Literature DB >> 25692768

Molecular evidence for an old world origin of Galapagos and Caribbean band-winged grasshoppers (Acrididae: Oedipodinae: Sphingonotus).

Martin Husemann1, Jan Christian Habel2, Suk Namkung3, Axel Hochkirch4, Daniel Otte5, Patrick D Danley3.   

Abstract

Patterns of colonization and diversification on islands provide valuable insights into evolutionary processes. Due to their unique geographic position and well known history, the Galapagos Islands are an important model system for evolutionary studies. Here we investigate the evolutionary history of a winged grasshopper genus to infer its origin and pattern of colonization in the Galapagos archipelago. The grasshopper genus Sphingonotus has radiated extensively in the Palaearctic and many species are endemic to islands. In the New World, the genus is largely replaced by the genus Trimerotropis. Oddly, in the Caribbean and on the Galapagos archipelago, two species of Sphingonotus are found, which has led to the suggestion that these might be the result of anthropogenic translocations from Europe. Here, we test this hypothesis using mitochondrial and nuclear DNA sequences from a broad sample of Sphingonotini and Trimerotropini species from the Old World and New World. The genetic data show two distinct genetic clusters representing the New World Trimerotropini and the Old World Sphingonotini. However, the Sphingonotus species from Galapagos and the Caribbean split basally within the Old World Sphingonotini lineage. The Galapagos and Caribbean species appear to be related to Old World taxa, but are not the result of recent anthropogenic translocations as revealed by divergence time estimates. Distinct genetic lineages occur on the four investigated Galapagos Islands, with deep splits among them compared to their relatives from the Palaearctic. A scenario of a past wider distribution of Sphingonotus in the New World with subsequent extinction on the mainland and replacement by Trimerotropis might explain the disjunct distribution.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25692768      PMCID: PMC4334964          DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0118208

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  PLoS One        ISSN: 1932-6203            Impact factor:   3.240


Introduction

Oceanic archipelagos are natural laboratories for studying evolutionary processes [1]. The Galapagos archipelago, in particular, has provided significant insight into our current understanding of speciation [2-4]. Its remote location far off the coast of Ecuador and its well-known geologic history [5] provide a unique opportunity to study colonization and subsequent radiation processes. The islands in their current state developed less than 5 million years ago [5, 6, 7]. The ages of the central and western islands, however, are much younger and range between 0.5 and 2.5 my [8]. This variation in island age might influence patterns of divergence within the archipelago. The location of the archipelago has determined the general colonization source: phylogeographic studies have shown that most animal and plant species endemic to the Galapagos Islands originated in South America and radiated after one or multiple colonization events [9-13]. Subsequent ‘island hopping’ led to further differentiation among island lineages [7, 13]. Hence, most organisms found in the Galapagos archipelago belong to Neotropic groups and very few studies have shown a direct relationship of Galapagos endemics to any Old World taxon (e.g. the Hemipteran Nezara viridula [14, 15]). However, for many Galapagos endemics no closely related taxa occur in the Old World. In the rare instance that Galapagos species have both New and Old World relatives, phylogeographic studies often neglect the Old World as possible colonization source. Representatives of the grasshopper genus Sphingonotus Fieber, 1852 provide a rare case of Galapagos endemics for which representatives can be found in both the New and the Old World [16, 17]. This genus is among the most species-rich grasshopper genera worldwide [18, 19]. Its main centres of species richness and endemism are the Mediterranean, central and eastern Asia, but a limited number of species have been described from Australia, South Africa, the Caribbean and Galapagos [17, 20–22]. The genus contains many endemics with very limited geographic distributions [18], often endemic to islands [20, 22]. In North and South America the genus is replaced by the ecologically similar genus Trimerotropis Stål, 1873 [19, 23]. Both genera were until recently grouped in the same tribe (Sphingonotini) [23]. However, it has been demonstrated that they split some 35 million years ago [23]. The presence of Sphingonotus species in the Caribbean (Sphingontous haitensis (Saussure, 1861)) and Galapagos (Sphingonotus fuscoirroratus (Stål, 1861)) is puzzling as these archipelagos are far off the main distribution [24]. Only two other Sphingonotus species have been recorded from the New World, Sphingonotus brasilianus Saussure, 1888 and Sphingonotus punensis Dirsh, 1969. The types of S. brasilianus are lost (NHMW pers. com.) [25] and the description of the species is insufficient to judge the status of the species. Hence, we consider it as nomen dubium. Sphingonotus punensis from Puna Island close to the Ecuadorian coast is morphologically very similar to S. fuscoirroratus [26, 27] and thought to belong to the same species group. However, only a single female of the species is known [26]. Sphingonotus fuscoirroratus itself has a complex history. Originally two species (S. trinesiotis Snodgrass, 1902, S. tetranesiotis Snodgrass, 1902) with several subspecies were described from the Galapagos Islands [28], which later were synonymised [29]. This synonymy was subsequently confirmed by morphological analyses, including inner genitalia, as the island populations could not be separated [26]. Similarly, S. haitensis was originally split in three species (S. haitensis, S. jamaicensis Saussure, 1884, S. cubensis Saussure, 1884). However, currently, only a single species with two subspecies is considered valid [16]. Interestingly, both taxa have been connected to the European species Sphingonotus caerulans in the past due to extremely similar phallic structures [26] and on the basis of the outer morphology [16]. To study the reasons for this disjunct distribution pattern across both continents, we test three hypotheses using a wide geographic sampling and DNA sequences of two mitochondrial genes and a nuclear gene fragment. (i) The taxonomic assignment of the Caribbean and Galapagos species might be wrong and these species may be related to the New World genus Trimerotropis. (ii) It has been suggested that the occurrence of Sphingonotus in the Caribbean is the result of recent anthropogenic translocation of a European species [16]. (iii) Alternatively, their presence may be the result of ancient long-distance colonization from the Old World and may be the relict of a formerly wider distribution.

