4.7 Article

No population genetic structure in a widespread aquatic songbird from the Neotropics

期刊

MOLECULAR PHYLOGENETICS AND EVOLUTION
卷 58, 期 3, 页码 540-545

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ympev.2010.12.014

关键词

Andes; Amazonia; Chrysomus icterocephalus; Icteridae; Phylogeography; Yellow-hooded Blackbird

资金

  1. Facultad de Ciencias at Universidad de los Andes
  2. National Science Foundation [DEB-0841729]
  3. Office of Fellowships, Smithsonian Institution

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Neotropical lowland organisms often show marked population genetic structure, suggesting restricted migration among populations. However, most phylogeographic studies have focused on species inhabiting humid forest interior. Little attention has been devoted to the study of species with ecologies conducive to dispersal, such as those of more open and variable environments associated with watercourses. Using mtDNA sequences, we examined patterns of genetic variation in a widely distributed Neotropical songbird of aquatic environments, the Yellow-hooded Blackbird (Icteridae, Chrysomus icterocephalus). In contrast to many forest species, Yellow-hooded Blackbirds showed no detectable genetic structure across their range, which includes lowland populations on both sides of the Andes, much of northeastern South America, Amazonia, as well as a phenotypically distinct highland population in Colombia. A coalescent-based analysis of the species indicated that its effective population size has increased considerably, suggesting a range expansion. Our results support the hypothesis that species occurring in open habitats and tracking temporally dynamic environments should show increased dispersal propensities (hence gene flow) relative to species from closed and more stable environments. The phenotypic and behavioral variation among populations of our study species appears to have arisen recently and perhaps in the face of gene flow. (C) 2010 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