4.5 Article

CALIBRATING DIVERGENCE TIMES ON SPECIES TREES VERSUS GENE TREES: IMPLICATIONS FOR SPECIATION HISTORY OF APHELOCOMA JAYS

期刊

EVOLUTION
卷 65, 期 1, 页码 184-202

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2010.01097.x

关键词

Aphelocoma; BEAST; divergence times; fossil calibration; gene tree; glaciations; mountain uplift; Pleistocene; species tree

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [DEB-0918218]
  2. American Museum of Natural History
  3. [UOA0502]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Estimates of the timing of divergence are central to testing the underlying causes of speciation. Relaxed molecular clocks and fossil calibration have improved these estimates; however, these advances are implemented in the context of gene trees, which can overestimate divergence times. Here we couple recent innovations for dating speciation events with the analytical power of species trees, where multilocus data are considered in a coalescent context. Divergence times are estimated in the bird genus Aphelocoma to test whether speciation in these jays coincided with mountain uplift or glacial cycles. Gene trees and species trees show general agreement that diversification began in the Miocene amid mountain uplift. However, dates from the multilocus species tree are more recent, occurring predominately in the Pleistocene, consistent with theory that divergence times can be significantly overestimated with gene-tree based approaches that do not correct for genetic divergence that predates speciation. In addition to coalescent stochasticity, Haldane's rule could account for some differences in timing estimates between mitochondrial DNA and nuclear genes. By incorporating a fossil calibration applied to the species tree, in addition to the process of gene lineage coalescence, the present approach provides a more biologically realistic framework for dating speciation events, and hence for testing the links between diversification and specific biogeographic and geologic events.

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

4.5
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