Results

We sequenced a 651 bp long fragment of the Cytochrome Oxidase I (COI) gene for a total of 104 specimens. The alignment for the NADH Dehydrogenase subunit 5 (ND5) fragment consisted of 955 bp and 104 sequences. For the nuclear Histone 3 (H3) gene fragment 293 bp were sequenced for the same set of taxa (Table 1). The ND5 alignment had 401 variable sites (42.0%), 317 of which were parsimony informative. The COI alignment had 225 variable sites (34.6%), 200 of which were parsimony informative. H3 had 26 variable sites (8.9%), 18 of which were parsimony informative.
Table 1

Overview of all samples used for molecular analyses; given are sampling location, GPS-coordinates, date of sampling and respective Genbank accession numbers.

IDTribeGenusSpeciesCountryCounty/Island/CityCollectorGenbank accessions
COIND5H3
T76Chortophagini Chortophaga viridifasciata USA, TexasMcLennan Co.MHJQ513034JQ513132JQ513175
T112Cibolacrini Cibolacris parviceps USA, TexasBrewster Co.MHJQ513033JQ513133JQ513176
T25Trimerotropini Circotettix maculatus USA, CaliforniaMono Co.D. FergusonJQ513041JQ513134JQ513177
T26Trimerotropini Circotettix maculatus USA, CaliforniaMono Co.D. FergusonJQ513045JQ513135JQ513178
T10Trimerotropini Circotettix rabula USA, New MexicoSandoval Co.D. FergusonJQ286519JQ286651JQ286578
T108Trimerotropini Circotettix rabula USA, MontanaYellowstone Co.R.D. ScottJQ513044JQ513136JQ513179
T9Trimerotropini Circotettix rabula USA, New MexicoSandoval Co.D. FergusonJQ286518JQ286650JQ286577
T150Trimerotropini Circotettix stenometopus USA, CaliforniaGlenn Co.D. FergusonJQ513039JQ513137JQ513180
T23Trimerotropini Circotettix undulatus USA, CaliforniaMono Co.D. FergusonJQ513043JQ513138JQ513181
T24Trimerotropini Circotettix undulatus USA, CaliforniaMono Co.D. FergusonJQ513042JQ513139JQ513182
T15Trimerotropini Conozoa texana USA, New MexicoValencia Co.D. FergusonJQ286500JQ286632JQ286567
K379Sphingonotini Leptopternis maculatus TunisiaOuesslatiaAHJQ513074JQ513140JQ513183
K473Sphingonotini Sphingoderus carinatus TunisiaBou HedmaAHKJ923334KJ923393KP201145
K315Sphingonotini Sphingonotus caerulans FranceVergières / CrauAHJQ513068JQ513142JQ513185
K608Sphingonotini Sphingonotus caerulans FinlandHanko TaktomAHJQ513067JQ513143JQ513186
K613Sphingonotini Sphingonotus caerulans ItalyAffiS. LöttersKJ923335KJ923394KP201146
K512Sphingonotini Sphingonotus canariensis Cape VerdeMaioM. LecoqJQ513077JQ513144JQ513187
K403Sphingonotini Sphingonotus candidus ItalySardiniaY. GörzigJQ513066JQ513145JQ513188
K262Sphingonotini Sphingonotus corsicus FranceCorseF. PahlmannKJ923336EU266719KP201147
K90Sphingonotini Sphingonotus femoralis NigerTabouraxT. McNaryJQ513065JQ513146JQ513189
K383Sphingonotini Sphingonotus finotianus TunisiaEnfidaAHJQ513073JQ513147JQ513190
K456Sphingonotini Sphingonotus fuerteventurae SpainCanary Islands, FuerteventuraeAH, MHJQ513071JQ513148JQ513191
K424Sphingonotini Sphingonotus fuscoirroratus EcuadorGalapagos Islands, FloreanaD. OtteKJ923337KJ923395KJ923386
K631Sphingonotini Sphingonotus fuscoirroratus EcuadorGalapagos Islands, San CristobalD. OtteKJ923338KJ923396KP201148
K632Sphingonotini Sphingonotus fuscoirroratus EcuadorGalapagos Islands, Santa CruzD. OtteKJ923339KP201198KP201149
T166Sphingonotini Sphingonotus fuscoirroratus EcuadorGalapagos Islands, San CristobalD. OtteKJ923340KP201199KP201150
T167Sphingonotini Sphingonotus fuscoirroratus EcuadorGalapagos Islands, San CristobalD. OtteKJ923341KP201200KP201151
T169Sphingonotini Sphingonotus fuscoirroratus EcuadorGalapagos Islands, FloreanaD. OtteKJ923343KJ923397KP201152
T170Sphingonotini Sphingonotus fuscoirroratus EcuadorGalapagos Islands, Santa CruzD. OtteKJ923344KJ923398KP201153
T171Sphingonotini Sphingonotus fuscoirroratus EcuadorGalapagos Islands, Santa CruzD. OtteKJ923345KJ923399KJ923387
T172Sphingonotini Sphingonotus fuscoirroratus EcuadorGalapagos Islands, Santa FeD. OtteKJ923346KJ923400KJ923388
T54Sphingonotini Sphingonotus fuscoirroratus EcuadorGalapagos Islands, Santa FeD. OtteKJ923349KJ923401KP201154
T56Sphingonotini Sphingonotus fuscoirroratus EcuadorGalapagos Islands, FloreanaD. OtteKJ923350KJ923403KP201155
T66Sphingonotini Sphingonotus fuscoirroratus EcuadorGalapagos Islands, FloreanaD. OtteKJ923351KJ923404KP201156
K14Sphingonotini Sphingonotus guanchus SpainCanary Islands, Gran CanaryAHJQ513064EU266743JQ513192
