4.7 Article

Phylogeographic analysis reveals a deep lineage split within North Atlantic Littorina saxatilis

期刊

出版社

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2011.0346

关键词

speciation; phylogeography; glacial refugia; trans-Arctic interchange; cryptic diversity; mitochondrial DNA

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [OCE-0648525, OCE-0727628, OCE-0848345]
  2. Marie Curie Fellowship for Early Stage Research Training
  3. Directorate For Geosciences
  4. Division Of Ocean Sciences [0848345] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Phylogeographic studies provide critical insight into the evolutionary histories of model organisms; yet, to date, range-wide data are lacking for the rough periwinkle Littorina saxatilis, a classic example of marine sympatric speciation. Here, we use mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequence data to demonstrate that L. saxatilis is not monophyletic for this marker, but is composed of two distinct mtDNA lineages (I and II) that are shared with sister species Littorina arcana and Littorina compressa. Bayesian coalescent dating and phylogeographic patterns indicate that both L. saxatilis lineages originated in the eastern North Atlantic, around the British Isles, at approximately 0.64 Ma. Both lineages are now distributed broadly across the eastern, central and western North Atlantic, and show strong phylogeographic structure among regions. The Iberian Peninsula is genetically distinct, suggesting prolonged isolation from northeastern North Atlantic populations. Western North Atlantic populations of L. saxatilis lineages I and II predate the last glacial maximum and have been isolated from eastern North Atlantic populations since that time. This identification of two distinct, broadly distributed mtDNA lineages further complicates observed patterns of repeated incipient ecological speciation in L. saxatilis, because the sympatric origins of distinct ecotype pairs on eastern North Atlantic shores may be confounded by admixture of divergent lineages.

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