| Literature DB >> 26877088 |
Jostein Gohli1, Tina Selvarajah2, Lawrence R Kirkendall2, Bjarte H Jordal3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Invasive species can have devastating effects on native ecosystems and therefore impose a significant threat to human welfare. The introduction rate of invasive species has accelerated dramatically in recent times due to human activity (anthropogenic effects), with a steadily growing pool of widespread tramp species. We present an in-depth analysis of four pantropical species of Xyleborus ambrosia beetles (Xyleborus volvulus, Xyleborus perforans, Xyleborus ferrugineus, and Xyleborus affinis) with similar ecology (fungus cultivation in dead wood), reproductive biology (permanent inbreeding) and genetic system (haplodiploidy). The unique combination of reproductive traits and broad host plant usage pre-adapts these beetles for colonizing of new areas.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26877088 PMCID: PMC4753646 DOI: 10.1186/s12862-016-0610-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Evol Biol ISSN: 1471-2148 Impact factor: 3.260
Fig. 1Biogeographical and phylogenetic reconstruction, and haplotype network. Legend: A phylogenetic tree for the four monophyletic focal species and one ingroup species (X. bispinatus) constructed using COI and EF1α. The phylogeny was constructed with sequences from 12 species as outgroup (Additional file 1: Table S3), which were removed from this figure. Posterior probability values are indicated by asterisks on nodes (*PP >0.95); numerous less important, yet strongly supported nodes (i.e., nodes nested deep within clades; PP >0.95), are not presented. Scale bars indicate branch length, which correspond to number of substitutions. Pie charts on branches show the relative probabilities of different geographical regions from the ancestral reconstruction. Circle sizes on trees contain no information, whereas circle sizes in the haplotype networks indicate number of individuals per haplotype. The haplotype networks shown here are based on COI only. Colour codes indicate regions, as shown in the bottom right corner, and are the same for pie charts in branches and in networks. Scale bars in the haplotype networks show the relationship between number of substitutions and branch lengths (these differ slightly among the haplotype networks)
Three measures of genetic diversity and Tajima’s D for the four focal species
| loci | n | Number of segregating sites (S) | Total number of mutations | Nucleotide diversity (π) | Standard deviation of π | Total number of haplotypes | Haplotype diversity(Hd) | Standard deviation of Hd | Tajima's D | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| COI | 29 | 122 | 150 | 0.0457 | 0.0130 | 15 | 0.828 | 0.005 | −1.573 |
|
| COI | 34 | 119 | 156 | 0.0517 | 0.0097 | 24 | 0.979 | 0.012 | −1.276 |
|
| COI | 61 | 73 | 81 | 0.0424 | 0.0034 | 33 | 0.948 | 0.017 | 0.572 |
|
| COI | 50 | 134 | 169 | 0.0935 | 0.0040 | 33 | 0.968 | 0.000 | 0.502 |
|
| EF1α | 13 | 3 | 3 | 0.00125 | 0.0004 | 3 | 0.500 | 0.136 | −0.143 |
|
| EF1α | 9 | 14 | 14 | 0.00492 | 0.0021 | 4 | 0.583 | 0.034 | −1.901 |
|
| EF1α | 30 | 12 | 12 | 0.00141 | 0.0004 | 8 | 0.694 | 0.059 | −1.848 |
|
| EF1α | 19 | 25 | 26 | 0.00634 | 0.0017 | 12 | 0.918 | 0.047 | −1.056 |
Fig. 2Dating analysis. Legend: Time calibrated analysis of five species of Xyleborus (Xyleborus stem=17.3 Ma). The scale axis is in million years. 95 % node height highest posterior density intervals are plotted on each node. Outgroup taxa are not shown (see methods)