K638Sphingonotini Sphingonotus guanchus SpainCanary Islands, Gran CanaryR. BlandJQ513063JQ513149JQ513193
T178Sphingonotini Sphingonotus haitensis Dominican RepublicProv. IndependenciaA. HilarioKP201141KJ923405KP201157
T179Sphingonotini Sphingonotus haitensis Dominican RepublicProv. San ChristobalA. HilarioKJ923354KJ923406KJ923390
T180Sphingonotini Sphingonotus haitensis Dominican RepublicProv. San ChristobalA. HilarioKJ923355KJ923407KJ923391
T184Sphingonotini Sphingonotus haitensis Dominican RepublicProv. San JuanH. TakizawaKP201142KJ923408KP201158
T39Sphingonotini Sphingonotus haitensis Dominican RepublicProv. PeraviaD. Perez, B. HierroKJ923356KJ923409KP201159
T40Sphingonotini Sphingonotus haitensis Dominican RepublicProv. PedernalesD. Perez, B. Hierro, R. BastardoKJ923357KJ923410KP201160
T41Sphingonotini Sphingonotus haitensis Dominican RepublicProv. PedernalesD. Perez, B. Hierro, R. BastardoKJ923358KJ923411KP201161
K651Sphingonotini Sphingonotus maroccanus MoroccoAmeskroutMHJQ513075JQ513150JQ513194
K616Sphingonotini Sphingonotus ningsianus ChinaunknownunknownJQ513060JQ513151JQ513195
K470Sphingonotini Sphingonotus octofasciatus TunisiaGafsaAHJQ513058JQ513152JQ513196
K351Sphingonotini Sphingonotus rubescens SpainCanary Islands, FuerteventuraeAH, MHJQ513069JQ513153JQ513197
K510Sphingonotini Sphingonotus rubescens Cape VerdeFopoM. LecoqJQ513070JQ513154JQ513198
K5Sphingonotini Sphingonotus rugosus SpainCanary Islands, LanzaroteAHKJ923359EU266739KP201162
K150Sphingonotini Sphingonotus savignyi SpainCanary Islands, Gran CanaryAHJQ513076JQ513155JQ513199
K214Sphingonotini Sphingonotus scabriculus NamibiaOtjiuW. SchuettJQ513061JQ513156JQ513200
K615Sphingonotini Sphingonotus tsinlingensis ChinaunknownunknownJQ513059JQ513157JQ513201
K227Sphingonotini Thalpomena caerulescens MoroccoIrhil-n’-IsemsidenAHJQ513057JQ513158JQ513203
K641Sphingonotini Thalpomena viridipennis MoroccoImouzzerMH, JCHJQ513056JQ513159JQ513204
T27Trimerotropini Trimerotropis californica USA, New MexicoSocorro Co.D. FergusonKJ923360KJ923412KP201163
T28Trimerotropini Trimerotropis californica USA, New MexicoSocorro Co.D. FergusonJQ513048JQ513160JQ513205
T21Trimerotropini Trimerotropis cincta USA, New MexicoSandoval Co.D. FergusonKJ923361KJ923413KP201164
T22Trimerotropini Trimerotropis cincta USA, New MexicoSandoval Co.D. FergusonKJ923362KJ923414KP201165
T17Trimerotropini Trimerotropis cyaneipennis USA, New MexicoValencia Co.D. FergusonJQ513040JQ513161JQ513206
T18Trimerotropini Trimerotropis cyaneipennis USA, New MexicoValencia Co.D. FergusonKJ923363KJ923415KP201166
T3Trimerotropini Trimerotropis cyaneipennis USA, ArizonaMojave Co.D. FergusonKJ923364KJ923416KP201167
T4Trimerotropini Trimerotropis cyaneipennis USA, ArizonaMojave Co.D. FergusonKJ923365KJ923417KP201168
T104Trimerotropini Trimerotropis pallidipennis USA, MontanaBig Horn Co.R.D. ScottJQ286536JQ286668KP201169
T105Trimerotropini Trimerotropis pallidipennis USA, MontanaBig Horn Co.R.D. ScottJQ286539JQ286671JQ286598
T109Trimerotropini Trimerotropis latifasciata USA, MontanaBlaine Co.R.D. ScottKJ923366KJ923418KP201170
T110Trimerotropini Trimerotropis latifasciata USA, MontanaBlaine Co.R.D. ScottJQ513047JQ513163JQ513208
T111Trimerotropini Trimerotropis latifasciata USA, MontanaBlaine Co.R.D. ScottKJ923367KJ923419KP201171
T1Trimerotropini Trimerotropis maritima USA, TexasMcLennan Co.MH, PDDJQ286498JQ286630JQ286565
T2Trimerotropini Trimerotropis maritima USA, TexasMcLennan Co.MH, PDDKJ923368KJ923420KP201172
T52Trimerotropini Trimerotropis maritima USA, TexasBosque Co.MH, PDDJQ286497JQ286629JQ286564
T86Trimerotropini Trimerotropis maritima USA, TexasBrewster Co.MHKJ923369KJ923421KP201173
T29Trimerotropini Trimerotropis melanoptera USA, New MexicoValencia Co.D. FergusonKJ923370KJ923422KP201174
T30Trimerotropini Trimerotropis melanoptera USA, New MexicoValencia Co.D. FergusonKJ923371KJ923423KP201175
T14Trimerotropini Trimerotropis modesta USA, ArizonaCoconino Co.D. FergusonKJ923372KJ923425KP201176
T57Trimerotropini Trimerotropis modesta USA, ArizonaCochise Co.D.R. SwansonKJ923373KP201201KP201177
T58Trimerotropini Trimerotropis modesta USA, ArizonaCochise Co.D.R. SwansonKJ923374KP201202KP201178
T152Trimerotropini Trimerotropis occidentalis USA, CaliforniaGlenn Co.D. FergusonKJ923375KJ923426KP201179
T153Trimerotropini Trimerotropis occidentalis USA, CaliforniaGlenn Co.D. FergusonKJ923376KP201203KP201180
