4.7 Article

A Biogeographic Barrier Test Reveals a Strong Genetic Structure for a Canopy-Emergent Amazon Tree Species

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 9, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-55147-1

关键词

-

资金

  1. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo (FAPESP) [2013/12633-8, 2015/07141-4, 2017/02302-5]
  2. NSF [2012/50260-6, FESD 1338694]
  3. NASA [2012/50260-6]
  4. FAPESP [2012/50260-6]
  5. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico (CNPq) [310871/2017-4]
  6. Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior (CAPES) [88881.064974/2014-01]
  7. National Science Foundation [FESD 1338694, DEB 1240869]
  8. University of Michigan Herbarium

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Wallace's (1854) Riverine Barrier hypothesis is one of the earliest explanations for Amazon biotic diversification. Despite the importance of this hypothesis for explaining speciation in some animal groups, it has not been studied extensively for plant species. In this study we use a prominent Amazon tree, Buchenavia oxycarpa (Mart.) Eichler (Combretaceae), to evaluate Wallace's hypothesis along the Rio Negro, a major Amazon tributary that has driven allopatric speciation for several animal taxa. We sampled six individuals from sixteen localities along both river banks, and used a modified ddRADseq protocol to identify SNP markers. Our population genomic data revealed strong genetic structure for B. oxycarpa sampled across banks of the Rio Negro (phi(CT) = 0.576, P < 0.001), supporting the hypothesis that the Rio Negro acted as a significant genetic barrier for B. oxycarpa. Our study shows that gene flow for this large and well-dispersed Amazon tree is impeded by riverine barriers, though this has not yet resulted in speciation. Future studies focused on species with different life histories, including species restricted to non-flooded forests, are needed to further advance our understanding of Amazon rivers as drivers of biotic diversification.

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