Testing Relationships Between Biotic Components - Evolutionary Biogeography - page 178

landscape (Templeton and Georgiadis 1996) approach to phylogeography.
It is intended to compare phylogeographic structure exhibited by sympatric
species to determine whether they exhibit congruent patterns, geographic-
ally structured by vicariance events (Abogast and Kenagy 2001; Berming-
ham and Moritz 1998; Cunningham and Collins 1998; Riddle and Hafner
2006; Taberlet et al. 1998; Zink 2002). Incongruent patterns may indicate
that the species colonized the area more recently, whereas congruent pat-
terns may suggest a longer history of association of the different species
(Zink 1996). This approach is similar to cladistic biogeography (Lanteri and
Confalonieri 2003; Lieberman 2004; Morrone 2004a; Riddle and Hafner
2006; Santos 2007), so I will not deal with it separately. Some authors have
considered BPA to be an appropriate method for comparative phylogeo-
graphic studies (Taberlet et al. 1998). Others have not used any formal
method for comparison (Costa 2003; Gorog et al. 2004; Mateos 2005;
Morales-Barros et al. 2006; Palma et al. 2005; Perdices and Coelho 2006;
Riddle et al. 2000a, 2000c; Schäuble and Moritz 2001; Steele and Storfer
2007; Weisrock and Janzen 2000). However, the analysis with any cladistic
biogeographic method is possible (Bermingham and Martin 1998; Lapointe
and Rissler 2005).
Component Analysis
This method was proposed by Nelson and Platnick (1981). It solves the
problems derived from redundant distributions, widespread taxa, and miss-
ing areas using assumptions 0, 1, and 2 and then finds the general area
cladogram through the intersection of the sets of resolved area cladograms
(Biondi 1998; Enghoff 1996; Humphries and Parenti 1986; Humphries et al.
1988; Morrone 1997; Morrone and Carpenter 1994; Nelson 1984; Nelson
and Platnick 1981; Page 1988, 1990a; van Veller et al. 2000; Vargas 1992b,
2002). Enghoff (1996) suggested treating widespread taxa under assump-
tion 0 and redundant distributions under assumption 2. The method is illus-
trated in fig. 5.7 , where based on the intersection of the sets of resolved
area cladograms of the taxa analyzed, the general area cladogram (NA (AF
(SA, AUS))) is found. If it is not possible to find a general area cladogram, it
may be possible to find a cladogram shared for some of the sets (Crisci et
al. 1991a, 1991b). If more than one general area cladogram is obtained, it is
possible to build a consensus cladogram (Morrone and Carpenter 1994).