T116Trimerotropini Trimerotropis ochraceipennis ChileCoquimbeJ. PizarroJQ286549JQ286681JQ286607
T117Trimerotropini Trimerotropis ochraceipennis ChileCoquimbeJ. PizarroJQ286547JQ286679KP201181
T118Trimerotropini Trimerotropis ochraceipennis ChileCoquimbeJ. PizarroJQ286546JQ286678KP201182
T119Trimerotropini Trimerotropis ochraceipennis ChileCoquimbeJ. PizarroJQ286548JQ286680JQ286606
T128Trimerotropini Trimerotropis ochraceipennis ChileCoquimbeJ. PizarroKJ923377JQ286688JQ286622
T130Trimerotropini Trimerotropis pallidipennis USA, TexasBrewster Co.MHKP201143JQ286690KP201183
T140Trimerotropini Trimerotropis pallidipennis MexicoEl CoptalD. SalasJQ286533JQ286665KP201184
T141Trimerotropini Trimerotropis pallidipennis MexicoMarquezD. SalasJQ286527JQ286659KP201185
T144Trimerotropini Trimerotropis pallidipennis MexicoEl CoptalD. SalasJQ286562KP201204KP201186
T156Trimerotropini Trimerotropis pallidipennis MexicoSalamancaD. SalasJQ286522JQ286654JQ286581
T162Trimerotropini Trimerotropis pallidipennis MexicoSalamancaD. SalasJQ286537JQ286669JQ286596
T163Trimerotropini Trimerotropis pallidipennis MexicoSalamancaD. SalasJQ286535JQ286667JQ286594
T124Trimerotropini Trimerotropis pistrinaria USA, TexasWhitney Co.MHKJ923379KJ923427KP201187
T31Trimerotropini Trimerotropis pistrinaria USA, New MexicoValencia Co.D. FergusonJQ513046JQ513165JQ513210
T19Trimerotropini Trimerotropis pseudofasciata USA, UtahTooele Co.D. FergusonKJ923381KJ923428KP201188
T20Trimerotropini Trimerotropis pseudofasciata USA, UtahTooele Co.D. FergusonKJ923382KJ923429KP201189
T132Trimerotropini Trimerotropis saxatilis USA, TexasHill Co.M. HanitzschJQ286503JQ286635JQ286570
T133Trimerotropini Trimerotropis saxatilis USA, TexasHill Co.M. HanitzschJQ286502JQ286634KP201190
T154Trimerotropini Trimerotropis saxatilis USA, MissouriunknownA. TempletonKJ923383KJ923430KP201191
T155Trimerotropini Trimerotropis saxatilis USA, MissouriunknownA. TempletonKJ923384KJ923431KP201192
T68Trimerotropini Trimerotropis sp ArgentinaMendoza Prov.V. ConfalonieriJQ286552JQ286684KP201193
T69Trimerotropini Trimerotropis sp ArgentinaMendoza Prov.V. ConfalonieriJQ286555JQ286687KP201194
T70Trimerotropini Trimerotropis sp ArgentinaSan Luis Prov.V. ConfalonieriJQ286554JQ286686KP201195
T71Trimerotropini Trimerotropis sp ArgentinaSan Luis Prov.V. ConfalonieriJQ286553JQ286685JQ286611
T11Trimerotropini Trimerotropis verruculata suffusa USA, New MexicoSandoval Co.D. FergusonKP201144KJ923432KP201196
T12Trimerotropini Trimerotropis verruculata suffusa USA, New MexicoSandoval Co.D. FergusonKJ923385KP201205KP201197
We used two different phylogenetic reconstruction methods, MrBayes and BEAST, which both yielded similar groupings: a major split with high posterior probabilities (pp = 1 for both methods) was identified separating the New World Trimerotropini and the Old World Sphingonotini (Fig. 1). Within the Trimerotropini two groups were detected with high confidence (pp = 1 for both methods) corresponding to the chromosomal groups defined by White [30-32] and previously confirmed by Husemann and colleagues [23]. Further, within the Trimerotropini most species for which multiple individuals were sequenced were monophyletic, besides Trimerotropis pistrinaria Saussure, 1884 and some species of the genus Circotettix Scudder, 1876. Sphingonotus haitensis from the Dominicanian Republic and S. fuscoirroratus from four Galapagos Islands grouped within the Sphingonotini. Within the Sphingonotini S. octofasciatus (Serville, 1838), the genus Thalpomena Saussure, 1884 and the Sphingonotus species from China split basally from the other species in the group. The next split separates Sphingoderus carinatus (Saussure, 1888) from a group consisting of all other Sphingonotus species including S. haitensis and S. fuscoirroratus. The first taxon splitting off in this group is S. scabriculus Stål, 1876 from South Africa followed by the New World Sphingonotus species; Sphingonotus fuscoirroratus from San Cristobal groups together with S. haitensis in both analyses with high support (pp ≥ 0.99). The S. fuscoirroratus lineages from the other three islands form a second monophyletic group with the lineages from Santa Fe and Santa Cruz being sister clades. However, S. fuscoirroratus is not monophyletic in either analysis. The remaining Sphingonotus species from Eurasia and Africa branch off subsequently.
Fig 1

