4.2 Article

Testing Hypotheses of Pleistocene Population History Using Coalescent Simulations: Refugial Isolation and Secondary Contact in Pseudepidalea raddei (Amphibia: Bufonidae)

Journal

ASIAN HERPETOLOGICAL RESEARCH
Volume 3, Issue 2, Pages 103-113

Publisher

SCIENCE PRESS
DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1245.2012.00103

Keywords

Mongolian toad; Pleistocene refugia; phylogeography; biogeography

Categories

Funding

  1. Director Foundation of Experimental Centre, Shenyang Normal University [Syzx1104]
  2. Chinese Academy of Sciences
  3. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada [A3148]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The impact of the Quaternary glaciation on eastern China's local fauna and flora is a topic of considerable interest. We use mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequences and coalescent simulations to test two general biogeographic hypotheses related to the effect of the Pleistocene climatic fluctuations on a widespread, eastern Chinese amphibian, Pseudepidalea raddei. Genealogical reconstructions are made and they detect major western and eastern lineages, which overlap in northwestern China, and possibly indicate the secondary contact of the populations that had entered the region from separate glacial refugia. Coalescent tests rejected alternative hypotheses of fragmentation of either a widespread ancestor or panmixia. The tests instead supported the hypothesis of geographic isolation and a remarkable dispersal pattern in one of the lineages. Though the Pleistocene climatic events are known to have affected the historical distributions and intra-specific divergence of Chinese squamates, coalescent and non-coalescent demographic analyses indicated that the toad P raddei was not adversely affected by glacial cycling. Presumably, an increase in the amount of climatically mild habitats in East Asia is due to the development of monsoons since the Mid-late Pleistocene is responsible for the relatively mild effects.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available