4.7 Article

Contrasting mtDNA diversity and population structure in a direct-developing marine gastropod and its trematode parasites

期刊

MOLECULAR ECOLOGY
卷 18, 期 22, 页码 4591-4603

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2009.04388.x

关键词

cytochrome c oxidase subunit I; genetic diversity; host-parasite; Maritrema novaezealandensis; Philophthalmus; population structure; trematode; Zeacumantus subcarinatus

资金

  1. University of Otago Research
  2. Royal Society of New Zealand's Marsden Fund

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The comparative genetic structure of hosts and their parasites has important implications for their coevolution, but has been investigated in relatively few systems. In this study, we analysed the genetic structure and diversity of the New Zealand intertidal snail Zeacumantus subcarinatus (n = 330) and two of its trematode parasites, Maritrema novaezealandensis (n = 269) and Philophthalmus sp. (n = 246), using cytochrome c oxidase subunit I gene (COI) sequences. Snails and trematodes were examined from 11 collection sites representing three regions on the South Island of New Zealand. Zeacumantus subcarinatus displayed low genetic diversity per geographic locality, strong genetic structure following an isolation by distance pattern, and low migration rates at the scale of the study. In contrast, M. novaezealandensis possessed high genetic diversity, genetic homogeneity among collection sites and high migration rates. Genetic diversity and migration rates were typically lower for Philophthalmus sp. compared to M. novaezealandensis and it displayed weak to moderate genetic structure. The observed patterns likely result from the limited dispersal ability of the direct developing snail and the utilization of bird definitive hosts by the trematodes. In addition, snails may occasionally experience long-distance dispersal. Discrepancies between trematode species may result from differences in their effective population sizes and/or life history traits.

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

4.7
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