Phylogenetic tree resulting from Bayesian analysis of the combined data set of three genes.

Red color indicates the New World Trimerotropini, blue are the Old World Sphingonotini. Black circles represent posterior probabilities ≥ 0.95 in both analyses. Numbers are posterior probabilities below 0.95 for at least one of the analyses (upper value from BEAST analysis, lower value from MrBayes analysis). The numbers in parentheses represent the divergence time estimates derived from the BEAST analysis. Only the values for main branches of interest are shown and no intraspecific values are presented. Estimates of minimum and maximum emergence times of the studied islands in parentheses next to island names were taken from Geist and colleagues [5].

Phylogenetic tree resulting from Bayesian analysis of the combined data set of three genes.

Red color indicates the New World Trimerotropini, blue are the Old World Sphingonotini. Black circles represent posterior probabilities ≥ 0.95 in both analyses. Numbers are posterior probabilities below 0.95 for at least one of the analyses (upper value from BEAST analysis, lower value from MrBayes analysis). The numbers in parentheses represent the divergence time estimates derived from the BEAST analysis. Only the values for main branches of interest are shown and no intraspecific values are presented. Estimates of minimum and maximum emergence times of the studied islands in parentheses next to island names were taken from Geist and colleagues [5]. Both RASP analyses (S-DIVA and Bayes-Lagrange) yielded similar results suggesting an African origin for the Sphingonotini as a whole and a wider distribution (Africa and Galapagos) for the ancestral taxa of the New World Sphingonotus species (S1 Fig.). The molecular clock analyses dated the divergence between the two major clades (Trimerotropini from the New World and Sphingonotini from the Old World) at approximately 23.4 million years ago. The onset of the Trimerotropini radiation was dated at 9.1 million years ago. The Sphingonotini radiation was dated to be older with an age of 15.1 my. The clade including S. fuscoirroratus from San Cristobal and S. haitensis was dated to approximately 9.6 mya whereas the split between the San Cristobal lineage and S. haitensis was dated at 7.2 mya; the radiation of the second S. fuscoirroratus clade started about 7.9 mya. However, the confidence intervals around the estimates were large (S2 Fig.) and hence the results should be only taken as rough guidelines rather than hard evidence.

