Evolutionary Ecology

, Volume 26, Issue 4, pp 1011–1023 | Cite as

Climate and the evolution of serpentine endemism in California

  • Brian L. Anacker
  • Susan P. Harrison
Original Paper


We asked whether evolutionary transitions to serpentine endemism are associated with transitions to more favorable environments. Theory and observation suggest that benign (e.g., high rainfall and less extreme temperatures) climates should favor the evolution of habitat specialism, both because such climates may facilitate persistence of small populations with novel adaptations, and because competition with non-specialists may be stronger in benign climates. Non-climatic factors, such as habitat availability, should also be associated with transitions to habitat specialism. We examined phylogenetic transitions to serpentine endemism in 23 Californian plant taxa. We contrasted transitions from serpentine-intolerant ancestors, where speciation entails novel adaptations to serpentine, with transitions from serpentine-tolerant ancestors, where the formation of a new serpentine-endemic taxon may result from an altered competitive environment. We found that transitions to endemism were strongly associated with transitions to regions with more benign climates, but only in the case of endemics arising from intolerant ancestors. In contrast, transitions to endemism from both types of ancestor were associated with transitions to regions with greater habitat availability. These results are consistent with the expectation that benign climates promote the persistence of small populations with novel adaptations both before and after speciation.


Serpentine Endemism Climate California flora 



We thank Carl Boettiger, Jonathan Davies, and Joshua Viers for discussion and comments on the manuscript.

Supplementary material

10682_2011_9532_MOESM1_ESM.docx (14 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 13 kb)
10682_2011_9532_MOESM2_ESM.docx (50 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 50 kb)
10682_2011_9532_MOESM3_ESM.docx (121 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (DOCX 121 kb)
10682_2011_9532_MOESM4_ESM.doc (196 kb)
Supplementary material 4 (DOC 195 kb)
10682_2011_9532_MOESM5_ESM.docx (69 kb)
Supplementary material 5 (DOCX 68 kb)


