4.2 Article

Body size and shape evolution in host races of the tick Ixodes uriae

期刊

BIOLOGICAL JOURNAL OF THE LINNEAN SOCIETY
卷 108, 期 2, 页码 323-334

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/j.1095-8312.2012.02021.x

关键词

adaptation; bird; morphometry; parasite; sympatric speciation

资金

  1. French National Research Project [ANR- 06-JCJC-0095-01]
  2. French Polar Institute - Paul Emile Victor [333]
  3. 'Ecole Doctorale SIBAGHE' of the University of Montpellier II, France
  4. French Ministry for National Education and Research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The tick Ixodes uriae is a common ectoparasite of seabirds, and is widely distributed across the circumpolar regions of both hemispheres. Previous work demonstrated the existence of genetically distinct host races of this ectoparasite, occurring across its current range. The objective of the present study was to examine whether these host races have evolved measurable morphological differences. We measured a set of morphological variables on 255 non-engorged ticks (nymphs and adults) collected from three sympatrically occurring host species in the North Atlantic. Genotyping at eight microsatellite markers enabled us to analyse the relationship between patterns of morphological and neutral genetic variation. Multivariate analyses showed that most morphological variation was associated with size differences among tick individuals. Body size differed among races, but only in adult life stages. A linear discriminant analysis based on shape variation revealed three distinct morphological clusters corresponding to the three tick host races. These results, along with correlated patterns of host-related genetic variation, suggest that differences among host-related groups are not simply the result of phenotypic plasticity or drift, but rather reflect host-associated adaptations. Experimental work and observations across the range of I.?uriae will now be required to test the genetic basis and adaptive nature of morphological differences.

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