Discussion

Most oceanic islands are colonized from the closest mainland [7, 33]. For the Galapagos Islands, this means that the common source for most colonizers is the South American mainland, which is ~1000 km away from the archipelago. Our analyses, however, clearly support an Old World origin of the Neotropic Sphingonotus species. The species from Galapagos and the Caribbean Islands group within the Sphingonotini with high support. In addition, the branch lengths of each island population are rather long, which supports the original designation of each island population as a distinct species or subspecies [28] despite limited phenotypic divergence [26].

Phylogeography of the New World Sphingonotus species

The inferred phylogeny interpreted against the background of contemporary species distributions lets us argue that (i) grasshoppers of the tribe Sphingonotini are mainly distributed in the Old World. However, (ii) the focal species found in the Neotropics, i.e. on the Galapagos Islands and in the Caribbean, belong to the Sphingonotini rather than to the Trimerotropini, which is the predominant tribe in the New World. Hence, our analyses reject our first hypothesis that the taxonomic assignment of the Caribbean and Galapagos species to the tribe Sphingonotini is wrong. Rather our data support the hypothesis that the Caribbean (i.e. Atlantic) and the Galapagos Archipelago (i.e. Pacific) species are members of the Sphingonotini. It has been suggested that the occurrence of Sphingonotus on Galapagos might be the result of a recent introduction from Europe [16]. This hypothesis can be rejected as well, since the species represent rather old lineages within the genus and are much older than most Old World species and diverged prior to any potential introduction date. While the dating is very crude the resulting age estimates are more likely an underestimate than an overestimate; the divergence between the two major clades (Trimerotropini from the New World and Sphingonotini from the Old World) was here estimated at approximately 24.4 million years ago. This dating estimate is more recent (yet both estimates have overlapping 95% HPD) than the estimate derived from a more comprehensive study which dated the split between the clades at about 35 mya [23]. The same split was dated even further back (~55 mya) by a study by Chapco & Contreras [34]. The estimate derived here is therefore a minimum estimate of the age with the lineages likely being much older. The ages of the Galapagos endemics with more than 7 mya at the basis of the lineages predate the origin of the islands. The observed relationships may be explained by long-distance dispersal via the mainland leading to the colonization of the islands with subsequent extinction on the mainland. One might even speculate that the Sphingonotini might have colonized the American continent (e.g. [23]) and later been displaced by Trimerotropini, except for the oceanic island populations. This is supported by the high age of the islands endemics predating the ages of the islands. Alternatively, the New World Sphingonotus species might have reached the islands via rare long-distance, trans-Atlantic dispersal events. The first colonization step was then likely to the Caribbean, which is supported by the phylogeny. A reasonable number of studies have shown trans-Atlantic dispersal of a variety of animal and plant taxa [35-38]. For example, a study by Carranza and colleagues [39] showed a case of long-distance dispersal, where Tarentola Geckos invaded the Caribbean from Africa [39]; South America has been colonized by Hemidactylus Geckos from Africa [40], and the Americas were colonized from Africa by the grasshopper genus Schistocerca [36]. The Galapagos lineages of Sphingonotus appear to be older than many of the islands and hence a previous mainland distribution with subsequent extinction appears more likely. A continental extinction of the genus would also explain the lack of monophyly of the New World Sphingonotini. However, with our data we are not able to support with confidence either of the following hypotheses: (1) the Sphingonotini had a wider New World distribution which has been largely replaced by the Trimerotropini except for relict occurrences of Sphingonotus on the archipelagos or (ii) the Sphingonotini of the Galapagos archipelago and Hispaniola are the result of trans-Atlantic colonization.

Island colonization and differentiation

In the past, Sphingonotus fuscoirroratus from Galapagos had been divided into two species with several subspecies [28]. Subsequently, these taxa were synonymised as only limited morphological variation between island lineages was found [26]. Our analyses suggest that each island indeed has its own distinct genetic lineage which supports the original species or subspecies status. The extent of genetic divergence of the island populations suggests that no or very little gene flow between islands exists. Generally, inter-island radiations are typical for the Galapagos as a result of the large distance to the mainland and the relatively high distances between most islands. This can partly be confirmed here (at least for four islands). Similar radiations on the Galapagos are known for mockingbirds (Nesomimus) [10], tenebrionid beetles [41], iguanas (Conolophus) [42], and the Galapagos lava lizards [43]. The lack of monophyly of S. fuscoirroratus due to the position of the San Cristobal lineage might be caused by insufficient resolution of the data or by extinction of true sister species on the American continent. However, another explanation might be that this island was colonized independently from the others as has been shown for the Canary Islands as well [22]. However, this hypothesis would require the assumption that both lineages converged substantially in morphology when adapting to the island habitats.

