4.3 Article

Phylogeography of the planktonic shrimp Lucifer hanseni Nobili 1905 in the Indo-Malayan Archipelago

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0025315416000163

关键词

Lucifer hanseni; Indo-Malayan Archipelago; phylogeography

资金

  1. Asian CORE Program of the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science
  2. Ministry of Education, Malaysia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Using partial sequences of two mitochondrial genes, cytochrome c oxidase subunit I (COI) and 12S ribosomal RNA (12S rRNA), and one nuclear gene, 28S ribosomal RNA (28S rRNA), we investigated population genetics of the holoplanktonic shrimp Lucifer hanseni Nobili, 1905 in the Indo-Malayan Archipelago (IMA), encompassing Andaman Sea, Malacca Strait, Gulf of Thailand, Borneo Island, Philippines (hereafter collectively referred to as the Thailand-Malaysia-Philippine area: TMP), Celebes Sea (CS), and the waters near islands in the Western Pacific (WP) including Palau, Papua New Guinea and Solomon Islands. The samples from the TMP showed the highest number of haplotypes. Significant phylogeographic structure was found in the L. hanseni populations (phi(ST) = 0.832 for COI, 0.159 for 12S rRNA, 0.783 for 28S rRNA). The total number of haplotypes was 46 in COI, 28 in 12S rRNA and 23 in 28S rRNA. The haplotype network analyses revealed two major clades for COI (subgroups: TMP + CS, WP) and for 12S rRNA and 28S rRNA (TMP, CS + WP). The CS and WP populations appeared isolated from the TMP populations. The samples from the CS showed low genetic diversity compared with the other samples at both haplotype and nucleotide levels, suggesting that the population CS experienced bottleneck events. This is the first demonstration of significant genetic structure of a holoplanktonic metazoan in IMA, which is suggested to be synergistically influenced by historical events (vicariance) and contemporary oceanographic circulations and corroborates the results of previous studies on other benthic/demersal animals with mero-planktonic phases.

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

4.3
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