4.5 Article

Hybridization in headwater regions, and the role of rivers as drivers of speciation in Amazonian birds

Journal

EVOLUTION
Volume 69, Issue 7, Pages 1823-1834

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/evo.12696

Keywords

biogeography; gene flow; hybrid zone; river barriers

Funding

  1. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada [402013-2011]
  2. UTSC VPR-Research Competitiveness Fund
  3. Mitacs Student Fellowship
  4. FAPESPA [ICAAF 23/2011]
  5. CNPq (INCT em Biodiversidade e Uso da Terra da Amazonia) [574008/2008-0, 471342/2011-4, 310880/2012-2]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Many understory birds and other groups form genetically differentiated subspecies or closely related species on opposite sides of major rivers of Amazonia, but are proposed to come into geographic contact in headwater regions where narrower river widths may present less of a dispersal barrier. Whether such forms hybridize in headwater regions is generally unknown, but has important implications to our understanding of the role of rivers as drivers of speciation. We used a dataset of several thousand single nucleotide polymorphisms to show that seven taxon pairs that differentiate across a major Amazonian river come into geographic contact and hybridize in headwater regions. All taxon pairs possessed hybrids with low numbers of loci in which alleles were inherited from both parental species, suggesting they are backcrossed with parentals, and indicating gene flow between parental populations. Ongoing gene flow challenges rivers as the sole cause of in situ speciation, but is compatible with the view that the wide river courses in the heart of Amazonia may have driven interfluvial divergence during episodes of wet forest retraction away from headwater regions. Taxa as old as 4 Ma in our Amazonian dataset continue to hybridize at contact zones, suggesting reproductive isolation evolves at a slow pace.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available