. Speciation and Patterns of Diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2009. pp. 219-240
  64. 64. Schluter D. The Ecology of Adaptive Radiaton. New York: Oxford University Press; 2000
  65. 65. Schnitzler J, Graham CH, Dormann CF, Schiffers K, Peter Linder H. Climatic niche evolution and species diversification in the Cape flora, South Africa. Journal of Biogeography. 2012;39:2201-2211
  66. 66. Sun Y, Wang A, Wan D, Wang Q, Liu J. Rapid radiation of Rheum (Polygonaceae) and parallel evolution of morphological traits. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution. 2012;63:150-158
  67. 67. Thomas GH, Freckleton RP. MOTMOT: Models of trait macroevolution on trees. Methods in Ecology and Evolution. 2012;3:145-151
  68. 68. Upham NS, Patterson BD. Diversification and biogeography of the Neotropical caviomorph lineage Octodontoidea (Rodentia: Hystricognathi). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution. 2012;63:417-429
  69. 69. Wiens JJ. The causes of species richness patterns across space, time, and clades and the role of “ecological limits”. The Quarterly Review of Biology. 2011;86:75-96
  70. 70. Wiens JJ, Graham CH. Niche conservatism: Integrating evolution, ecology, and conservation biology. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 2005;36:519-539
  71. 71. Wüest RO, Antonelli A, Zimmermann NE, Linder HP. Available climate regimes drive niche diversification during range expansion. The American Naturalist. 2015;185:640-652
  72. 72. Yoder AD, Nowak MD. Has vicariance or dispersal been the predominant biogeographic force in madagascar? Only time will tell. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics. 2006;37:405-431
  73. 73. Yoder JB, Clancey E, Des Roches S, Eastman JM, Gentry L, Godsoe W, Hagey TJ, Jochimsen D, Oswald BP, Robertson J, Sarver BAJ, Schenk JJ, Spear SF, Harmon LJ. Ecological opportunity and the origin of adaptive radiations. Journal of Evolutionary Niology. 2010;23:1581-1596
  74. 74. Richman AD, Price T. Evolution of ecological differences in the Old World leaf warblers. Nature. 1992;355:817
  75. 75. Beaulieu JM, O’Meara BC. Detecting hidden diversification shifts in models of trait‐dependent speciation and extinction. Systematic Biology. 2016;65:583-601
  76. 76. Nosil P. Ecological Speciation. Oxford University Press, New York; 2012
  77. 77. Rull V. Neotropical biodiversity: Timing and potential drivers. Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 2011;26:508-513
  78. 78. Noonan BP, Gaucher P. Phylogeography and demography of Guianan harlequin toads (Atelopus): Diversification within a refuge. Molecular Ecology. 2005;14:3017-3031
  79. 79. Noonan BP, Wray KP. Neotropical diversification : The effects of a complex history on diversity within the poison frog genus Dendrobates. Journal of Biogeography. 2006;33:1007-1020
  80. 80. Gamble T, Simons AM, Colli GR, Vitt LJ. Tertiary climate change and the diversification of the Amazonian gecko Gonatodes (Sphaerodactylidae, Squamata). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution. 2008b;46:269-277
  81. 81. Antonelli A, Verola CF, Parisod C, Gustafsson ALS. Climate cooling promoted the expansion and radiation of a threatened group of South American orchids (Epidendroideae: Laeliinae). Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. 2010;100:597-607
  82. 82. Zachos J, Pagani M, Sloan L, Thomas E, Billups K. Trends, rhythms, and aberrations in global climate 65 Ma to present. Science. 2001;292(5517):686-693
  83. 83. Condamine FL, Rolland J, Morlon H. Macroevolutionary perspectives to environmental change. Ecology Letters. 2013;16(s1):72-85
  84. 84. Morlon H, Lewitus E, Condamine FL, Manceau M, Clavel J, Drury J. RPANDA: An R package for macroevolutionary analyses on phylogenetic trees. Methods in Ecology and Evolution. 2016;7:589-597
  85. 85. Hua X, Wiens JJ. How does climate influence speciation? The American Naturalist. 2013;182(1):1-12

Written By

Julián A. Velasco

Submitted: 23 November 2016 Reviewed: 28 April 2017 Published: 20 December 2017