Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Evolution of ecological differences in the Old World leaf warblers

A Correction to this article was published on 14 May 1992

Abstract

SYMPATRIC species that belong to the same ecological guild usually differ in their behaviour and morphology, and these differences are often interpreted as adaptations to having to make use of different resources. Evidence supporting this interpretation comes from association between ecology and morphology among species1, in which ana priori functional relationship is reasonable. But one problem with such comparisons is that members of a guild may be closely related, so the more closely related species can share a greater similarity in their morphology and ecology simply as a result of the lingering legacy of a common ancestor2–5. In principle, the importance of historical legacy can be evaluated from phylogenetic relationships and times since divergence for all species2,6, but this is rarely possible because these data are not available. Here we use a phylogeny for eight sympatric species of warbler in the genusPhylloscopus, based on their mitochondrial DNA sequences, to remove the effects of historical legacy. Without these effects, we find strong support for adaptive interpretations of among-species variation in habitat selection, prey-size choice and feeding method. Ecological variation along any of these three niche axes is associated with predictable morphological variation. We also find evidence for historical legacy in that more closely related species are often more similar behaviourally and morphologically. This paradoxical result can be reconciled because the most closely related species tend to differ along only one niche axis, habitat choice. In contrast, the evolution of prey-size choice and feeding method occurred rapidly and early in the diversification of this group. Once a new ecological zone was occupied, subsequent morphological change along these niche axes was limited, accounting for the similarity of closely related species.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Miles, D. B. & Ricklefs, R. E. Ecology 65, 1629–1640 (1984).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Felsenstein, J. Am. Nat. 125, 1–15 (1985).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Harvey, P. & Pagel, M. D. The Comparative Method in Evolutionary Biology (Oxford Univ. Press, UK, 1991).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Harvey, P. & Purvis, A. Nature 351, 619–624 (1991)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Brooks, D. R. & McLennan, D. A. Phylogeny. Ecology, and Behavior (Univ. Chicago Press, 1991).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Lynch, M. Evolution 45, 1065–1080 (1991).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Price, T. & Jamdar, N. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 87, 1–15 (1990).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Price, T. J. Animal Ecol. 60, 643–664 (1991).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Brown, W. M., Prager, E. M., Wang, A. & Wilson, A. C. J. molec. Evol. 18, 225–239 (1982).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Kocher, T. et al. Proc. natn. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 86, 6196–6200 (1989).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Irwin, D. M., Kocher, T. D. & Wilson, A. C. J. molec. Evol. 32, 128–144 (1991)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Saitou, N. & Nei, M. Molec. biol. Evol. 4, 406–425 (1987).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Felsenstein, J. PHYLIP Manual Version 3.4 (Herbarium, Univ. California. Berkeley, 1991).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Williamson, K. The Genus Phylloscopus (British Trust for Ornithology. Oxford. 1974).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Ticehurst, C. B. A Systematic Review of the Genus Phylloscopus 1–193 (Trustees of the British Museum, London, 1938).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Felsenstein, J. J. molec. Evol. 17, 368–376 (1981).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Frenzel, B. Science 161, 637–649 (1968).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Diamond, J. in Community Ecology (eds Diamond, J. & Case, T. J.) 98–125 (Harper and Row, New York, 1986).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Sibley, C. G. & Ahlquist, J. E. Phylogeny and Classification of Birds (Yale Univ. Press. 1990).

    Google Scholar 

  20. Martins, E. P. & Garland, T. Jr, Evolution 45, 534–557 (1991).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Anderson, S. et al. Nature 290, 457–465 (1981).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Kawasaki, E. in PCR Protocols: A Guide to Methods and Applications (eds Innis, M, H., Gelfand, D. H., Sninsky, J. J. & White, T. J.) 146–152 (Academic, San Diego, 1990).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rich man, A., Price, T. Evolution of ecological differences in the Old World leaf warblers. Nature 355, 817–821 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1038/355817a0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/355817a0

This article is cited by

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing