4.7 Article

Adaptive radiation within New Zealand endemic species of the cockroach genus Celatoblatta Johns (Blattidae):: a response to Plio-Pleistocene mountain building and climate change

期刊

MOLECULAR ECOLOGY
卷 13, 期 6, 页码 1507-1518

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2004.02160.x

关键词

Celatoblatta; cockroach; mtDNA; New Zealand; phylogeography; speciation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The South Island of New Zealand offers unique opportunities to study insect evolution due to long-term physical isolation, recent alpine habitats and high levels of biotic endemism. Using DNA sequence data from cytochrome oxidase subunit 1, we investigated the phylogeographical pattern among 10 endemic cockroach species within the genus Celatoblatta Johns (Blattidae). We tested the hypothesis that an ancestral cockroach species underwent rapid speciation in response to major climatic differentiation induced by mountain building. Results suggest that speciation was a twofold process, with an interspecific radiation of Pliocene/Pleistocene age followed by intraspecific diversification during the mid Pleistocene. Average genetic distance (maximum likelihood GTR + I + Gamma) was 9.17%, with a maximum of 14.5%. Data revealed eight deep well-supported branches, each with terminal clades. Six clades were differentiated according to morphological species, while the seventh was composed of three sympatric species. We consider the latter to be a phylogenetic species, possibly as a result of hybridization within a defined geographical area. This finding seriously challenges species distinctions for these three cockroach species. Correlation between genetic distances and a Climate Similarity Index (CSI) was negative, suggesting that species found in similar habitats are also genetically closely related. A Mantel test on within-clade genetic distances vs. linear geographical distance was positive, suggesting allopatric isolation for those haplotypes. We present a model of speciation for South Island Celatoblatta.

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