Environmental determinism and not interspecific competition drives morphological variability in Australasian warblers (Acanthizidae)

摘要

Interspecific competition is thought to play a key role in determining the coexistence of closely related species within adaptive radiations. Competition for ecological resources can lead to different outcomes from character displacement to, ultimately, competitive exclusion. Accordingly, divergent natural selection should disfavor those species that are the most similar to their competitor in resource use, thereby increasing morphological disparity. Here, we examined ecomorphological variability within an Australo‐Papuan bird radiation, the Acanthizidae, which include both allopatric and sympatric complexes. In addition, we investigated whether morphological similarities between species are related to environmental factors at fine scale (foraging niche) and/or large scale (climate). Contrary to that predicted by the competition hypothesis, we did not find a significant correlation between the morphological similarities found between species and their degree of range overlap. Comparative modeling based on both a priori and data‐driven identification of selective regimes suggested that foraging niche is a poor predictor of morphological variability in acanthizids. By contrast, our results indicate that climatic conditions were an important factor in the formation of morphological variation. We found a significant negative correlation between species scores for PC1 (positively associated to tarsus length and tail length) and both temperature and precipitation, whereas PC2 (positively associated to bill length and wing length) correlated positively with precipitation. In addition, we found that species inhabiting the same region are closer to each other in morphospace than to species outside that region regardless of genus to which they belong or its foraging strategy. Our results indicate that the conservative body form of acanthizids is one that can work under a wide variety of environments (an all‐purpose morphology), and the observed interspecific similarity is probably driven by the common response to environment.