What are the Similarities Between Dispersal and Vicariance?
- Dispersal and vicariance are two explanations for the disjunct distribution of organisms.
- In both cases, organisms show geographically discontinuous distribution patterns.
- Organisms separate due to a geographical barrier in both explanations.
- They can lead to the differentiation of a new taxon due to allopatric speciation.
- Furthermore, vicariance and dispersal are not mutually exclusive processes.
Full Answer
Does vicariance and dispersal influence the origin of marine biodiversity?
Vicariance and dispersal can strongly influence population genetic structure and allopatric speciation, but their importance in the origin of marine biodiversity is unresolved.
What is the process of vicariance?
This might happen through tectonic action, geologic activity (like the rise of a mountain range or shift in the course of a river), or other processes. Vicariance is usually contrasted with dispersal as a biogeographic mechanism.
What are the determinants of estuarine speciation and diversification?
The occurrence of cryptic species and divergent population structure support limited dispersal, dispersed habitat distribution, and historical factors as important determinants of estuarine speciation and diversification. Amphipoda / classification* Amphipoda / genetics*
What is an example of speciation by geographic isolation?
These are easy to understand example of speciation by vicariance and dispersal. (Srour, 2012) Allopatric speciation is another way of saying speciation by geographic isolation. Something such as river or other physical barrier causes separation between two groups, causing isolation.
How does vicariance relate to freshwater fish?
What is vicariance associated with?
Why is vicariance necessary for biogeographical analysis?
How do disjunct ranges occur?
What factors were considered for pre-Quaternary diversification?
Which taxa show austral distribution patterns?
Why is upward migration not supported?
See 4 more
About this website
Vicariance Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
vicariance: [noun] fragmentation of the environment (as by splitting of a tectonic plate) in contrast to dispersal as a factor in promoting biological evolution by division of large populations into isolated subpopulations — called also#R##N# vicariance biogeography.
Vicariance Biogeography - Ecology - Oxford Bibliographies - obo
General Overviews. An excellent primer for the scholar seeking insight into vicariance biogeography is the voluminous collection of foundational papers assembled in Lomolino, et al. 2004.This collection includes key early papers, with commentaries, on the role of vicariance by early authors as outlined in the Introduction, including Joseph D. Hooker, Alfred Wegener, George G. Simpson, Lars ...
Vicariance Biogeography | Encyclopedia.com
vicariance biogeography A school of biogeographical thought, derived from panbiogeography, whose supporters maintain that the distribution of organisms depends on their normal means of dispersal (e.g. disjunctions are explicable in terms of new barriers (rivers, rises in sea level, etc.) having split formerly continuous ranges, rather than in terms of the organisms hopping over already ...
Vicariance - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics
Christopher John Humphries, in Encyclopedia of Biodiversity (Second Edition), 2001. Abstract. Vicariance biogeography, in the strict sense, is the study of repeated patterns of disjunct distributions within many members of a biota that may be explained by vicariance (or splitting) and other historical events. However, in the past 20 years or more, it has become a metaphor for historical ...
Speciation by Dispersal or Vicariance
These are easy to understand example of speciation by vicariance and dispersal. (Srour, 2012)
Allopatric Speciation
Allopatric speciation is another way of saying speciation by geographic isolation. Something such as river or other physical barrier causes separation between two groups, causing isolation. This eventually causes lineage to speciate, after the two groups can no longer mate with one another.
How does vicariance relate to freshwater fish?
Too often, the concept of vicariance relies only on spatial relationships between geographical zones occupied by the organisms. It takes physical surfaces into account without always considering the environmental conditions that characterize them. With freshwater fishes, however, it is likely that the distribution areas were primarily shaped by environmental and climactic forces rather than just being constrained by marine barriers. This situation is ancient and can already be observed during the Triassic on Pangaea, as Schaeffer noted in 1984 [SCH 84] for the redfieldiiforms. The areas of distribution clades identified in the Triassic correspond to surfaces situated along the same general latitude. It should be noted that for the most part, these distributions correspond to the wettest zones on Pangaea, according to a rainfall map ( Figure 4.2 ). Then, during the fragmentation of the supercontinent, the distributions of the clades continue to be situated on the same general latitudes, which, when they break apart, are at the origin of the vicariant events ( Figure 4.2 ).
What is vicariance associated with?
Vicariance associated with tectonic activity and “soft vicariant” events associated with climate and sea-level change, repeated at intervals through the Miocene, Pliocene, and the Quaternary, seem to have resulted in significant speciation on the North West Shelf manifest today in allopatric populations and sister species and subspecies on the shelf and adjacent bioregions. This applies to benthic shelf and shore species but not to the faunas of the offshore coral reefs.
