4.8 Review

Giant Pandas Are Not an Evolutionary cul-de-sac: Evidence from Multidisciplinary Research

期刊

MOLECULAR BIOLOGY AND EVOLUTION
卷 32, 期 1, 页码 4-12

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/molbev/msu278

关键词

adaptation; diet specialization; evolutionary dead-end; genetics; giant panda

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31230011, 31270418]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The giant panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca) is one of the world's most endangered mammals and remains threatened by environmental and anthropogenic pressure. It is commonly argued that giant pandas are an evolutionary cul-de-sac because of their specialized bamboo diet, phylogenetic changes in body size, small population, low genetic diversity, and low reproductive rate. This notion is incorrect, arose from a poor understanding or appreciation of giant panda biology, and is in need of correction. In this review, we summarize research across morphology, ecology, and genetics to dispel the idea, once and for all, that giant pandas are evolutionary dead-end. The latest and most advanced research shows that giant pandas are successful animals highly adapted to a specialized bamboo diet via morphological, ecological, and genetic adaptations and coadaptation of gut microbiota. We also debunk misconceptions around population size, population growth rate, and genetic variation. During their evolutionary history spanning 8 My, giant pandas have survived diet specialization, massive bamboo flowering and die off, and rapid climate oscillations. Now, they are suffering from enormous human interference. Fortunately, continued conservation effort is greatly reducing impacts from anthropogenic interference and allowing giant panda populations and habitat to recover. Previous ideas of a giant panda evolutionary cul-de-sac resulted from an unsystematic and unsophisticated understanding of their biology and it is time to shed this baggage and focus on the survival and maintenance of this high-profile species.

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

4.8
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