| Literature DB >> 23049931 |
David Porco1, Mikhail Potapov, Anne Bedos, Galina Busmachiu, Wanda M Weiner, Salah Hamra-Kroua, Louis Deharveng.
Abstract
Parisotoma notabilis is the most common species of Collembola in Europe and is currently designated as ubiquist. This species has been extensively used in numerous studies and is considered as well characterized on a morphological ground. Despite the homogeneity of its morphology, the sequencing of the barcoding fragment (5' end of COI) for several populations throughout Europe and North America revealed four distinct genetic lineages. The divergence found between these lineages was similar to the genetic distance among other species of the genus Parisotoma included in the analysis. All four lineages have been confirmed by the nuclear gene 28S. This congruence between mitochondrial and nuclear signals, as well as the geographical distribution pattern of lineages observed in Europe, supports the potential specific status of these lineages. Based on specimens from the type locality (Hamburg), the species name was successfully assigned to one of these lineages. This finding raises several problems as Parisotoma notabilis has been widely used in many ecological studies. Accumulation of new data for the different lineages detected, especially ecological information and life history traits, is needed to help resolve this situation.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 23049931 PMCID: PMC3458803 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0046056
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Sampled populations.
| Species | Country | Locality | N | Lineages |
|
| Algeria | Edough | 1 | L1 |
| Algeria | Collo | 1 | L1 | |
| Canada | British Columbia, Glacier NP | 2 | L2 | |
| Canada | New Brunswick, Fundy | 1 | L2 | |
| Canada | Nova Scotia, Kejimkujik | 4 | L2 | |
| Canada | Ontario, Grey County | 10 | L0,L1,L2 | |
| Canada | Ontario, Guelph | 25 | L1, L2 | |
| Canada | Ontario, Elora | 8 | L1, L2 | |
| Canada | Ontario, Haliburton | 3 | L2 | |
| Canada | Ontario, Kawartha | 5 | L1 | |
| France | Drome, Verclause | 4 | L1 | |
| France | Seine Maritime | 1 | L0 | |
| France | Isere, Sarcenas | 4 | L2 | |
| France | Pas-de-Calais, Wimereux | 6 | L0 | |
| France | Paris | 87 | L1, L3 | |
| France | Essonne, Brunoy | 2 | L1 | |
| France | Pyrenees-Orientales, Corsavy | 8 | L1 | |
| France | Pyrenees-Orientales, L’Albere | 5 | L1 | |
| France | Pyrenees-Orientales, Les Cluses | 6 | L1 | |
| France | Pyrenees-Orientales, Mosset | 6 | L1 | |
| France | Ariege, Le Port | 3 | L1, L2 | |
| France | Haute-Garonne, Toulouse | 5 | L1 | |
| France | Hautes-Pyrenees, Tarbes | 5 | L1 | |
| France | Alpes-Maritimes, Peille | 2 | L1 | |
| France | Hautes-Alpes, Aspres-sur-Buech | 1 | L1 | |
| France | Savoie, Saint-Jean-de-Couz | 4 | L2 | |
| Germany | Hamburg, Blankenese | 17 | L0 | |
| Italy | Siena, Vagliali | 1 | L1 | |
| Italy | Verona, Erbezzo | 1 | L2 | |
| Moldova | Rezina | 2 | L1 | |
| Moldova | Baius | 2 | L1 | |
| Netherlands | Zutphen | 3 | L0 | |
| Poland | Tatra Mts, Mala Laka valley | 1 | L2 | |
| Slovenia | Bohinjska Bistrica | 2 | L2 | |
| Spain | Catalonia, Gerona | 6 | L1, L2 | |
| Spain | Navarra, Aritzkuren | 4 | L1 | |
| United Kingdom | England, Hampshire | 4 | L0 | |
|
| Russia | Primorye Territory, Anisimovka | 4 | |
|
| Russia | Primorye Territory, Khualaza | 3 | |
|
| Russia | Primorye Territory, Khualaza | 2 |
Figure 1Geographical distribution of Parisotoma notabilis lineages analyzed in this study.
The global distribution potential limit of the species is showed by a thick line.
Figure 2Neighbor-joining K2P distance tree for COI (Bootstrap support values showed on the branches.
Upper and lower side of the triangle represent the maximum and minimum of genetic distances within a species).
Figure 3Neighbor-joining K2P distance tree for 28S (Bootstrap support values showed on the branches.
Upper and lower side of the triangle represent the maximum and minimum of genetic distances within a species).
Intraspecific and interspecific K2P-pairwise distances (%).
| # | Species | Intraspecific | Interspecific | |||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |||
| 1 |
| 0.973 | ||||||
| 2 |
| 3.630 | 21.02 | |||||
| 3 |
| 1.294 | 19.97 | 19.00 | ||||
| 4 |
| 0.023 | 22.98 | 21.59 | 22.90 | |||
| 5 |
| 0.000 | 21.65 | 21.05 | 21.17 | 21.68 | ||
| 6 |
| 2.111 | 25.30 | 23.88 | 26.17 | 24.48 | 26.10 | |
| 7 |
| 0.000 | 27.10 | 24.09 | 25.17 | 26.75 | 27.86 | 25.82 |
Figure 4Bibliographic survey on cryptic diversity over the last 30 years (Source: Web of Knowledge).