Why is vicariance necessary for biogeographical analysis?
The process of vicariance is the reasonable starting hypothesis for all biogeographical analyses explaining a disjointed distribution because it involves the least amount of assumptions. However, when studying a biogeographical scenario, it often appears that the initial hypothesis is not supported by the data, whether the data come from phylogenetic analyses or paleontological occurrences. Therefore, as we observed previously, including dispersal events is necessary for explaining several distribution patterns, even for ancient clades like the osteoglossomorphs. Including dispersal events when building paleobiogeographical scenarios is often considered to be a methodological weakness because these events cannot be directly observed in the fossil record. For primary freshwater fishes, dispersals across marine barriers involved exceptional phenomena such as displacements on “freshwater rafts”, very strong discharges of freshwater by large rivers or other extraordinary events (transport by other organisms, tornadoes, etc.). These rare events are not impossible throughout geological time, but they are indemonstrable and are therefore to be avoided during paleobiogeographical reconstructions. There is also another methodological problem that is often considered unacceptable by biogeographers when constructing scenarios. It consists of considering the absence of a fossil in a given time and place as a usable observation, as was the case in several of the scenarios presented before. These absences are considered to be evidence, or at least indications, of real absences. Although it is true that the statement “the absence of evidence is evidence of absence” is problematic in itself and poses problems when discussing recent periods and very specific locations, it is admissible for much larger scales of time and space (for example both the fossil absence of ostariophysans in the Paleozoic and of cypriniforms in South America correspond to real absences). An innovative quantitative approach that should be applied to a variety of clades is to estimate the probability of the presence of a taxon in fossiliferous layers according to a method used by Friedman et al. [FRI 13] for the cichlids (cf. 4.16.3.3.3 ). This method provides the interval of time that is considered most credible for the appearance of a clade on the basis of the distribution of horizons containing fossils of this clade in a specific area.
How do disjunct ranges occur?
Historical biogeography explains disjunct ranges either by vicariance, that is, the breakage of a formerly continuous range, or by dispersal of individuals across unsuitable areas followed by colonization of a new habitat. In obligate cave species, large and disjunct ranges are especially challenging to explain because animals cannot move beyond the limits of the porous subterranean network within a structural block of carbonate or other cave-bearing rock. Here, the in addition to subterranean dispersal and subterranean vicariance (endogenous processes), processes acting at the surface (exogenous) need to be taken into account. The most important of these are multiple independent invasions of caves by the same ancestral surface species in different geographical areas. Cave invasions do not alter spatial distribution patterns, and are therefore neither vicariant nor dispersalist. Evidence in the form of molecular phylogeography and species delimitation suggests that subterranean dispersal is possible and can produce disjunct ranges, but only within the confines of units of contiguous subterranean habitat. Ranges that encompass larger portions of nonporous ground, or exceed several hundreds of kilometers, either still represent a puzzle or have to be explained by occasional dispersal via the surface during periods of favorable conditions. Vicariance can produce large and highly disjunct ranges of obligate cave species via tectonic plate drifting. This geological process can act endogenously when it disrupts ranges of already formed cave species. It has been well documented at the level of microplate movement, but received inconclusive molecular support at the level of continental plates. Other forms of endogenous vicariance—the breakup of a large, contiguous subterranean range—are very rare. This might be because they are difficult to demonstrate methodologically, or because they require a large and interconnected subterranean range to begin with.
What factors were considered for pre-Quaternary diversification?
However, topography is not the only factor to be considered for pre-Quaternary diversification, as climate did not remain constant (an aspect that has not been considered by most scholars), although its trends were radically different from the Quaternary glacial–interglacial oscillations. During the Cenozoic, global average temperatures experienced a maintained decrease until the initiation of the Quaternary glacial cycles in the Plio–Pleistocene boundary ( Fig. 4.5 ). Maximum temperatures approximately 14°C above the present average were recorded in the Paleocene/Eocene boundary, when the poles were ice-free (“greenhouse Earth”). Antarctic ice started to accumulate near the Eocene/Oligocene boundary when average temperatures were approximately 6°C above present, thus initiating an “icehouse Earth” state. The North Pole began to glaciate near the Miocene/Pliocene boundary, when global temperatures were ~4°C above present temperatures ( Hansen et al., 2013 ). Therefore during the Cenozoic, the Pantepui biota evolved under temperatures significantly warmer than those in the Quaternary, even considering the interglacial warmings. Accordingly, in the early Cenozoic, the higher elevations of the ancient plateau, which were only partially eroded ( Briceño and Schubert, 1990 ), were likely occupied by a biota whose temperature requirements were similar to those existing today in the surrounding lowlands. As the erosion progressed and the plateau was being dissected, the temperature decreased, thus creating progressively smaller, more isolated, and cooler highland habitats. This would have favored vicariance and extinction, as proposed by the LWH, but also long-distance colonization by species from climatically similar environments (notably from the Andes), as contended by the DDT. In addition, these proto-Guiana Highlands would have acted as “species pumps” ( Rull, 2005) for the lowlands by the downward migration of species from the formerly warmer climates due to the temperature decrease. Effective upward migration, as proposed by the CCT, is not supported due to the decreasing temperature trend. Therefore during pre-Quaternary times, the gene flow among the tepuian summits would have been restricted to the eventual jump dispersal events. The combination of progressive reduction, topographical isolation, and cooling of the tepuian summits during the Cenozoic, and their eventual evolutionary consequences, is called here the Cenozoic Isolation–Cooling Hypothesis (ICH) ( Fig. 4.6 ).
