| Literature DB >> 21836769 |
John C Hafner, Nathan S Upham.
Abstract
AIM: The rodent genus Microdipodops (kangaroo mice) includes two sand-obligate endemics of the Great Basin Desert: M. megacephalus and M. pallidus. The dark kangaroo mouse, M. megacephalus, is distributed throughout the Great Basin and our principal aims were to formulate phylogenetic hypotheses for this taxon and make phylogeographical comparisons with its congener. LOCATION: The Great Basin Desert of western North America.Entities:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21836769 PMCID: PMC3151553 DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2699.2010.02472.x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Biogeogr ISSN: 0305-0270 Impact factor: 4.324
Figure 1Map showing the distribution of the dark kangaroo mouse, Microdipodops megacephalus, and the 47 general localities sampled in this study. The inset map of western North America depicts the Great Basin Desert (shaded area) as defined on floristic data from Cronquist . In both maps, the outline of the state of Nevada is shown for orientation.
Figure 2Bayesian phylogenetic tree based on the composite mtDNA sequence data and showing the relationships among the 88 unique haplotypes of Microdipodops megacephalus from the Great Basin Desert region of western North America. Distance and parsimony bootstrap support values are indicated above the nodes, with maximum-likelihood support values, Bayesian posterior probabilities and Bremer decay indices below the nodes. The inset map at the lower left shows the geographic range of the four principal clades.
Mean pairwise sequence-divergence values within and among selected clades of Microdipodops from the Great Basin Desert region of western North America examined in this study. Mean percentage divergence estimates for both uncorrected pairwise (p) distance and Kimura's two-parameter model (in parentheses) are given for individual genes and the combined data set (All)
| % divergence | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Comparison | 16S | cyt | All |
| Within western clade | 0.59 (0.59) | 2.08 (2.12) | 1.00 (1.01) |
| Within central clade | 0.60 (0.60) | 1.49 (1.51) | 0.78 (0.78) |
| Within eastern clade | 1.00 (1.01) | 1.56 (1.59) | 1.09 (1.10) |
| Western clade versus central clade | 3.61 (3.71) | 8.45 (9.15) | 5.33 (5.57) |
| Western clade versus eastern clade | 4.34 (4.49) | 9.32 (10.23) | 6.10 (6.43) |
| Western clade versus Idaho isolate | 1.98 (2.02) | 5.28 (5.52) | 3.28 (3.37) |
| Idaho isolate versus central clade | 3.02 (3.09) | 8.72 (9.47) | 5.15 (5.37) |
| Idaho isolate versus eastern clade | 3.52 (3.61) | 8.75 (9.55) | 5.54 (5.81) |
| Central clade versus eastern clade | 2.68 (2.73) | 6.84 (7.31) | 4.16 (4.31) |
| 6.21 (6.50) | 13.39 (15.08) | 9.03 (9.69) | |
Estimates of divergence time for major nodes of the Microdipodops megacephalus phylogeny obtained from beast analyses using rates of evolution that either conformed to a strict molecular clock, CLOC, or a relaxed clock with uncorrelated lognormal rates, UCLN. Calibration priors relied on two strategies (see text): Fossil (a single fossil date at the root) and two dates estimated by Hafner . Values shown are the mean and 95% highest posterior density (HPD) interval from the maximum clade credibility tree in millions of years ago (Ma). Specimens are from the Great Basin Desert region of western North America
| Divergence time (Ma) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CLOC | UCLN | |||
| Node | Fossil | Fossil | ||
| 13.69 (12.52, 16.00) | 15.26 (13.81, 16.65) | 13.68 (12.53, 15.93) | 14.95 (13.50, 16.44) | |
| 7.05 (5.23, 8.89) | 7.85 (6.50, 9.34) | 11.38 (6.97, 14.71) | 9.12 (7.16, 11.10) | |
| Within | ||||
| Central + Eastern/Western + Idaho | 3.88 (2.79, 5.08) | 4.31 (3.27, 5.39) | 9.20 (5.64, 12.86) | 7.78 (5.54, 10.10) |
| Central/Eastern | 2.54 (1.74, 3.39) | 2.83 (2.01, 3.64) | 6.85 (3.91, 9.88) | 5.99 (3.89, 8.15) |
| Western/Idaho | 2.18 (1.42, 2.98) | 2.41 (1.68, 3.24) | 6.51 (3.26, 9.82) | 5.64 (3.37, 8.06) |
Figure 3Distribution and abundance of private haplotypes (a) and pairwise haplotype sharing patterns (b) for localities of Microdipodops megacephalus from the Great Basin Desert region of western North America. Seventy-six of 88 unique composite haplotypes identified in this study are private haplotypes with 0–6 private haplotypes per locality (a). The remaining 12 unique composite haplotypes are present at two or more localities and yield 66 pairwise combinations of axial data of haplotype sharing (b). Two significantly different angular patterns, a north–south bi-directional trend (black lines) and a complex web pattern (white lines), are evident (b). Note that lower numbers (i.e. 0 or 1) of private haplotypes are found generally in the northern and southern portions of the distribution (a). Data pertaining to private haplotypes and haplotype sharing suggest evidence of source–sink metapopulation dynamics (see text).
Sharing of unique composite haplotypes of Microdipodops megacephalus from the Great Basin Desert region of western North America over geography. Twelve unique haplotypes, identified in Fig. 2, are present at two or more general localities and are available for directional analyses of phylogeographical patterns (see text). In total, there are 66 pairwise combinations of shared haplotypes (11 in the western clade, 52 in the central clade, and three in the eastern clade) that provide the basis for directional data
| Unique haplotype | Number of localities | Distribution |
|---|---|---|
| NE Warm Springs MLZ 1949 | 7 | Central clade: NE Warm Springs (MLZ 1949), Sunnyside (MLZ 1966), Warm Springs (MLZ 2024), SE Warm Springs (MLZ 1972), N Hiko (MLZ 1960), SE Tonopah (MLZ 1831) and Gold Reed (MLZ 2055-2058) |
| Currant MLZ 2006 | 6 | Central clade: Currant (MLZ 2006), NE Tonopah MLZ (1963), SE Warm Springs (MLZ 1969-1971), Goldfield (MLZ 1747), W Hiko (MLZ 1815) and Gold Reed (MLZ 2053 and MLZ 2054) |
| Ruby Valley MLZ 2033 | 5 | Central clade: Ruby Valley (MLZ 2033), Contact (MLZ 2069 and MLZ 2070), Cobre (MLZ 2067), Tybo (MLZ 1799) and Warm Springs (MLZ 2025) |
| Fields MLZ 2009 | 4 | Western clade: Fields (MLZ 2009), Vya (MLZ 1986), Gerlach (MLZ 2091, MLZ 2093, MLZ 2096, MLZ 2098, MLZ 2101, MLZ 2105, MLZ 2108, and MLZ 2109) and Ravendale (MLZ 2111, MLZ 2113 and MLZ 2114) |
| Belmont MLZ 2028 | 3 | Central clade: Belmont (MLZ 2028), N Eureka (MLZ 1956) and San Antonio (MLZ 1761) |
| Currant MLZ 2005 | 3 | Central clade: Currant (MLZ 2005), Cobre (MLZ 2068) and NE Warm Springs (MLZ 1905 and MLZ 1950) |
| Denio MSB 35530 | 3 | Western clade: Denio (MSB 35530), Valley Falls (MLZ 1993) and Jungo (MLZ 2128) |
| Geyser MLZ 1974 | 2 | Eastern clade: Geyser (MLZ 1974) and Osceola (MLZ 1942 and MLZ 1943) |
| Geyser MLZ 1976 | 2 | Eastern clade: Geyser (MLZ 1976 and MLZ 1979) and Panaca (MLZ 1755) |
| Chilcoot MLZ 1756 | 2 | Western clade: Chilcoot (MLZ 1756 and MVZ 158930) and Sparks (MLZ 1759) |
| Denio MSB 35531 | 2 | Western clade: Denio (MSB 35531) and Fields (MLZ 2007, MLZ 2010 and MLZ 2015) |
| Minersville MLZ 2075 | 2 | Eastern clade: Minersville (MLZ 2075, MLZ 2077 and MLZ 2078) and Beryl (MLZ 2145-2149 and MLZ 2151) |
Distributional island area (Area in log10 km2), sample size (n), observed number of unique composite haplotypes (h), predicted number of haplotypes (ĥ), and probability of completeness (P) for the distributional islands of Microdipodops in the Great Basin Desert region of western North America. Names of distributional islands, n, and h for M. pallidus are taken from Hafner
| Distributional island | Area | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Western clade | 4.846 | 65 | 23 | 24 | 0.173 |
| Idaho isolate | 2.585 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0.134 |
| Central clade | |||||
| Main central unit | 4.937 | 61 | 31 | 38 | 0.002 |
| Mono isolate | 3.449 | 8 | 8 | Na | Na |
| Eastern clade | 4.300 | 50 | 25 | 31 | 0.007 |
| Western clade | |||||
| Main western unit | 4.397 | 44 | 19 | 21 | 0.070 |
| Deep Springs isolate | 2.837 | 10 | 1 | 1 | 0.998 |
| Eastern clade | |||||
| Main Eastern unit | 4.125 | 41 | 21 | 26 | 0.011 |
| Alamo isolate | 3.090 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 0.609 |
Analysis of completeness of haplotype sampling requires that n must be greater than h.
Figure 4Haplotype–area curve for the distributional islands of Microdipodops from the Great Basin Desert region of western North America. Distributional islands for M. megacephalus (closed circles; shaded inset map on left): (1) western clade; (2) Idaho isolate; (3) main central unit; (4) Mono isolate; and, (5) eastern clade. Distributional islands for M. pallidus (open circles; unshaded inset map on right): (6) main western unit; (7) Deep Springs isolate; (8) main eastern unit; and, (9) Alamo isolate. Highly significant functional relationships exist between the number of observed unique composite haplotypes and area for the distributional islands of kangaroo mice, regardless of whether the curves are evaluated separately for the taxa or combined for the nine distributional islands (as shown, b=12.918, P<0.001; r2=0.922). The significant haplotype–area curves suggest that the populations of kangaroo mice represented by the distributional islands are now in approximate genetic equilibrium (see text and Table 4).