| Literature DB >> 27439775 |
Michael B Mende1,2,3, Manuela Bartel1, Anna K Hundsdoerfer1,3.
Abstract
We test the morphology based hypothesis that the Western Palaearctic spurge hawkmoths represent two species, the Eurasian H. euphorbiae and Afro-Macaronesian H. tithymali. It has been suggested that these species merged into several hybrid swarm populations, although a mitochondrial phylogeography revealed substructure with local differentiation. We analysed a three-gene mt-dataset (889 individuals) and 12 microsatellite loci (892 individuals). Microsatellite analyses revealed an overall weak differentiation and corroborated the superordinate division into two clusters. The data indicate that the populations studied belong to only one species according to the biological species concept, refuting the opening hypothesis. A future taxonomic revision appears necessary to reflect the division into two subgroups. Ancestral mitochondrial polymorphisms are retained in H. euphorbiae, indicating gene flow within a broad 'glacial refuge belt' and ongoing postglacial gene flow. Diverse patterns of extensive mito-nuclear discordance in the Mediterranean and the Middle East presumably evolved by more recent processes. This discordance indicates introgression of H. tithymali-related mitochondrial haplogroups, accompanied (to a lesser degree) by nuclear alleles, into Italian and Aegean H. euphorbiae populations as recently as the late Holocene. The complex mosaic of divergence and reintegration is assumed to have been influenced by locally differing environmental barriers to gene flow.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27439775 PMCID: PMC4954964 DOI: 10.1038/srep29527
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Distribution of the traditionally defined HEC taxa based on a compilation of larval and adult colour pattern morphotypes.
(Distribution data combined from Pittaway17, Danner et al.21, Hundsdoerfer et al.20; map: ArcGIS version 10, ESRI, http://www.esri.de; all inset fotos by MBM, except for larva (b) by AKH). Shades represent H. euphorbiae (bluish), H. tithymali (reddish) and putative hybrid populations (purple) according to our hypothesis H1. Grey dots mark sampling localities; dashed ellipses and abbreviations indicate pooled populations (* = putative hybrid populations). BEL: western Belgium, BUL: Bulgaria to northeastern Greece, CAU: Transcaucasia, cEH: El Hierro, cFV: Fuerteventura, cGC: Gran Canaria, *CIT: western central Italy, cLG: La Gomera, cLP: La Palma, cLZ: Lanzarote, *CRE: southern Aegean Islands (Dodecanese and Crete), CSP: central Spain, cTF: Tenerife, *EIT: eastern central Italy, ESP: eastern Spain, FOG: Fogo, Brava (Cape Verde), FRA: southern France, *GAL: Galicia, GER: eeastern Germany to northern Czech Republic, GEW: western Germany, GRE: northwestern Greece, HUN: Hungary, IRA: Iran, KAZ: Kazakhstan to southern Russia, *LAM: Lampedusa, MAD: Madeira, *MAL: Malta, *MOR: northern Morocco, NIT: northern Italy, *PAN: Pantelleria, POR: Portugal, SGR: southern Greece, *SIC: Sicily, *SIT: southern Italy, SLK: southern Czech Republic to Slovakia, SLO: Slovenia, SMO: southern Morocco, SSA: Santo Antao (Cape Verde), SSP: southern Spain, STU: southern Tunisia, *TUN: northern Tunisia, TUR: southern Turkey, YEM: Yemen. Insets: Typical moth and final instar (L5) larva morphotypes: H. euphorbiae larva with two large eyespots and a posterior coloured wedge per segment; moth with bright median stripe on forewing which extends to costal margin (a). H. tithymali larva with lower eyespots absent and a yellow-coloured lateral band crossing the segments; moth with broad darkened subcostal area of forewing, and veins in postmedial area and borders of tegulae often whitish (b). Putative hybrid population larva with lower eyespots reduced in size and a yellow-speckled lateral band; moth with intermediately darkened costal margin (c).
Figure 2Haplotype network of mitochondrial COI/II sequences.
Size of haplotype circles reflects sample size and black nodes represent missing haplotypes. The seven haplogroups are named according to Hundsdoerfer et al.16 and uncorrected p-distances are given between them.
Figure 3Geographic distribution of mitochondrial haplogroups (a) and microsatellite clusters (b) in a graph illustrating the hypothesis H1 formulated by morphology.
Dashed lines separate the two traditionally defined species and enclose the areas with larvae of intermediate morphology, representing putative hybrid swarms (see Fig. 1; map: ArcGIS version 10, ESRI, http://www.esri.de). Colours in (a) correspond to Fig. 2. Colours in (b) correspond to cluster membership according to the optimal (K = 2) partition by Structure (see Fig. 7a): blue = pure H. euphorbiae; red = pure H. tithymali; purple = admixed ancestry (<80% cluster membership; see Randi81). Size of pies reflects sample size. Population abbreviations correspond to Fig. 1 (* = putative hybrid populations).
