4.7 Article

Discordant patterns of evolutionary differentiation in two Neotropical treefrogs

期刊

MOLECULAR ECOLOGY
卷 18, 期 7, 页码 1375-1395

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL PUBLISHING, INC
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2009.04126.x

关键词

Agalychnis; biogeography; colour pattern polymorphisms; Dendropsophus; microsatellites; population genetics

资金

  1. National Science Foundation (NSF) [DEB-0542848]
  2. NSF Doctoral Dissertation Enhancement [DEB-0506043]
  3. Tinker Foundation
  4. Cornell University Department of Ecology and Evolutionary

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Comparative studies of codistributed taxa test the degree to which historical processes have shaped contemporary population structure. Discordant patterns of lineage divergence among taxa indicate that species differ in their response to common historical processes. The complex geologic landscape of the Isthmus of Central America provides an ideal setting to test the effects of vicariance and other biogeographic factors on population history. We compared divergence patterns between two codistributed Neotropical frogs (Dendropsophus ebraccatus and Agalychnis callidryas) that exhibit colour pattern polymorphisms among populations, and found significant differences between them in phenotypic and genetic divergence among populations. Colour pattern in D. ebraccatus did not vary with genetic or geographic distance, while colour pattern co-varied with patterns of gene flow in A. callidryas. In addition, we detected significant species differences in the phylogenetic history of populations, gene flow among them, and the extent to which historical diversification and recent gene flow have been restricted by five biogeographic barriers in Costa Rica and Panama. We inferred that alternate microevolutionary processes explain the unique patterns of diversification in each taxon. Our study underscores how differences in selective regimes and species-typical ecological and life-history traits maintain spatial patterns of diversification.

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