4.7 Article

Radiation of European Eubosmina (Cladocera) from Bosmina (E.) longispina-concordance of multipopulation molecular data with paleolimnology

Journal

LIMNOLOGY AND OCEANOGRAPHY
Volume 56, Issue 2, Pages 440-450

Publisher

AMER SOC LIMNOLOGY OCEANOGRAPHY
DOI: 10.4319/lo.2011.56.2.0440

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation (Division of Environmental Biology) [0331095]
  2. Czech Ministry of Education [MSM0021620828, 1867/41-202920]
  3. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency [dnr 3094664-06 Nv]
  4. Directorate For Geosciences
  5. Office of Polar Programs (OPP) [1023334] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  6. Division Of Environmental Biology
  7. Direct For Biological Sciences [0331095] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We investigated the evolutionary radiation of a freshwater zooplankter that possesses a mixed breeding system and a detailed, dated, subfossil record. We estimated the phylogenetic relationships among the proposed species with complete nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide dehydrogenase subunit 2 mitochondrial gene sequence variation. We sequenced 374 Eubosmina specimens representing 10 out of 11 distinct morphospecies from 86 water bodies in three separate Holarctic regions. As expected for a Holocene radiation, there was a lack of monophyly for the proposed species and rare sharing of derived haplotypes among some species. Nevertheless, the proposed species exhibited little or no sharing of mitochondrial deoxyribonucleic acid haplotypes. Moreover, the phylogenetic and haplotype network results revealed a radiation pattern that is concordant with the subfossil record-with an older Bosmina (E.) longispina radiating into several new forms. Our results bolster the subfossil, morphometric, experimental, and within-population genetic evidence that B. (E.) longispina has radiated into several incipient species during the Holocene.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available