4.2 Review

Natural selection in the water: freshwater invasion and adaptation by water colour in the Amazonian pufferfish

期刊

JOURNAL OF EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY
卷 25, 期 7, 页码 1305-1320

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2012.02514.x

关键词

adaptive divergence; Amazonia; Genome scan; phylogeography; population genomics

资金

  1. Australian Research Council (ARC) [DP0556496]
  2. Macquarie University
  3. Brazilian National Council of Research and Technology CNPq-SEAP [408782/2006-4]
  4. Australian Research Council [DP0556496] Funding Source: Australian Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Natural selection and ecological adaptation are ultimately responsible for much of the origin of biodiversity. Yet, the identification of divergent natural selection has been hindered by the spatial complexity of natural systems, the difficulty in identifying genes under selection and their relationship to environment, and the confounding genomic effects of time. Here, we employed genome scans, population genetics and sequence-based phylogeographic methods to identify divergent natural selection on population boundaries in a freshwater invader, the Amazonian pufferfish, Colomesus asellus. We sampled extensively across markedly different hydrochemical settings in the Amazon Basin and use water colour to test for ecological isolation. We distinguish the relative contribution of natural selection across hydrochemical gradients from biogeographic history in the origin and maintenance of population boundaries within a single species and across a complex ecosystem. We show that spatially distinct population structure generated by multiple forces (i.e. water colour and vicariant biogeographic history) can be identified if the confounding effects of genetic drift have not accumulated between selective populations. Our findings have repercussions for studies aimed at identifying engines of biodiversity and assessing their temporal progression in understudied and ecologically complex tropical ecosystems.

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

4.2
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