4.7 Article

Multilocus tests of Pleistocene refugia and ancient divergence in a pair of Atlantic Forest antbirds (Myrmeciza)

期刊

MOLECULAR ECOLOGY
卷 22, 期 15, 页码 3996-4013

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/mec.12361

关键词

anonymous loci; Atlantic Forest; multilocus phylogeography; refugia theory

资金

  1. FAPESP
  2. CNPq
  3. CAPES
  4. NSF

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Atlantic Forest (AF) harbours one of the most diverse vertebrate faunas of the world, including 199 endemic species of birds. Understanding the evolutionary processes behind such diversity has become the focus of many recent, primarily single locus, phylogeographic studies. These studies suggest that isolation in forest refugia may have been a major mechanism promoting diversification, although there is also support for a role of riverine and geotectonic barriers, two sets of hypotheses that can best be tested with multilocus data. Here we combined multilocus data (one mtDNA marker and eight anonymous nuclear loci) from two species of parapatric antbirds, Myrmeciza loricata and M. squamosa, and Approximate Bayesian Computation to determine whether isolation in refugia explains current patterns of genetic variation and their status as independent evolutionary units. Patterns of population structure, differences in intraspecific levels of divergence and coalescent estimates of historical demography fit the predictions of a recently proposed model of refuge isolation in which climatic stability in the northern AF sustains higher diversity and demographic stability than in the southern AF. However, a pre-Pleistocene divergence associated with their abutting range limits in a region of past tectonic activity also suggests a role for rivers or geotectonic barriers. Little or no gene flow between these species suggests the development of reproductive barriers or competitive exclusion. Our results suggests that limited marker sampling in recent AF studies may compromise estimates of divergence times and historical demography, and we discuss the effects of such sampling on this and other 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