4.2 Article

Consensus between genes and stones in the biogeographic and evolutionary history of Central America

期刊

QUATERNARY RESEARCH
卷 79, 期 3, 页码 311-324

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.yqres.2012.12.007

关键词

Biogeography; Evolutionary history; GABI (Great American Biotic Interchange); Middle America; Population genetics; Phylogeography

资金

  1. Instituto de Ecologia
  2. UNAM
  3. Programa de Apoyo a Proyectos de Investigacion e Innovacion Tecnologica [IN215205-2, IX238004, IN219707]
  4. National Council of Science and Technology [CONACyT 175434]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Results from genetic and geologic studies can be combined to elucidate some general patterns of the biogeographic and evolutionary history of Central America (CA) and of its biota. Based on an ample review of geologic, biogeographic and genetic studies, our aim was to examine how common genetic patterns can be linked with geologic processes. Considering information about geologic and tectonic evolution of CA, we subdivided the region into four tectonic blocks: Maya, Chortis, Chorotega and Choco. Species exchange between North/South America and CA encompasses three events: a first migration during the Late Cretaceous-Early Paleocene, a second through a terrestrial corridor preceding the formation of the Isthmus of Panama (IP), and the third involving a major dispersion through the IP. Such events caused similar genetic differentiation patterns and left a signature on the diversification of extant taxa, which we propose as three evolutionary groups: 1) Mayan, characterized by marked genetic structure and divergence, multiple refugia and formation of cryptic species; 2) Mid-CA, defined by high differentiation at the population level and between highland and lowlands, associated with intense volcanic activity; 3) Panamian, distinguished by migration from north to south and vice versa via de IP, with markedly high species divergence and speciation. (C) 2013 University of Washington. Published by 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

4.2
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