Why so few?

Nobel Prize Women in Science: Their struggles and momentous discoveries (1998). S. Bertsch McGrayne. Carol Publishing Group, 448 pp. $19.95 paper ISBN 0806520256.     

Why are there so few freshwater fish species in most estuaries?

The freshwater fish assemblage in most estuaries is not as species rich as the marine assemblage in the same systems. Coupled with this differential richness is an apparent inability by most freshwater fish species to penetrate estuarine zones that are mesohaline (salinity: 5·0–17·9), polyhaline (salinity: 18·0–29·9) or euhaline (salinity: 30·0–39·9). The reason why mesohaline waters are avoided by most freshwater fishes is difficult to explain from a physiological perspective as many of these species would be isosmotic within this salinity range. Perhaps, a key to the poor penetration of estuarine waters by freshwater taxa is an inability to develop chloride cells in gill filament epithelia, as well as a lack of other osmoregulatory adaptations present in euryhaline fishes. Only a few freshwater fish species, especially some of those belonging to the family Cichlidae, have become fully euryhaline and have successfully occupied a wide range of estuaries, sometimes even dominating in hyperhaline systems (salinity 40+). Indeed, this review found that there are few fish species that can be termed holohaline (i.e. capable of occupying waters with a salinity range of 0–100+) and, of these taxa, there is a disproportionally high number of freshwater species (e.g. Cyprinodon variegatus, Oreochromis mossambicus and Sarotherodon melanotheron). Factors such as increased competition for food and higher predation rates by piscivorous fishes and birds may also play an important role in the low species richness and abundance of freshwater taxa in estuaries. Added to this is the relatively low species richness of freshwater fishes in river catchments when compared with the normally higher diversity of marine fish species for potential estuarine colonization from the adjacent coastal waters. The almost complete absence of freshwater fish larvae from the estuarine ichthyoplankton further reinforces the poor representation of this guild within these systems. An explanation as to why more freshwater fish species have not become euryhaline and occupied a wide range of estuaries similar to their marine counterparts is probably due to a combination of the above described factors, with physiological restrictions pertaining to limited salinity tolerances probably playing the most important role.     

Why are there so few fish in the sea?

The most dramatic gradient in global biodiversity is between marine and terrestrial environments. Terrestrial environments contain approximately 75-85% of all estimated species, but occupy only 30 per cent of the Earth's surface (and only approx. 1-10% by volume), whereas marine environments occupy a larger area and volume, but have a smaller fraction of Earth's estimated diversity. Many hypotheses have been proposed to explain this disparity, but there have been few large-scale quantitative tests. Here, we analyse patterns of diversity in actinopterygian (ray-finned) fishes, the most species-rich clade of marine vertebrates, containing 96 per cent of fish species. Despite the much greater area and productivity of marine environments, actinopterygian richness is similar in freshwater and marine habitats (15 150 versus 14 740 species). Net diversification rates (speciation-extinction) are similar in predominantly freshwater and saltwater clades. Both habitats are dominated by two hyperdiverse but relatively recent clades (Ostariophysi and Percomorpha). Remarkably, trait reconstructions (for both living and fossil taxa) suggest that all extant marine actinopterygians were derived from a freshwater ancestor, indicating a role for ancient extinction in explaining low marine richness. Finally, by analysing an entirely aquatic group, we are able to better sort among potential hypotheses for explaining the paradoxically low diversity of marine environments.     

Biogeographic conundrum: Why so few stream nerite species (Gastropoda: Neritidae) in Australia?

相似文献   

Why are there so few resistance-associated mutations in insecticide target genes?

The genes encoding the three major targets of conventional insecticides are: Rdl, which encodes a gamma-aminobutyric acid receptor subunit (RDL); para, which encodes a voltage-gated sodium channel (PARA); and Ace, which encodes insect acetylcholinesterase (AChE). Interestingly, despite the complexity of the encoded receptors or enzymes, very few amino acid residues are replaced in different resistant insects: one within RDL, two within PARA and three or more within AChE. Here we examine the possible reasons underlying this extreme conservation by looking at the aspects of receptor and/or enzyme function that may constrain replacements to such a limited number of residues.     

