4.4 Article

Lack of population structure in the fiddler crab Uca annulipes along an East African latitudinal gradient: genetic and morphometric evidence

期刊

MARINE BIOLOGY
卷 157, 期 5, 页码 1113-1126

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00227-010-1393-9

关键词

-

资金

  1. Fundacao para a Ciencia e a Tecnologia (FCT) [SFRH/BD/14325/2003, SFRH/BPD/14557/2003]
  2. TRANSMAP [INCO-CT2004-510862]
  3. European Commission
  4. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [SFRH/BD/14325/2003, SFRH/BPD/14557/2003] Funding Source: FCT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Phylogeographic patterns in Uca annulipes sampled from 30 locations across an East African latitudinal gradient were investigated using mitochondrial DNA cytochrome oxidase I sequences and analysed together with patterns of morphometric differentiation. Four hundred and four specimens along the east African coast were sampled, and 18 haplotypes were encountered. Haplotype and nucleotide diversity values were very low and the phylogenetic analysis did not reveal any clear phylogeographic structure. Furthermore, the analysis of molecular variance and pairwise I broken vertical bar (ST) values showed no significant spatial population differentiation. Mismatch analyses and tests of neutrality supported the hypothesis that this species has undergone a fairly recent demographic expansion. Our results, therefore, failed to demonstrate significant geographical structure in the pattern of genetic variation, indicating that populations of U. annulipes are capable of extensive gene flow among mangroves along the coast. The genetic structure of this species could be panmictic due to a high amount of gene flow along the geographical gradient in study during the planktonic larval phase, when larvae are carried along stream by the dominant currents. Moreover, the morphometric analysis performed did not reveal differences of shape differentiation according to a geographical pattern, although significant differences among the sampling areas were found.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据