4.7 Article

Genome divergence and diversification within a geographic mosaic of coevolution

Journal

MOLECULAR ECOLOGY
Volume 25, Issue 22, Pages 5705-5718

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/mec.13825

Keywords

coevolution; divergent selection; ecological speciation; genetic differentiation; Loxia; population genomics

Funding

  1. NSF
  2. Robert B. Berry Chair
  3. UNR Start-Up Funds

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Despite substantial interest in coevolution's role in diversification, examples of coevolution contributing to speciation have been elusive. Here, we build upon past studies that have shown both coevolution between South Hills crossbills and lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta), and high levels of reproductive isolation between South Hills crossbills and other ecotypes in the North American red crossbill (Loxia curvirostra) complex. We used genotyping by sequencing to generate population genomic data and applied phylogenetic and population genetic analyses to characterize the genetic structure within and among nine of the ecotypes. Although genome-wide divergence was slight between ecotypes (F-ST = 0.011-0.035), we found evidence of relative genetic differentiation (as measured by F-ST) between and genetic cohesiveness within many of them. As expected for nomadic and opportunistic breeders, we detected no evidence of isolation by distance. The one sedentary ecotype, the South Hills crossbill, was genetically most distinct because of elevated divergence at a small number of loci rather than pronounced overall genome-wide divergence. These findings suggest that mechanisms related to recent local coevolution between South Hills crossbills and lodgepole pine (e.g. strong resource-based density dependence limiting gene flow) have been associated with genome divergence in the face of gene flow. Our results further characterize a striking example of coevolution driving speciation within perhaps as little as 6000 years.

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