4.7 Review

Sun skink landscape genomics: assessing the roles of micro-evolutionary processes in shaping genetic and phenotypic diversity across a heterogeneous and fragmented landscape

期刊

MOLECULAR ECOLOGY
卷 24, 期 8, 页码 1696-1712

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/mec.13151

关键词

F-ST-P-ST comparisons; gene flow; ocean channels; population differentiation; RAD-seq

资金

  1. KU Biodiversity Institute (Leaman Harris Biodiversity Scholarship Fund)
  2. NSF [DEB 0743491]
  3. Fulbright Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Incorporating genomic data sets into landscape genetic analyses allows for powerful insights into population genetics, explicitly geographical correlates of selection, and morphological diversification of organisms across the geographical template. Here, we utilize an integrative approach to examine gene flow and detect selection, and we relate these processes to genetic and phenotypic population differentiation across South-East Asia in the common sun skink, Eutropis multifasciata. We quantify the relative effects of geographic and ecological isolation in this system and find elevated genetic differentiation between populations from island archipelagos compared to those on the adjacent South-East Asian continent, which is consistent with expectations concerning landscape fragmentation in island archipelagos. We also identify a pattern of isolation by distance, but find no substantial effect of ecological/environmental variables on genetic differentiation. To assess whether morphological conservatism in skinks may result from stabilizing selection on morphological traits, we perform F-ST-P-ST comparisons, but observe that results are highly dependent on the method of comparison. Taken together, this work provides novel insights into the manner by which micro-evolutionary processes may impact macro-evolutionary scale biodiversity patterns across diverse landscapes, and provide genomewide confirmation of classic predictions from biogeographical and landscape ecological theory.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据