4.7 Article

The evolution of north-east Atlantic gadfly petrels using statistical phylogeography

期刊

MOLECULAR ECOLOGY
卷 22, 期 2, 页码 495-507

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/mec.12119

关键词

intron; mitochondrial DNA; petrel; procellariiformes; seabird

资金

  1. Consortium National de Recherche en Genomique
  2. 'Service de Systematique Moleculaire' of the Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle in Paris [CNRS UMS 2700]
  3. Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovacion from Spain
  4. Fondos FEDER [CGL2009-11278/BOS]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Macaronesia (north-east Atlantic archipelagos) has been host to complex patterns of colonization and differentiation in many groups of organisms including seabirds such as gadfly petrels (genus Pterodroma). Considering the subspecies of widely distributed soft-plumaged petrel for many years, the taxonomic status of the three gadfly petrel taxa breeding in Macaronesia is not yet settled, some authors advocating the presence of three, two or one species. These birds have already been the subject of genetic studies with only one mtDNA gene and relatively modest sample sizes. In this study, using a total of five genes (two mitochondrial genes and three nuclear introns), we investigated the population and phylogeographical histories of petrel populations breeding on Madeira and Cape Verde archipelagos. Despite confirming complete lineage sorting with mtDNA, analyses with nucDNA failed to reveal any population structuring and Isolation with Migration analysis revealed the absence of gene flow during the differentiation process of these populations. It appears that the three populations diverged in the late Pleistocene in the last 150 000 years, that is 10 times more recently than previous estimates based solely on one mtDNA gene. Finally, our results suggest that the Madeira petrel population is ancestral rather than that from Cape Verde. This study strongly advocates the use of nuclear loci in addition to mtDNA in demographical and phylogeographical history studies.

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