Results of mismatch analyses and neutrality tests for the mitochondrial haplogroups in alphabetical order.
| Model parameters | |||||||
| Sample size (n) | 16 | 76 | 281 | 144 | 26 | 22 | 322 |
| No. of segregating sites (S) | 3 | 17 | 81 | 29 | 4 | 20 | 69 |
| Expansion parameter (τ) | 0.980(0.340–1.986) | 0.850(0.578–1.234) | 2.287(1.668–4.047) | 2.367(1.059–3.592) | 2.406(0.000–4.494) | 3.137(1.918–4.175) | 2.203(1.156–3.297) |
| Pop. size before expansion (θ0) | 0.000(0.000–0.014) | 0.000(0.000–0.030) | 0.605(0.000–0.956) | 0.004(0.000–0.680) | 0.002(0.000–0.033) | 0.005(0.000–0.735) | 0.079(0.000–0.698) |
| Pop. size after expansion (θ1) | 99999.000(5.614–99999) | 99999.000(10.562–99999) | 50.977(12.327–99999) | 11.694(4.543–99999) | 2.005(1.210–99999) | 99999.000(14.234–99999) | 16.162(5.261–99999) |
| Goodness-of-fit test | |||||||
| Sum of square deviations (SSD) | 0.02840 | 0.01779 | 0.00017 | 0.00775 | 0.10526 | 0.00501 | 0.00170 |
| P (sim. SSD ≥ obs. SSD) | 0.03220 | ||||||
| Tajima’s D | −0.41395 | −1.90772 | −2.34719 | −1.81130 | 0.30840 | −1.63458 | −2.37725 |
| P (sim. D < obs. D) | 0.37150 | 0.66660 | |||||
| Fu’s FS | −0.82161 | −6.97073 | −26.20079 | −18.55541 | 0.65185 | −9.16373 | −26.98077 |
| P (sim. FS ≤ obs. FS) | 0.16590 | 0.66375 | |||||
Confidence intervals (95%) for model parameters are given in brackets. Values that support a scenario of demographic and/or spatial expansion (insignificant SSD between observed and expected mismatch; significantly negative values for Tajima’s D and Fu’s FS) are marked in bold.
Figure 4Bayesian skyline plots (BSPs) showing past population size dynamics for mitochondrial haplogroups.
The black line indicates the median estimate of effective female population size Nef through time, the grey area reflects the 95% highest posterior density (HPD) limits. BSPs for ‘melitensis’ and ‘cretica’ are uninformative due to a very short time to coalescence (>1,000 years BP) and are thus not shown.
Figure 5Relationship between geographic and genetic (microsatellites) distance in the entire HEC.
Mantel test (a): Pairwise comparisons of genetic (FST; see Supplementary Table S3) and geographic distance (log-transformed to account for the two-dimensional distribution of sample sites) between the populations of the HEC. Mantel correlogram (b): Mantel correlation of pairwise genetic distance from populations of the entire HEC plotted in geographic distances classes with linear trend line (in grey) and its coefficient of determination given.
Figure 6Estimated probabilities for the number of microsatellite clusters.
Structure analysis: Mean (±SD) log posterior probabilities (a) and ∆K values (b) for ten replicate runs of each number of clusters K = 1–20. Geneland: Posterior probability distribution of number of clusters (K) shown for the optimal out of ten replicate runs (c).
Figure 7Estimated population structure based on microsatellite data according to Bayesian cluster analyses (with mitochondrial haplogroup assignments for comparison) (a) and according to a principle component analysis (PCA)
(b). Bayesian cluster analyses (a): Individual cluster assignment probabilities from the Structure (Str) and Geneland (GL) analyses for K = 2 (corresponding to H. euphorbiae and H. tithymali) and K = 3. Order of individuals corresponds to that in the Supplementary Table S1; level of 80% of cluster membership is indicated as the threshold for pure and/or admixed ancestry in the Structure bar plots81. Population abbreviations correspond to Fig. 1 (* = putative hybrid populations) and colours for mitochondrial haplogroup assignments to Fig. 2 (white = no mtDNA sequence available). PCA (b): Dots represent individuals, their colouration and 95% inertia ellipses visualise assignment to the K = 2 or K = 3. Structure clusters (with all samples of a population collectively assigned to a cluster according to the predominant assignment of its samples). Inset: Eigenvalues of the first 20 components with the proportion of total variance scaled on the y-axis.
Summary statistics of genetic variation in the entire HEC and microsatellite clusters.
| Group | Microsatellites | Mitochondrial sequences | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NA | NĀ | NpA | NpĀ | AR | HO | HE | LHWD | NH | NpH | Np% | Hd | π | |||
| entire HEC | 892 | 261 | 0.293 | – | – | 15.43 | 0.383 | 0.604 | 11 | 889 | 218 | – | – | 0.965 | 0.0065 |
| 549 | 248 | 0.452 | 149 | 0.271 | 16.47 | 0.374 | 0.571 | 8 | 547 | 152 | 147 | 0.967 | 0.962 | 0.0071 | |
| 343 | 114 | 0.332 | 13 | 0.038 | 8.41 | 0.390 | 0.587 | 8 (7) | 342 | 71 | 66 | 0.930 | 0.868 | 0.0028 | |
Samples of populations were collectively assigned to one of the K = 2 Structure clusters (see Fig. 7a) according to the predominant assignment of the populations samples; N: number of individuals with microsatellite data; N: total number of alleles (sum of all loci); N: average number of alleles per individual; N and N: total and average number of private alleles; AR: allelic richness (mean of all loci); H: observed heterozygosity averaged over loci; H: average expected heterozygosity; L: number of loci which significantly deviate from HWE at significance level 0.01 or 0.05 in brackets (also see Supplementary Table S2); N: number of individuals with mtDNA sequence data; N: total number of mitochondrial haplotypes; N and N: total number and percentage of private haplotypes; H: haplotype diversity; π: nucleotide diversity.