Why so few transmission stages? Reproductive restraint by malaria parasites

Vast numbers of malaria parasites exist in a population: perhaps 10(10) in just one vertebrate host. Yet gametocytes, the only stage capable of transmission, usually constitute just a few percent or even less of the circulating parasites. Why? Parasite fitness should be intimately linked with transmission probability and infectiousness rises with gametocyte density. Here, Louise Taylor and Andrew Read propose several testable hypotheses that might explain why natural selection has not favoured variants producing more transmission stages.     

How do so few control so many?

The separation of sister chromatids at the metaphase-to-anaphase transition is triggered by a protease called separase that is activated by the destruction of an inhibitory chaperone (securin). This process is mediated by a ubiquitin protein ligase called the anaphase-promoting complex or cyclosome (APC/C), along with a protein called Cdc20. It is vital that separase not be activated before every single chromosome has been aligned on the mitotic spindle. Kinetochores that have not yet attached to microtubules catalyze the sequestration of Cdc20 by an inhibitor called Mad2. Recent experiments shed important insight into how Mad2 molecules bound to centromeres through their association with a protein called Mad1 might be transferred to Cdc20 and thereby inhibit securin's destruction.     

Ribozymes--why so many, why so few?

The RNA world scenario posits the existence of catalytic and genetic networks whose reactions are catalyzed by RNAs. Substantial progress has been made in recent years in the selection of RNA catalysts by SELEX, thus verifying one prediction of the model. However, many selected catalysts are long molecules, leading to a question of whether they could have been synthesized by a primitive replicator. It is proposed that the efficiency of some small ribozymes may have been augmented by other RNAs acting as transactivators.     

Why are there so many coexisting species of lizards in Australian deserts?

Because Australian skinks of the genus Ctenotus display very high local species richness in arid-zone spinifex grasslands but not in mesic habitats, these lizards have been used as ”model organisms” to ask why ecologically similar taxa coexist under some circumstances but not others. Previous work has involved detailed studies within small areas, and has looked for differences in ecological processes between arid versus mesic habitats. We suggest a radically different explanation for the high species-richness of arid-zone Ctenotus, by shifting attention to a larger spatial scale: the regional species pool. Analyses of the geographic distributions of Ctenotus species confirm that more species coexist at sites in the arid-zone (mean =9.3 species per site) than in other climatic zones (means 2.4–7.6). However, the total number of species occurring within the arid-zone is actually lower, per km² of habitat, than is the case in some other climatic zones. That is, arid-zone Ctenotus show a higher local (alpha) species diversity, but a lower regional (gamma) diversity, than their mesic-habitat congeners. This apparent paradox occurs because most arid-zone species occur over vast areas (mean =1,035,000 km²), whereas congeners from other climatic zones have smaller geographic ranges (200–373,000 km²). The broad distributions of arid-zone taxa reflect the great spatial homogeneity in climatic conditions in this zone. That is, the ”climate spaces” occupied are similar for Ctenotus species from all bioclimatic regions. Thus, a given amount of climatic space translates into a larger geographic distribution (and hence, more sympatry) in the arid-zone than in other areas. In summary, the high number of coexisting Ctenotus species in arid-zone habitats may simply reflect the facts that the arid zone is large (so that many species have evolved therein) and climatically homogeneous (so that any species evolving in that habitat type can disperse very widely, and thus overlap with many other species). Our approach explains much of the variance in local-assemblage species richness from regional to site scales; but explanations invoking biological attributes of the species concerned, the nature of their interactions with other species or with particular resources (such as prey or shelter) may still be significant at microhabitat scales. For lizard communities in Australia, species richness at a site may be determined more by continental biogeography rather than by ecological interactions. Received: 28 June 1999 / Accepted: 14 April 2000     

Why do fish have so few roundworm (nematode) parasites?

