4.7 Review

Bayesian hypothesis testing supports long-distance Pleistocene migrations in a European high mountain plant (Androsace vitaliana, Primulaceae)

期刊

MOLECULAR PHYLOGENETICS AND EVOLUTION
卷 53, 期 2, 页码 580-591

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ympev.2009.07.016

关键词

AFLPs; cpDNA; Diversification age; ITS; Phylogeography

资金

  1. European Community's [ES-TAF-1632]
  2. Real Jardin Botanico (CSIC), Madrid
  3. Austrian Science Fund (FWF) [P16104-B03]
  4. Austrian Science Fund (FWF) [P16104] Funding Source: Austrian Science Fund (FWF)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Colonization of the south-western European mountain ranges is suggested to have predominantly progressed from the Iberian Peninsula eastwards, but this hypothesis has never been tested in a statistical framework. Here, we test this hypothesis using Androsace vitaliana, a high elevation species with eight mostly allopatric subspecies, which is widely but disjunctly distributed across all major south-western European mountain ranges. To this end, we use plastid and nuclear sequence data as well as fingerprint (amplified fragment length polymorphisms) data and employ Bayesian methods, which allow co-estimation of genealogy and divergence times using explicit demographic models, as well as hypothesis testing via Bayes factors. Irrespective of the ambiguity concerning where A. vitaliana started to diversify - both the Alps and the mountain ranges of the Iberian Peninsula outside the Pyrenees were possible - colonization routes were not simply unidirectional, but involved Pleistocene connections between the Alps and mountain ranges of the Iberian Peninsula bypassing the interjacent Pyrenees via long-distance dispersal. In contrast, the species' post-glacial history is shaped by regional gene pool homogenization resulting in the genetic pattern showing good congruence with geographical proximity in agreement with a vicariance model, but only partly supporting current taxonomy. (C) 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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