4.7 Article

Determinants of echolocation call frequency variation in the Formosan lesser horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus monoceros)

期刊

出版社

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2009.1185

关键词

Chiroptera; acoustic; microsatellites; cultural drift; maternal transmission

资金

  1. Bat Conservation International student scholarship
  2. Royal Society Research Fellowship (UK)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The origin and maintenance of intraspecific variation in vocal signals is important for population divergence and speciation. Where vocalizations are transmitted by vertical cultural inheritance, similarity will reflect co-ancestry, and thus vocal divergence should reflect genetic structure. Horseshoe bats are characterized by echolocation calls dominated by a constant frequency component that is partly determined by maternal imprinting. Although previous studies showed that constant frequency calls are also influenced by some non-genetic factors, it is not known how frequency relates to genetic structure. To test this, we related constant frequency variation to genetic and non-genetic variables in the Formosan lesser horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus monoceros). Recordings of bats from across Taiwan revealed that females called at higher frequencies than males; however, we found no effect of environmental or morphological factors on call frequency. By comparison, variation showed clear population structure, with frequencies lower in the centre and east, and higher in the north and south. Within these regions, frequency divergence was directional and correlated with geographical distance, suggesting that call frequencies are subject to cultural drift. However, microsatellite clustering analysis showed that broad differences in constant frequency among populations corresponded to discontinuities in allele frequencies resulting from vicariant events. Our results provide evidence that the processes shaping genetic subdivision have concomitant consequences for divergence in echolocation call frequency.

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