Tests of molecular variance (AMOVA) for the four species and both genetic markers. The seven regions are Afrotropics, Afrotropical islands (Indian Ocean), Neotropics, Neotropical islands (Pacific Ocean), Indo-Malaysia, Australasia, Australasia small islands (Pacific Ocean). In the four regions the oceanic regions were merged with their continental counterparts
| Seven regions | Four regions | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Source of variation | df | Sum of squares | Variance components | % variation | Fixation indices | df | Sum of squares | Variance components | % variation | Fixation indices | |||
|
| |||||||||||||
| Among regions | 5 | 446.7 | 8.5 | 59.6 | ФCT : 0.59 | ** | 3 | 280.3 | 4.7 | 34.0 | ФCT : 0.34 | * | |
| COI | Among populations within regions | 9 | 92.9 | 1.6 | 11.5 | ФSC : 0.28 | *** | 11 | 259.3 | 5.1 | 36.5 | ФSC : 0.55 | ** |
| Within populations | 46 | 189.9 | 4.1 | 29.0 | ФST : 0.71 | *** | 46 | 189.9 | 4,1 | 29.5 | ФST : 0.71 | ** | |
| Among regions | 5 | 12.5 | 0.5 | 59.4 | ФCT : 0.59 | * | 3 | 6.8 | 0.1 | 17.5 | ФCT : 0.18 | *** | |
| EF1α | Among populations within regions | 5 | 2.5 | 0.1 | 14.0 | ФSC : 0.34 | * | 7 | 8.2 | 0.4 | 54.1 | ФSC : 0.66 | ** |
| Within populations | 19 | 4.0 | 0.2 | 26.6 | ФST : 0.73 | *** | 19 | 4.0 | 0.2 | 28.5 | ФST : 0.71 | * | |
|
| |||||||||||||
| Among regions | 4 | 513.6 | 11.8 | 45.8 | ФCT : 0.45 | *** | 2 | 178.2 | 2.5 | 10.0 | ФCT : 0.10 | ||
| COI | Among populations within regions | 7 | 138.3 | 2.4 | 9.1 | ФSC : 0.17 | 9 | 473.7 | 10.6 | 42.9 | ФSC : 0.48 | *** | |
| Within populations | 38 | 442.1 | 11.6 | 45.1 | ФST : 0.55 | *** | 38 | 442.1 | 11.6 | 47.2 | ФST : 0.53 | *** | |
| Among regions | 5 | 20.7 | −1.0 | −33.3 | ФCT :−0.33 | 3 | 15.1 | 0.0 | −1.5 | ФCT :−0.01 | |||
| EF1α | Among populations within regions | 3 | 12.2 | 2.2 | 77.0 | ФSC : 0.58 | 5 | 17.7 | 1.3 | 45.8 | ФSC : 0.45 | ||
| Within populations | 10 | 16.1 | 1.6 | 56.2 | ФST : 0.44 | * | 10 | 16.1 | 1.6 | 55.7 | ФST : 0.44 | ||
|
| |||||||||||||
| Among regions | 6 | 182.5 | 1.3 | 9.3 | ФCT : 0.09 | 3 | 88.6 | −0.2 | −1.5 | ФCT :−0.01 | |||
| COI | Among populations within regions | 7 | 128.5 | 6.3 | 44.3 | ФSC : 0.49 | 10 | 222.4 | 7.7 | 54.6 | ФSC : 0.54 | *** | |
| Within populations | 20 | 132.6 | 6.6 | 46.4 | ФST : 0.54 | *** | 20 | 132.6 | 6.6 | 46.9 | ФST : 0.53 | *** | |
| Among regions | 5 | 6.4 | −1.5 | −98.0 | ФCT :−0.98 | 3 | 4.1 | −0.2 | −12.9 | ФCT :−0.12 | |||
| EF1α | Among populations within regions | 1 | 3.0 | 1.5 | 99.0 | ФSC : 0.50 | 3 | 5.3 | 0.2 | 14.9 | ФSC : 0.13 | ||
| Within populations | 2 | 3.0 | 1.5 | 99.0 | ФST : 0.01 | 2 | 3.0 | 1.5 | 98.1 | ФST : 0.02 | |||
|
| |||||||||||||
| Among regions | 4 | 100.1 | 2.6 | 20.5 | ФCT : 0.21 | 3 | 58.7 | 0.1 | 0.4 | ФCT : 0.01 | ** | ||
| COI | Among populations within regions | 5 | 71.8 | 2.5 | 19.2 | ФSC : 0.24 | ** | 6 | 113.3 | 4.3 | 35.5 | ФSC : 0.36 | |
| Within populations | 19 | 146.6 | 7.7 | 60.2 | ФST : 0.40 | * | 19 | 146.6 | 7.7 | 64.1 | ФST : 0.36 | * | |
| Among regions | 3 | 2.9 | 0.1 | 24.3 | ФCT : 0.24 | ||||||||
| EF1α | Among populations within regions | – | 2 | 2.0 | 0.4 | 59.7 | ФSC : 0.79 | * | |||||
| Within populations | 7 | 0.7 | 0.1 | 16.1 | ФST : 0.84 | *** | |||||||
Fixation indices: among regions, φCT; among populations within regions, φSC; within populations, φST
P-values for % variation and corresponding fixation indices: *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001
The test for seven regions for X. volvulus and EF1α was not possible since the oceanic regions were not represented in the data
Fig. 3Supported migration routes. Legend: Maps show strongly supported diffusions (Bayes factor <10) from separate biogeographic reconstructions for the four monophyletic focal species constructed using COI and EF1α