Genome divergence and diversification within a geographic mosaic of coevolution

Despite substantial interest in coevolution's role in diversification, examples of coevolution contributing to speciation have been elusive. Here, we build upon past studies that have shown both coevolution between South Hills crossbills and lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta), and high levels of reproductive isolation between South Hills crossbills and other ecotypes in the North American red crossbill (Loxia curvirostra) complex. We used genotyping by sequencing to generate population genomic data and applied phylogenetic and population genetic analyses to characterize the genetic structure within and among nine of the ecotypes. Although genome-wide divergence was slight between ecotypes (FST = 0.011–0.035), we found evidence of relative genetic differentiation (as measured by FST) between and genetic cohesiveness within many of them. As expected for nomadic and opportunistic breeders, we detected no evidence of isolation by distance. The one sedentary ecotype, the South Hills crossbill, was genetically most distinct because of elevated divergence at a small number of loci rather than pronounced overall genome-wide divergence. These findings suggest that mechanisms related to recent local coevolution between South Hills crossbills and lodgepole pine (e.g. strong resource-based density dependence limiting gene flow) have been associated with genome divergence in the face of gene flow. Our results further characterize a striking example of coevolution driving speciation within perhaps as little as 6000 years

A seed predator drives the evolution of a seed dispersal mutualism

Although antagonists are hypothesized to impede the evolution of mutualisms, they may simultaneously exert selection favouring the evolution of alternative mutualistic interactions. We found that increases in limber pine (Pinus flexilis) seed defences arising from selection exerted by a pre-dispersal seed predator (red squirrel Tamiasciurus hudsonicus) reduced the efficacy of limber pine's primary seed disperser (Clark's nutcracker Nucifraga columbiana) while enhancing seed dispersal by ground-foraging scatter-hoarding rodents (Peromyscus). Thus, there is a shift from relying on primary seed dispersal by birds in areas without red squirrels, to an increasing reliance on secondary seed dispersal by scatter-hoarding rodents in areas with red squirrels. Seed predators can therefore drive the evolution of seed defences, which in turn favour alternative seed dispersal mutualisms that lead to major changes in the mode of seed dispersal. Given that adaptive evolution in response to antagonists frequently impedes one kind of mutualistic interaction, the evolution of alternative mutualistic interactions may be a common by-product

Phylogenetic patterns are not proxies of community assembly mechanisms (they are far better)

International audience1. The subdiscipline of ‘community phylogenetics’ is rapidly growing and influencing thinking regarding community assembly. In particular, phylogenetic dispersion of co-occurring species within a community is commonly used as a proxy to identify which community assembly processes may have structured a particular community: phylogenetic clustering as a proxy for abiotic assembly, that is habitat filtering, and phylogenetic overdispersion as a proxy for biotic assembly, notably competition.2. We challenge this approach by highlighting (typically) implicit assumptions that are, in reality, only weakly supported, including (i) phylogenetic dispersion reflects trait dispersion; (ii) a given ecological function can be performed only by a single trait state or combination of trait states; (iii)trait similarity causes enhanced competition; (iv) competition causes species exclusion; (v) communities are at equilibrium with processes of assembly having been completed; (vi) assembly through habitat filtering decreases in importance if assembly through competition increases, such that the relative balance of the two can be thus quantified by a single parameter; and (vii) observed phylogenetic dispersion is driven predominantly by local and present-day processes.3. Moreover, technical sophistication of the phylogenetic-patterns-as-proxy approach trades off against sophistication in alternative, potentially more pertinent approaches to directly observe or manipulate assembly processes.4. Despite concerns about using phylogenetic dispersion as a proxy for community assembly processes, we suggest there are underappreciated benefits of quantifying the phylogenetic structure of communities, including (i) understanding how coexistence leads to the macroevolutionary diversification of habitat lineage-pools (i.e. phylogenetic-patterns-as-result approach); and (ii) understanding the macroevolutionary contingency of habitat lineage-pools and how it affects present-day species coexistence in local communities (i.e. phylogeneticpatterns- as-cause approach).5. We conclude that phylogenetic patterns may be little useful as proxy of community assembly. However, such patterns can prove useful to identify and test novel hypotheses on (i) how local coexistence may control macroevolution of the habitat lineage-pool, for example through competition among close relatives triggering displacement and diversification of characters, and (ii) how macroevolution within the habitat lineage-pool may control local coexistence of related species, for example through origin of close relatives that can potentially enter in competition