Which taxa show austral distribution patterns?
Many other taxa that show austral distribution patterns, especially subclades in the plant families Asteraceae, Aizoaceae, Apiaceae, Boraginaceae, Caryophyllaceae, Fabaceae, Gnetaceae, Orchidaceae, Poaceae, and Plantaginaceae, have been estimated to be too young to have been involved in any Gondwanan vicariance events and their trans-oceanic disjunctions should be attributed to long-distance dispersal, not vicariance ( Crisp et al., 2009, and references therein).
Why is upward migration not supported?
Effective upward migration, as proposed by the CCT, is not supported due to the decreasing temperature trend. Therefore during pre-Quaternary times, the gene flow among the tepuian summits would have been restricted to the eventual jump dispersal events.
How does vicariance relate to freshwater fish?
Too often, the concept of vicariance relies only on spatial relationships between geographical zones occupied by the organisms. It takes physical surfaces into account without always considering the environmental conditions that characterize them. With freshwater fishes, however, it is likely that the distribution areas were primarily shaped by environmental and climactic forces rather than just being constrained by marine barriers. This situation is ancient and can already be observed during the Triassic on Pangaea, as Schaeffer noted in 1984 [SCH 84] for the redfieldiiforms. The areas of distribution clades identified in the Triassic correspond to surfaces situated along the same general latitude. It should be noted that for the most part, these distributions correspond to the wettest zones on Pangaea, according to a rainfall map ( Figure 4.2 ). Then, during the fragmentation of the supercontinent, the distributions of the clades continue to be situated on the same general latitudes, which, when they break apart, are at the origin of the vicariant events ( Figure 4.2 ).
What is vicariance associated with?
Vicariance associated with tectonic activity and “soft vicariant” events associated with climate and sea-level change, repeated at intervals through the Miocene, Pliocene, and the Quaternary, seem to have resulted in significant speciation on the North West Shelf manifest today in allopatric populations and sister species and subspecies on the shelf and adjacent bioregions. This applies to benthic shelf and shore species but not to the faunas of the offshore coral reefs.
Why is vicariance necessary for biogeographical analysis?
The process of vicariance is the reasonable starting hypothesis for all biogeographical analyses explaining a disjointed distribution because it involves the least amount of assumptions. However, when studying a biogeographical scenario, it often appears that the initial hypothesis is not supported by the data, whether the data come from phylogenetic analyses or paleontological occurrences. Therefore, as we observed previously, including dispersal events is necessary for explaining several distribution patterns, even for ancient clades like the osteoglossomorphs. Including dispersal events when building paleobiogeographical scenarios is often considered to be a methodological weakness because these events cannot be directly observed in the fossil record. For primary freshwater fishes, dispersals across marine barriers involved exceptional phenomena such as displacements on “freshwater rafts”, very strong discharges of freshwater by large rivers or other extraordinary events (transport by other organisms, tornadoes, etc.). These rare events are not impossible throughout geological time, but they are indemonstrable and are therefore to be avoided during paleobiogeographical reconstructions. There is also another methodological problem that is often considered unacceptable by biogeographers when constructing scenarios. It consists of considering the absence of a fossil in a given time and place as a usable observation, as was the case in several of the scenarios presented before. These absences are considered to be evidence, or at least indications, of real absences. Although it is true that the statement “the absence of evidence is evidence of absence” is problematic in itself and poses problems when discussing recent periods and very specific locations, it is admissible for much larger scales of time and space (for example both the fossil absence of ostariophysans in the Paleozoic and of cypriniforms in South America correspond to real absences). An innovative quantitative approach that should be applied to a variety of clades is to estimate the probability of the presence of a taxon in fossiliferous layers according to a method used by Friedman et al. [FRI 13] for the cichlids (cf. 4.16.3.3.3 ). This method provides the interval of time that is considered most credible for the appearance of a clade on the basis of the distribution of horizons containing fossils of this clade in a specific area.