Synopsis Although they are the oldest and most diverse members of the subphylum, the fishes have relatively few nematode parasites in comparison with other vertebrate classes. It is hypothesized that this paucity of parasite species has occurred because nematode parasites first evolved in terrestrial hosts and only a few lines of these parasites were able to transfer to fish after the appearance of heteroxeny (use of intermediate hosts) and paratenesis (use of transport hosts). The inability of nematodes to initiate parasitism in aquatic ecosystems restricted fish parasites mainly to forms first adapted to terrestrial vertebrates and at the same time deprived large groups of aquatic invertebrates such as the crustaceans, annelids and molluscs of a nematode parasite fauna.Invited editorial     

Why do mountains support so many species of birds?

Although topographic complexity is often associated with high bird diversity at broad geographic scales, little is known about the relative contributions of geomorphologic heterogeneity and altitudinal climatic gradients found in mountains. We analysed the birds in the western mountains of the New World to examine the two‐fold effect of topography on species richness patterns, using two grains at the intercontinental extent and within temperate and tropical latitudes. Birds were also classified as montane or lowland, based on their overall distributions in the hemisphere. We estimated range in temperature within each cell and the standard deviation in elevation (topographic roughness) based on all pixels within each cell. We used path analysis to test for the independent effects of topographic roughness and temperature range on species richness while controlling for the collinearity between topographic variables. At the intercontinental extent, actual evapotranspiration (AET) was the primary driver of species richness patterns of all species taken together and of lowland species considered separately. In contrast, within‐cell temperature gradients strongly influenced the richness of montane species. Regional partitioning of the data also suggested that range in temperature either by itself or acting in combination with AET had the strongest “effect” on montane bird species richness everywhere. Topographic roughness had weaker “effects” on richness variation throughout, although its positive relationship with richness increased slightly in the tropics. We conclude that bird diversity gradients in mountains primarily reflect local climatic gradients. Widespread (lowland) species and narrow‐ranged (montane) species respond similarly to changes in the environment, differing only in that the richness of lowland species correlates better with broad‐scale climatic effects (AET), whereas mesoscale climatic variation accounts for richness patterns of montane species. Thus, latitudinal and altitudinal gradients in species richness can be explained through similar climatic‐based processes, as has long been argued.     

Why are there so few evolutionary transitions between aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems?

Insects and flowering plants have rarely invaded the sea. Explanations for this have traditionally centered on the unique shortcomings of these groups in the marine environment. We show, however, that transitions among terrestrial, freshwater, and marine environments are infrequent in all major plant and animal clades except tetrapod vertebrates. In general, well-adapted incumbents are at a competitive advantage over would-be invaders from a physically different habitat. Data on the times and places of transition are consistent with our contention that evolutionary transitions among physically different environments are most likely when incumbents in the recipient environment exist in a regime of low-intensity competition and prcdation, as in terrestrial communities of the middle Paleozoic or the land biotas of oceanic islands. Freshwater environments, in which inferred intensities of predation are lower than in most marine and terrestrial environments, offer less biotic resistance to invaders than do communities in the sea or on land. Most invaders respond to novel physical circumstances by shutting down their metabolic machinery, and therefore add to their subordinate status as competitors with active incumbents. Only active tetrapods, particularly those with high and endothermically driven rates of metabolism, have successfully overcome this limitation.     

Why are there so few smart mammals (but so many smart birds)?

The expensive brain hypothesis predicts an interspecific link between relative brain size and life-history pace. Indeed, animals with relatively large brains have reduced rates of growth and reproduction. However, they also have increased total lifespan. Here we show that the reduction in production with increasing brain size is not fully compensated by the increase in lifespan. Consequently, the maximum rate of population increase (rmax) is negatively correlated with brain mass. This result is not due to a confounding effect of body size, indicating that the well-known correlation between rmax and body size is driven by brain size, at least among homeothermic vertebrates. Thus, each lineage faces a 'grey ceiling', i.e. a maximum viable brain size, beyond which rmax is so low that the risk of local or species extinction is very high. We found that the steep decline in rmax with brain size is absent in taxa with allomaternal offspring provisioning, such as cooperatively breeding mammals and most altricial birds. These taxa thus do not face a lineage-specific grey ceiling, which explains the far greater number of independent origins of large brain size in birds than mammals. We also predict that (absolute and relative) brain size is an important predictor of macroevolutionary extinction patterns.