Conclusion

Our analyses support that the Galapagos endemic S. fuscoirroratus and the Caribbean endemic S. haitensis indeed belong to the tribe Sphingonotini and we therefore reject the hypothesis that these species had been wrongly assigned to the Sphingonotini. The colonization is rather ancient which allows us to reject the hypothesis that the studied species were the result of anthropogenic translocation. However, we cannot infer with certainty if the populations are relicts of a previously more widespread distribution or the result of long-distance, trans-Atlantic dispersal. In demonstrating a close phylogenetic relationship of Galapagos endemic species to Old World taxa, this study highlights the need to include geographically distantly distributed taxa in phylogeographic studies. Following the deep genetic splits detectable for our samples from Galapagos Islands, we assume that at least three to four distinct Sphingonotus species exist on the archipelago. It is likely that further genetic lineages are present on other islands that had not been studied here in concert with the original designation as species and subspecies [28].

Material and Methods

Study species

Grasshoppers of the genus Sphingonotus are widely distributed across major parts of the Palaearctic and Palaeotropic regions. A supposedly close relative, the genus Trimerotropis, can be found exclusively in the Nearctic and Neotropic region [16, 17]. The genera Trimerotropis and Sphingonotus show strong morphological similarities; however, representatives of Trimerotropis are mostly larger [16, 24]. Both genera had been grouped in the tribe Sphingonotini for many decades, but recently the genus Trimerotropis was re-assigned to the previously erected Trimerotropini [23, 44]. Both genera are species-rich with 142 species for Sphingonotus and 52 Species for Trimerotropis [17].

Sampling

In total, 104 individuals belonging to 44 species from four continents were included in the analyses (Table 1). Specimens were collected by hand or netted and subsequently frozen or stored in ethanol. Many samples were obtained from museums or colleagues. None of the collected species are protected and no sampling was performed on protected land aside from the Galapagos. Sampling activities on Galapagos were performed by D. Otte (ANSP, Philadelphia) and S. B. Peck (Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada) under permission of the Galapagos National Park (F. Cepeda, A. Izurieta and E. Cruz, Superintendents, Department of Forestry, Ministry of Agriculture, Republic of Ecuador). The Gomphocerinae Cibolacris parviceps and the Oedipodinae Chortophaga viridifasciata served as outgroups in all analyses. Details about all individuals collected and used for this study are given in Table 1.

Molecular analyses

Genomic DNA was extracted from dried or ethanol preserved hind leg muscle tissue using the Qiagen DNeasy Blood and Tissue Kit (Qiagen, Inc., Valencia, CA) following the manufacturer’s protocol for tissue samples. We amplified two mitochondrial and one nuclear gene fragment using a standard PCR protocol. Primers for the mitochondrial NADH Dehydrogenase subunit 5 (ND5) were obtained from Su and colleagues [45] and for COI from Husemann and colleagues [23]. The primers for Histone 3 (H3) were taken from Colgan and colleagues [46]. PCR reactions were performed using the following setup: 36.6 μl of diH2O, 6 μl of 10 x PCR buffer (reaction concentration 1x), 4.8 μl of dNTP mixture (0.2 μM each), 0.6 μl of DyNAzyme DNA Polymerase (1.2 U, Finnzymes, USA), 3 μl of each primer (0.5 μM, Integrated DNA technologies, USA) and 6 μl of DNA template adding up to a total volume of 60 μl. Amplification conditions were as follows: 94°C for 3 min, followed by 30 cycles of 94°C for 1 min denaturation, 48–57°C 1 min annealing and 72°C for 2 min elongation, with a final elongation step at 72°C for 10 min. PCR products were visualized on a 1% agarose gel stained with Gel Red (0.1x, Biotium, USA and purified using Solid-phase Reversible Immobilization (SPRI) [47] with carboxylated magnetic beads (Bangs Laboratories, USA) and a 96-Ring SPRIplate (Agencourt, USA). The purified PCR products were sequenced at the Yale Sequencing Facility (New Haven, CT, USA). All sequences were deposited in Genbank; accession numbers are given in Table 1.

