In biogeography, particularly phytogeography, the nunatak hypothesis about the origin of a biota in formerly glaciated areas is the idea that some or many species have survived the inhospitable period on icefree land such as nunataks.[1] Its antithesis is the tabula rasa hypothesis, which posits that all species have immigrated into completely denuded land after the retreat of glaciers.[2]

By the mid-20th Century, the nunatak hypothesis was widely accepted among biologists working on the floras of Greenland and Scandinavia.[3] However, while modern geology has established the presence of ice-free areas during the last glacial maximum in both Greenland and Scandinavia, molecular techniques have revealed limited between-region genetic differentiation in many Arctic taxa, strongly suggesting a general capacity for long-distance dispersal among polar organisms.[4] This does not directly disprove glacial survival. But it makes it less necessary as an explanation. Moreover, populations that survived on icefree land have probably in most cases been genetically flooded by postglacial immigrants.

References

edit
  1. ^ Dahl, Eilif (1987). "The Nunatak Theory Reconsidered". Ecological Bulletins (38): 77–94. ISSN 0346-6868. JSTOR 20112974.
  2. ^ Segarra-Moragues, José Gabriel; Palop-Esteban, Marisa; González-Candelas, Fernando; Catalán, Pilar (2007). "Nunatak Survival vs. tabula rasa in the Central Pyrenees: A Study on the Endemic Plant Species Borderea pyrenaica (Dioscoreaceae)". Journal of Biogeography. 34 (11): 1893–1906. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2699.2007.01740.x. ISSN 0305-0270. JSTOR 4640655. S2CID 84256685.
  3. ^ Ægisdóttir, Hafdís Hanna; Þórhallsdóttir, Þóra Ellen (2004). "Theories on migration and history of the North-Atlantic flora: A review". Jökull: The Icelandic Journal of Earth Sciences (54): 1–15. ISSN 0449-0576. Retrieved 2020-08-28 – via ResearchGate.
  4. ^ Birks, H. J. B. (1993-12-15). "Is the hypothesis of survival on glacial nunataks necessary to explain the present-day distributions of Norwegian mountain plants?". Phytocoenologia. 23 (1–4): 399–426. doi:10.1127/phyto/23/1993/399.