How do disjunct ranges occur?
Historical biogeography explains disjunct ranges either by vicariance, that is, the breakage of a formerly continuous range, or by dispersal of individuals across unsuitable areas followed by colonization of a new habitat. In obligate cave species, large and disjunct ranges are especially challenging to explain because animals cannot move beyond the limits of the porous subterranean network within a structural block of carbonate or other cave-bearing rock. Here, the in addition to subterranean dispersal and subterranean vicariance (endogenous processes), processes acting at the surface (exogenous) need to be taken into account. The most important of these are multiple independent invasions of caves by the same ancestral surface species in different geographical areas. Cave invasions do not alter spatial distribution patterns, and are therefore neither vicariant nor dispersalist. Evidence in the form of molecular phylogeography and species delimitation suggests that subterranean dispersal is possible and can produce disjunct ranges, but only within the confines of units of contiguous subterranean habitat. Ranges that encompass larger portions of nonporous ground, or exceed several hundreds of kilometers, either still represent a puzzle or have to be explained by occasional dispersal via the surface during periods of favorable conditions. Vicariance can produce large and highly disjunct ranges of obligate cave species via tectonic plate drifting. This geological process can act endogenously when it disrupts ranges of already formed cave species. It has been well documented at the level of microplate movement, but received inconclusive molecular support at the level of continental plates. Other forms of endogenous vicariance—the breakup of a large, contiguous subterranean range—are very rare. This might be because they are difficult to demonstrate methodologically, or because they require a large and interconnected subterranean range to begin with.
What factors were considered for pre-Quaternary diversification?
However, topography is not the only factor to be considered for pre-Quaternary diversification, as climate did not remain constant (an aspect that has not been considered by most scholars), although its trends were radically different from the Quaternary glacial–interglacial oscillations. During the Cenozoic, global average temperatures experienced a maintained decrease until the initiation of the Quaternary glacial cycles in the Plio–Pleistocene boundary ( Fig. 4.5 ). Maximum temperatures approximately 14°C above the present average were recorded in the Paleocene/Eocene boundary, when the poles were ice-free (“greenhouse Earth”). Antarctic ice started to accumulate near the Eocene/Oligocene boundary when average temperatures were approximately 6°C above present, thus initiating an “icehouse Earth” state. The North Pole began to glaciate near the Miocene/Pliocene boundary, when global temperatures were ~4°C above present temperatures ( Hansen et al., 2013 ). Therefore during the Cenozoic, the Pantepui biota evolved under temperatures significantly warmer than those in the Quaternary, even considering the interglacial warmings. Accordingly, in the early Cenozoic, the higher elevations of the ancient plateau, which were only partially eroded ( Briceño and Schubert, 1990 ), were likely occupied by a biota whose temperature requirements were similar to those existing today in the surrounding lowlands. As the erosion progressed and the plateau was being dissected, the temperature decreased, thus creating progressively smaller, more isolated, and cooler highland habitats. This would have favored vicariance and extinction, as proposed by the LWH, but also long-distance colonization by species from climatically similar environments (notably from the Andes), as contended by the DDT. In addition, these proto-Guiana Highlands would have acted as “species pumps” ( Rull, 2005) for the lowlands by the downward migration of species from the formerly warmer climates due to the temperature decrease. Effective upward migration, as proposed by the CCT, is not supported due to the decreasing temperature trend. Therefore during pre-Quaternary times, the gene flow among the tepuian summits would have been restricted to the eventual jump dispersal events. The combination of progressive reduction, topographical isolation, and cooling of the tepuian summits during the Cenozoic, and their eventual evolutionary consequences, is called here the Cenozoic Isolation–Cooling Hypothesis (ICH) ( Fig. 4.6 ).
Which taxa show austral distribution patterns?
Many other taxa that show austral distribution patterns, especially subclades in the plant families Asteraceae, Aizoaceae, Apiaceae, Boraginaceae, Caryophyllaceae, Fabaceae, Gnetaceae, Orchidaceae, Poaceae, and Plantaginaceae, have been estimated to be too young to have been involved in any Gondwanan vicariance events and their trans-oceanic disjunctions should be attributed to long-distance dispersal, not vicariance ( Crisp et al., 2009, and references therein).
Why is upward migration not supported?
Effective upward migration, as proposed by the CCT, is not supported due to the decreasing temperature trend. Therefore during pre-Quaternary times, the gene flow among the tepuian summits would have been restricted to the eventual jump dispersal events.