We are collaborating with Michelle Lawing (Texas A&M University) and Jaime Zúñiga-Vega (UNAM) to study the impact of closely related Sceloporus species on each other. This work is supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant Number 2154897..

In a classic example of natural selection on islands, the remarkable differences among the bills of Darwin’s finches allow these species to co-exist without competition because they eat very different types of food. The same processes may also be important in shaping evolution in many other organisms, but their effects can be difficult to detect without the clear geographic boundaries of islands and the strikingly different body forms of Darwin’s finches. In this project, we focus on Sceloporus lizards, a large group of species that often co-exist, and that are abundant throughout Mexico and the southwestern United States. We gather detailed measures of body shape and preferred environments, and develop new statistical approaches to identify distinct body and habitat types from generalist, mainland species. We then test whether species that co-exist in the same geographic areas differ from each other in body form and ecology, and reconstruct the ancient history of co-existing species with geographic precision, using public data readily available on the internet. Our project emphasizes international collaboration (US and Mexico) and community science, embedding the research in formal courses taught at three institutions, and sharing the results through museum exhibits as well as with other scientists.

Closely related taxa that live in geographic proximity (i.e., sympatric congeners) impose a potentially widespread and under-recognized evolutionary force. This project gathers new data from CT scans and geometric morphometric analyses of museum specimens, conducts lizard field surveys of 500 sites in Mexico and the southwestern United States, and develops new phylogeographic tests of whether Sceloporus lizards tend to co-exist with closely related taxa that differ from themselves. In addition, we combine phylogenetic, climate, and fossil information to reconstruct the detailed evolutionary and geographic history of Sceloporus species assemblages and their morphologies, testing hypotheses about the processes by which interspecies interactions lead to species turnover and diversification.  These analyses will test hypotheses about the importance of foraging, habitat use, and parity as drivers of interspecific interactions, ask whether sympatric congeners have imposed similar selective pressures in repeated evolutionary episodes, and test for links between the biodiversity of sympatric species assemblages (e.g., species richness, phylogenetic diversity) and landscape characteristics (e.g., habitat heterogeneity). By addressing these questions with public data, readily accessible via the internet, the project also contributes to future studies by adding new data and R scripts for those who want to conduct similar analyses with other taxa.

Some relevant publications:

  • Rivera JA, Rich, HN, Lawing AM, Rosenberg M, Martins EP. 2021. Occurrence data uncover patterns of allopatric divergence and interspecies interactions in the evolutionary history of Sceloporus lizards. Ecology & Evolution 11: 2796-2813. (https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.7237)
  • Rivera JA, Lawing AM, Martins EP. 2020. Reconstructing historical shifts in suitable habitat of Sceloporus lineages using phylogenetic niche modeling. J Biogeography 47:2117-2128. (https://doi.org/10.1111/jbi.13915)
  • Lawing AM, Polly PD, Hews DK, Martins EP. 2016. Including fossils in phylogenetic climate reconstructions: A deep time perspective on the climatic niche evolution and diversification of Spiny Lizards (Sceloporus). Am Nat, 188:133-148. (doi:10.1086/687202)

 

 

In the past, we have developed phylogenetic methods for inferring microevolutionary processes from comparative (interspecific) data.

  • Early efforts were implemented in COMPARE(compare.bio.indiana.edu).
  • We have also developed methods for studying the evolution of complex traits (e.g., Phylogenetic ANCOVA; Fuentes-G. et al. 2016) and for incorporating fossil and biogeographic information (Lawing et al. 2016).
  • This work is supported, in part, by the National Science Foundation under Grant Nos. 0196357 and 0543491.

Some relevant publications:

