4.7 Article

Molecular dating and biogeography of fig-pollinating wasps

期刊

MOLECULAR PHYLOGENETICS AND EVOLUTION
卷 52, 期 3, 页码 715-726

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ympev.2009.05.028

关键词

Agaonidae; Bayesian molecular clock; Divergence times; Dominican amber; Ficus; Plant-insect interactions

资金

  1. NERC (UK)
  2. Natural Environment Research Council [NE/C511264/1, NE/C511305/1, NE/C511264/2] Funding Source: researchfish
  3. Direct For Biological Sciences
  4. Division Of Environmental Biology [0816865] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Figs and fig-pollinating wasps are obligate mutualists that have coevolved for over 60 million years. But when and where did pollinating fig wasps (Agaonidae) originate? Some studies suggest that agaonids arose in the Late Cretaceous and the current distribution of fig-wasp faunas can be explained by the break-up of the Gondwanan landmass. However, recent molecular-dating studies suggest divergence time estimates that are inconsistent with the Gondwanan vicariance hypothesis and imply that long distance oceanic dispersal could have been an important process for explaining the current distribution of both figs and fig wasps. Here, we use a combination of phylogenetic and biogeographical data to infer the age, the major period of diversification, and the geographic origin of pollinating fig wasps. Age estimates ranged widely depending on the molecular-dating method used and even when using the same method but with slightly different constraints, making it difficult to assess with certainty a Gondwanan origin of agaonids. The reconstruction of ancestral areas suggests that the most recent common ancestor of all extant fig-pollinating wasps was most likely Asian, although a southern Gondwana origin cannot be rejected. Our analysis also suggests that dispersal has played a more important role in the development of the fig-wasp biota than previously assumed. (C) 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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