4.4 Article

Phylogeography and historical demography of the neotropical stingless bee Melipona quadrifasciata (Hymenoptera, Apidae): incongruence between morphology and mitochondrial DNA

Journal

APIDOLOGIE
Volume 41, Issue 5, Pages 534-547

Publisher

SPRINGER FRANCE
DOI: 10.1051/apido/2010001

Keywords

biogeography; coalescence; tergal stripes; Melipona quadrifasciata; subspecies

Categories

Funding

  1. CNPq
  2. PROBIO
  3. FAPEMIG

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The stingless bees are among the most abundant and ecologically important social invertebrates in tropical communities. The Neotropical stingless bee Melipona quadrifasciata has two subspecies: M. quadrifasciata quadrifasciata and M. quadrifasciata anthidioides. The main difference between subspecies are the yellow metassomal stripes, which are continuous in M. q. quadrifasciata and discontinuous in M. q. anthidioides. Recently, two populations were described with continuous stripes and inhabiting clearly disjunct areas in relation to M. q. quadrifasciata. We sequenced 852 bp of the mtDNA COI gene from 145 colonies from 56 localities, and for the first time performed a detailed phylogeographic study of a neotropical stingless bee. Phylogenetic analyses revealed the existence of two clades exhibiting a south to north distribution: southern populations comprise the subspecies M. q. quadrifasciata, and northern populations are composed of M. q. anthidioides and two disjunct populations with continuous stripes. The divergence time of these two phylogroups was estimated between 0.233 and 0.840 million years ago in the Pleistocene, a period of climatic changes and geomorphological alterations in the Neotropical region. No evidence of genetic structure in relation to the tergal stripes was found, indicating that the morphological trait regarding the pattern of stripes on tergites is not an accurate diagnostic for the subspecies of M. quadrifasciata.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available