4.3 Article

Genetic differentiation between two subspecies of Emberiza schoeniclus and open forest bunting's evolution inferred from mitogenomes

期刊

JOURNAL OF AVIAN BIOLOGY
卷 2023, 期 5-6, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jav.03087

关键词

Emberiza; intraspecific evolution; phylogeny; rapid radiations; reed bunting

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study reports the first complete mitogenome of the eastern Iberian reed bunting (E. s. witherbyi) and compares it with an unpublished mitogenome from northeast Asia (most likely E. s. pyrrhulina). Genetic distance analyses reveal two distinct lineages of E. schoeniclus. A fossil-calibrated phylogeny suggests that open forest buntings have undergone two rapid speciation events correlating with climatic changes and habitat shifts. The adaptation to wetlands may have facilitated the expansion of reed bunting across the Palearctic, resulting in high intraspecific variation and the establishment of resident populations within small areas.
The reed bunting, Emberiza schoeniclus (Linnaeus 1758), is the only member of the genus adapted to Mediterranean wetlands, where some subspecies are critically endangered. The first complete mitogenome of the eastern Iberian reed bunting (E. s. witherbyi) is presented here and compared with an unpublished mitogenome obtained in northeast Asia (most likely E. s. pyrrhulina). Genetic distance analyses are consistent with the new reed bunting data corresponding to two distinct lineages of E. schoeniclus. A new fossil-calibrated phylogeny suggests that open forest buntings have suffered two rapid speciation events from Late Miocene to Pleistocene, that seem to be correlated with major climatic changes and habitat shifts. Adaptation to a new ecological niche (i.e. wetlands) could have favoured the reed bunting expansion across the Palearctic. The high intraspecific variation observed today could result from the establishment of resident populations within small areas, potentially acting as a climatic refuge.

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

4.3
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