  1. Ackerly DD (2003) Community assembly, niche conservatism, and adaptive evolution in changing environments. Int J Plant Sci 164:165–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anacker BL (2011) Phylogenetic patterns of endemism and diversity. In: Harrison SP, Rajakaruna N (eds) Serpentine: the evolution and ecology of a model system. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp 49–70Google Scholar
  3. Anacker BL, Whittall JB, Goldberb EE et al (2011) Origins and consequences of serpentine endemism in the California flora. Evolution 63:365–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Axelrod D (1977) Outline history of California vegetation. In: Barbour M, Major J (eds) Terrestrial vegetation of California. Wiley-Interscience, New York, pp 139–193Google Scholar
  5. Baldwin BG (2005) Origin of the serpentine-endemic herb Layia discoidea from the widespread L. glandulosa (Compositae). Evolution 59:2473–2479PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Brooks RR (1987) Serpentine and its vegetation: a multidisciplinary approach. Dioscorides Press, PortlandGoogle Scholar
  7. Currie D, Mittelbach G, Cornell H et al (2004) Predictions and tests of climate-based hypotheses of broad-scale variation in taxonomic richness. Ecol Lett 7:1121–1134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Daly C, Neilson RP, Phillips DL (1994) A statistical-topographic model for mapping climatological precipitation over mountainous terrain. J Appl Meteorol 3:140–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. De Kok R (2002) Are plant adaptations to growing on serpentine soil rare or common? A few case studies from New Caledonia. Adansonia 24:229–238Google Scholar
  10. Evans M, Hearn D, Hahn W et al (2005) Climate and life-history evolution in evening primroses (Oenothera, Onagraceae): a phylogenetic comparative analysis. Evolution 59:1914–1927PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Fagan W, Aumann C, Kennedy C et al (2005) Rarity, fragmentation, and the scale dependence of extinction risk in desert fishes. Ecology 86:34–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Field R, Hawkins B, Cornell H et al (2009) Spatial species-richness gradients across scales: a meta-analysis. J Biogeogr 36:132–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fjeldsa J, Ehrlich D, Lambin E et al (1997) Are biodiversity “hotspots” correlated with current ecoclimatic stability? A pilot study using the NOAA-AVHRR remote sensing data. Biodiv Conserv 6:401–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Futuyma DJ, Moreno G (1988) The evolution of ecological specialization. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 19:207–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gaston KJ, Blackburn TM (2000) Pattern and process in macroecology. Blackwell, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gentry A (1986) Endemism in tropical versus temperate plant communities. In: Soule M (ed) Conservation biology: the science of scarcity and diversity. Sinauer, Sunderland, pp 153–181Google Scholar
  17. Hall TA (1999) BioEdit: a user-friendly biological sequence alignment editor and analysis.
  18. Harrison SP, Viers JH, Quinn JF (2000) Climatic and spatial patterns of diversity in the serpentine plants of California. Divers Distrib 6:153–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Harrison SP, Safford HD, Grace JB et al (2006) Regional and local species richness in an insular environment: serpentine plants in California. Ecol Monogr 76:41–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Harrison S, Viers J, Thorne J et al (2008) Favorable environments and the persistence of naturally rare species. Conserv Lett 1:65–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hawkins B, Field R, Cornell H et al (2003) Energy, water, and broad-scale geographic patterns of species richness. Ecology 84:3105–3117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jansson R, Dynesius M (2002) The fate of clades in a world of recurrent climatic change: Milankovitch oscillations and evolution. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 33:741–777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jennings C, Strand R (1977) Geologic map of California. California Geologic Data Map Series, Map 2Google Scholar
  24. Jetz W, Rahbek C, Colwell R (2004) The coincidence of rarity and richness and the potential signature of history in centres of endemism. Ecol Lett 7:1180–1191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kay KM, Ward KL, Watt LR et al (2011) Plant speciation. In: Harrison SP, Rajakaruna N (eds) Serpentine: the evolution and ecology of a model system. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp 71–96Google Scholar
  26. Kruckeberg AR (1954) The ecology of serpentine soils. III. Plant species in relation to serpentine soils. Ecology 35:267–274Google Scholar
  27. Kruckeberg AR (1984) California serpentines: flora, vegetation, geology, soils and management problems. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  28. Kruckeberg AR (1991) An essay: geoedaphics and island biogeography for vascular plants. Aliso 13:225–238Google Scholar
  29. Macnair MR, Gardner M (1998) The evolution of edaphic endemics. In: Howard D, Berlocher S (eds) Endless forms: species and speciation. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 157–171Google Scholar
  30. Mayer MS, Soltis PS (1994) The evolution of serpentine endemics: a chloroplast DNA phylogeny of the Streptanthus glandulosus complex (Cruciferae). Syst Botany 19:557–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mayer MS, Soltis PS, Soltis DE (1994) The evolution of the Streptanthus glandulosus complex (Cruciferae): genetic divergence and gene flow in serpentine endemics. Am J Bot 81:1288–1299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Myers N, Mittermeier R, Mittermeier C et al (2000) Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403:853–858PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Purvis A, Rambaut A (1995) Comparative analysis by independent contrasts (CAIC): an apple macintosh application for analysing comparative data. Bioinformatics 11:247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rambaut A, Charleston M (2001) TreeEdit: phylogenetic tree editor v. 1.0 alpha 10. University of OxfordGoogle Scholar
  35. Raven PH, Axelrod DI (1978) Origin and relationships of the California Flora. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  36. Ronquist F, Huelsenbeck JP (2003) MrBayes 3: Bayesian phylogenetic inference under mixed models. Bioinformatics 19:1572–1574PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Safford HD, Viers JH, Harrison SP (2005) Serpentine endemism in the California flora: a database of serpentine affinity. Madroño 52:222–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sharitz R, McCormick J (1973) Population dynamics of two competing annual plant species. Ecology 54:723–740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Stebbins GL (1942) The genetic approach to problems of rare and endemic species. Madrono 6:241–272Google Scholar
  40. Stebbins GL, Major J (1965) Endemism and speciation in the California flora. Ecol Monogr 35:1–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tansley A (1917) On competition between Galium saxatile L. (G. hercynicum Weig.) and Galium sylvestre Poll. (G. asperum Schreb.) on different types of soil. The Journal of Ecology 5:173–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Viers J, Thorne J, Quinn J (2006) CalJep: a spatial distribution database of CalFlora and Jepson plant species. San Francisco estuary and watershed science 4Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Environmental Science and PolicyUniversity of California DavisDavisUSA

Personalised recommendations