Phylogenetic analyses

Sequences were inspected, trimmed and aligned using the MAFFT algorithm in Geneious 5.0.3 [48]. Further we used sequences from previous studies [18–20, 22, 23]. All genes were subsequently analyzed as combined data set. In a first step we identified the best partitioning scheme treating codon positions separately and determined the most suitable substitution models using PartitionFinder v.1.1.1 [49]. We performed two runs of PartitionFinder, one including the models implemented in MrBayes and one including the models implemented in BEAST. We then analyzed the concatenated partitioned data set with MrBayes v.3.1.2 [50]. We ran MrBayes for 50 million generations sampling every 5000 generations. A burn-in of 25% of trees was discarded before constructing a consensus tree. In addition we used BEAST v. 1.8.0 [51] to analyze the data in a supertree framework. The input file for BEAST was setup with BEAUti v. 1.8.0 (implemented in the BEAST package). We used the partitioning scheme from PartitionFinder to link the substitution models. The clock models were linked for mitochondrial genes. The trees were linked for all data. We used the Yule prior as recommended for analyses at species and genus levels and ran the analyses for 100 million iterations sampling every 10,000 iterations. The log-files were checked in Tracer v.1.5 [52] to check for convergence. A burn-in of 1000 trees was discarded before generating a consensus tree. All trees were visualized using FigTree v.1.3.1 [53]. In addition we obtained coarse estimates of divergence dates by applying a molecular clock approach. We used published substitution rates of 0.0113 for ND5 [23] and 0.01 for COI estimating the rate for H3 and applied a strict clock in BEAST v.1.8.0 [51]. No better calibration was possible as no suitable fossil data is available and using island ages as calibration points appeared inappropriate considering that we intended to estimate the divergence times of island lineages. The analysis was run for 100 million generations sampling every 10,000 generations. Trees were summarized with TreeAnnotator and visualized with FigTree. In a last step we obtained evidence for the origin of the Galapagos taxa by using statistical DIVA and Bayes-Lagrange analyses as implemented in RASP v.3.0 [54]. We used the trees generated by our BEAST run as input and defined the geographic areas as follows: A—N America, B—Africa (including Cape Verde), C—Europe (including the Canary Islands), D—Galapagos Islands, E—Caribbean, F—Asia, G—S America. The maximum areas per node were set as 2.

Results from S-DIVA analysis in RASP v.3.0 (Yu et al. 2010).

We used the trees generated by our BEAST run as input and defined the geographic areas as follows: A—N America, B—Africa (including Cape Verde), C—Europe (including the Canary Islands), D—Galapagos Islands, E—Caribbean, F—Asia, G—S America. The maximum areas per node were set as 2. Values represent posterior probabilities. (DOC) Click here for additional data file.

Divergence time estimates obtained from a molecular clock analysis in BEAST v.1.8.0 (Drummond et al. 2012).

We used published substitution rates of 0.0113 for ND5 (Husemann et al. 2012) and 0.01 for COI estimating the rate for H3 and applied a strict clock. The analysis was run for 100 million generations sampling every 10,000 generations. Trees were summarized with TreeAnnotator and visualized with FigTree. Numbers are divergence times in million years. The bars represent the 95% HPDs of age estimates. (DOC) Click here for additional data file.
  26 in total

1.  Are flightless Galapaganus weevils older than the Galápagos Islands they inhabit?

Authors:  A S Sequeira; A A Lanteri; M A Scataglini; V A Confalonieri; B D Farrell
Journal:  Heredity (Edinb)       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 3.821

2.  MrBayes 3: Bayesian phylogenetic inference under mixed models.

Authors:  Fredrik Ronquist; John P Huelsenbeck
Journal:  Bioinformatics       Date:  2003-08-12       Impact factor: 6.937

3.  Partitionfinder: combined selection of partitioning schemes and substitution models for phylogenetic analyses.

Authors:  Robert Lanfear; Brett Calcott; Simon Y W Ho; Stephane Guindon
Journal:  Mol Biol Evol       Date:  2012-01-20       Impact factor: 16.240

4.  Recent long-distance dispersal overshadows ancient biogeographical patterns in a pantropical angiosperm family (Simaroubaceae, Sapindales).

Authors:  Joshua W Clayton; Pamela S Soltis; Douglas E Soltis
Journal:  Syst Biol       Date:  2009-08-14       Impact factor: 15.683

5.  The resurrection of oceanic dispersal in historical biogeography.

Authors:  Alan de Queiroz
Journal:  Trends Ecol Evol       Date:  2004-11-25       Impact factor: 17.712

6.  Sequential colonization and diversification of Galapágos endemic land snail genus Bulimulus (Gastropoda, Stylommatophora).

Authors:  Christine E Parent; Bernard J Crespi
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 3.694

Review 7.  Colonization and diversification of Galápagos terrestrial fauna: a phylogenetic and biogeographical synthesis.

Authors:  Christine E Parent; Adalgisa Caccone; Kenneth Petren
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2008-10-27       Impact factor: 6.237

8.  Darwin's finches: population variation and natural selection.

Authors:  P R Grant; B R Grant; J N Smith; I J Abbott; L K Abbott
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  1976-01       Impact factor: 11.205

9.  Historical fragmentation of islands and genetic drift in populations of Galápagos lava lizards (Microlophus albemarlensis complex).

Authors:  M A Jordan; H L Snell
Journal:  Mol Ecol       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 6.185

10.  Bayesian phylogenetics with BEAUti and the BEAST 1.7.

Authors:  Alexei J Drummond; Marc A Suchard; Dong Xie; Andrew Rambaut
Journal:  Mol Biol Evol       Date:  2012-02-25       Impact factor: 16.240

View more
  1 in total

1.  Genome Size Estimation and Full-Length Transcriptome of Sphingonotus tsinlingensis: Genetic Background of a Drought-Adapted Grasshopper.

Authors:  Lu Zhao; Hang Wang; Ping Li; Kuo Sun; De-Long Guan; Sheng-Quan Xu
Journal:  Front Genet       Date:  2021-07-12       Impact factor: 4.599

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.