  • Rivera JA, Lawing AM, Martins EP. 2020. Reconstructing historical shifts in suitable habitat of Sceloporus lineages using phylogenetic niche modeling. J Biogeography 47:2117-2128. (https://doi.org/10.1111/jbi.13915)
  • Fuentes-G. JA, Polly PD, Martins EP. 2019. A Bayesian extension of phylogenetic generalized least squares (PGLS): incorporating uncertainty in the comparative study of trait relationships and evolutionary rates. Evolution 74: 311-325 (doi:10.1111/evo.13899).
  • Fuentes-G. JA, Martins EP. 2019. Using phylogenetic comparative methods to gain insight into the evolution of social complexity. Behavioral Ecology & Sociobiology 73:3 (doi: 10.1007/s00265-018-2614-3).
  • Martins EP, Fuentes-G. JAF. 2018. Comparative methods and phylogenetic tests of adaptation. In Oxford Bibliographies in Evolutionary Biology. Ed. Karen Pfennig. New York: Oxford University Press. (doi:  10.1093/OBO/9780199941728-0099)
  • Fuentes-G. JA, Housworth EA, Weber A, Martins EP. 2016. Phylogenetic ANCOVA: Estimating phenotypic diversification and evolutionary relationships in comparative studies. Am Nat 188:615-627. (doi:10.1086/688917)
  • Lawing AM, Polly PD, Hews DK, Martins EP. 2016. Including fossils in phylogenetic climate reconstructions: A deep time perspective on the climatic niche evolution and diversification of Spiny Lizards (Sceloporus). Am Nat, 188:133-148. (doi:10.1086/687202)
  • Housworth, E. A., E. P. Martins, and M. Lynch. 2004. The phylogenetic mixed model. American Naturalist 163:84-96. (here or pdf.)
  • Martins, E. P. and E. A. Housworth. 2002. Phylogeny shape and the phylogenetic comparative method.Systematic Biology, 51: 873-880. (Read on-line through JSTOR or pdf.)
  • Martins, E. P., J.A. Diniz-Filho, and E. A. Housworth. 2002. Adaptation and the comparative method: A computer simulation study. Evolution 56: 1-13. (BioOne or pdf.)
  • Housworth, E. A. and E. P. Martins. 2001. Random sampling of constrained phylogenies:Conducting phylogenetic analyses when the phylogeny is partially known.Syst. Biol. 50:628-639. (doi:10.1080/106351501753328776 or pdf.)
  • Martins, E.P. 2000. Adaptation and the comparative method. TREE, 15: 295-299. (pdf)
  • Martins, E. P. 1999. Estimation of ancestral states of continuous characters: A computer simulation study. Systematic Biology, 48:642-650. (doi:10.1080/106351599260210 or pdf.)
  • Martins, E. P. and J. Lamont. 1998. Estimating ancestral states of a communicative display: a comparative study of Cyclura rock iguanas. Animal Behaviour, 55:1685-1706. (doi:10.1016/anbe.1997.0722.)
  • Hansen, T. F. 1997. Stabilizing selection and the comparative analysis of adaptation. Evolution 51:1341-1351. (Read on-line through JSTOR.)
  • Martins, E. P. and T. F. Hansen. 1997. Phylogenies and the comparative method: A general approach to incorporating phylogenetic information into the anlaysis of interspecific data. American Naturalist 149: 646-667. ERRATUM Am. Nat. 153:448. (Read on-line through JSTOR here and here.)
  • Martins EP, editor.  1996.  Phylogenies and the Comparative Method in Animal Behavior.  Oxford Univ. Press. 
  • Martins, E. P. 1996. Phylogenies, spatial autoregression, and the comparative method: a computer simulation test. Evolution 50:1750-1765. (Read on-line through JSTOR.)
  • Hansen, T. F. and E. P. Martins. 1996. Translating between microevolutionary process and macroevolutionary patterns: the correlation structure of interspecific data. Evolution 50:1404-1417. (Read on-line through JSTOR.)
  • Martins, E. P. and T. F. Hansen. 1996. The statistical analysis of interspecific data: a review and evaluation of phylogenetic comparative methods. IN: Phylogenies and the Comparative Method in Animal Behavior. Oxford University Press (E. Martins, ed). Oxford University Press. (pdf)
  • Martins, E. P. and T. F. Hansen. 1996. A microevolutionary link between phylogenies and comparative data. IN: New Uses for New Phylogenies (P. Harvey, J. Maynard-Smith, and A. Leigh-Brown, eds.). Oxford University Press.
  • Martins, E. P., editor. 1996. Phylogenies and the Comparative Method in Animal Behavior. Oxford University Press.
  • Martins, E. P. 1996. Conducting phylogenetic comparative analyses when the phylogeny is not known.Evolution 50: 12-22. (Read on-line through JSTOR.)
  • Martins, E. P. 1995. Phylogenies and comparative data, a microevolutionary perspective. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B, 349: 85-91. (pdf)
  • Martins, E. P. 1994. Estimating the rate of phenotypic evolution from comparative data. American Naturalist, 144: 193-209. (Read on-line through JSTOR.)
  • Martins, E. P. and T. Garland, Jr. 1991. Phylogenetic analyses of the correlated evolution of continuous characters: a simulation study. Evolution, 45: 534-557. (Read on-line through JSTOR.)