4.3 Article

Using haplotype networks, estimation of gene flow and phenotypic characters to understand species delimitation in fungi of a predominantly Antarctic Usnea group (Ascomycota, Parmeliaceae)

Journal

ORGANISMS DIVERSITY & EVOLUTION
Volume 12, Issue 1, Pages 17-37

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s13127-011-0066-y

Keywords

Lichens; Usnea; Species delimitation; Cohesion species

Funding

  1. Women's Board of the Field Museum in Chicago
  2. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG)
  3. National Science Foundation [DEB-0949147]
  4. DAAD (German Exchange Service)
  5. Women's Board of the Field Museum
  6. Division Of Environmental Biology
  7. Direct For Biological Sciences [0949147] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Species delimitations in the predominantly Antarctic and South American group of neuropogonoid species of the lichen-forming fungal genus Usnea are poorly understood. Morphological variability has been interpreted as a result of harsh ecological conditions, but preliminary molecular data have led to doubts about the current species delimitations in these lichenized fungi. We examined species boundaries using a phylogenetic approach and a cohesion species recognition method generating haplotype networks and looking at associations of phenotypic characters with clades found in the networks. In addition, we estimated gene flow among detected clades and currently circumscribed species. We identified several clades that were significantly associated with phenotypic characters, but did not necessarily agree with current species circumscriptions. In one case (U. aurantiaco-atra/ U. antarctica), network analysis and the estimation of gene flow provided no evidence of distinct species. The distinctness of another species pair (U. subantarctica/ U. trachycarpa) remains dubious, showing evidence for gene flow among currently accepted species.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available