Literature DB >> 24418531

Phylogeography and genetic structure of two Patagonian shag species (Aves: Phalacrocoracidae).

Luciano Calderón1, Flavio Quintana2, Gustavo S Cabanne3, Stephen C Lougheed4, Pablo L Tubaro3.   

Abstract

We compared the phylogeographic and genetic structure of two sympatric shag species, Phalacrocorax magellanicus (rock shag) and Phalacrocorax atriceps (imperial shag), from Patagonia (southern South America). We used multilocus genotypes of nuclear DNA (microsatellite loci) from 324 individuals and mitochondrial DNA sequences (ATPase) from 177 individuals, to evaluate hypotheses related to the effect of physical and non-physical barriers on seabird evolution. Despite sharing many ecological traits, the focal species strongly differ in two key aspects: P. magellanicus has a strong tendency to remain at/near their breeding colonies during foraging trips and the non-breeding season, while P. atriceps exhibits the converse pattern. Both species showed similar mtDNA genetic structure, where colonies from the Atlantic Coast, Pacific Coast and Fuegian region were genetically divergent. We also found similarities in the results of Bayesian clustering analysis of microsatellites, with both species having four clusters. However population differentiation (e.g. Fst, Φst) was higher in P. magellanicus compared to P. atriceps, and average membership probabilities of individuals to specific clusters (Q-values) were also higher in the former. Phalacrocorax magellanicus has strong phylogeographic structure, consistent with the impact of Pleistocene glaciations, with diagnostic haplotypes associated with each of the three mentioned regions. The same pattern was not as evident for P. atriceps. Migration rate estimators were higher for P. atriceps than for P. magellanicus; however both species followed an n-island-like model of gene flow, this implies that dispersal occurs across the continental land mass that separates Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Our results supported the hypothesis that non-physical barriers are important drivers of the genetic and phylogeographic structure in seabirds, and also that physical barriers constitute effective but not absolute impediments to gene flow.
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Gene flow; Genetic structure; Non-physical barriers; Phylogeography; Physical barriers; Seabirds

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24418531     DOI: 10.1016/j.ympev.2013.12.011

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mol Phylogenet Evol        ISSN: 1055-7903            Impact factor:   4.286


  5 in total

1.  Strong phylogeographic structure in a sedentary seabird, the Stewart Island Shag (Leucocarbo chalconotus).

Authors:  Nicolas J Rawlence; Charlotte E Till; R Paul Scofield; Alan J D Tennyson; Catherine J Collins; Chris Lalas; Graeme Loh; Elizabeth Matisoo-Smith; Jonathan M Waters; Hamish G Spencer; Martyn Kennedy
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-03-10       Impact factor: 3.240

2.  Uncovering population structure in the Humboldt penguin (Spheniscus humboldti) along the Pacific coast at South America.

Authors:  Gisele P M Dantas; Larissa R Oliveira; Amanda M Santos; Mariana D Flores; Daniella R de Melo; Alejandro Simeone; Daniel González-Acuña; Guillermo Luna-Jorquera; Céline Le Bohec; Armando Valdés-Velásquez; Marco Cardeña; João S Morgante; Juliana A Vianna
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-05-10       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  Living on the edge: genetic structure and geographic distribution in the threatened Markham's Storm-Petrel (Hydrobates markhami).

Authors:  Heraldo V Norambuena; Reinaldo Rivera; Rodrigo Barros; Rodrigo Silva; Ronny Peredo; Cristián E Hernández
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2021-12-24       Impact factor: 2.984

4.  Molecular systematics of the Cape Parrot (Poicephalus robustus): implications for taxonomy and conservation.

Authors:  Willem G Coetzer; Colleen T Downs; Mike R Perrin; Sandi Willows-Munro
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-08-12       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Does genetic structure reflect differences in non-breeding movements? A case study in small, highly mobile seabirds.

Authors:  Petra Quillfeldt; Yoshan Moodley; Henri Weimerskirch; Yves Cherel; Karine Delord; Richard A Phillips; Joan Navarro; Luciano Calderón; Juan F Masello
Journal:  BMC Evol Biol       Date:  2017-07-05       Impact factor: 3.260

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.