4.2 Article

Body shape differentiation at global and local geographic scales in the invasive cichlid Oreochromis mossambicus

期刊

BIOLOGICAL JOURNAL OF THE LINNEAN SOCIETY
卷 105, 期 2, 页码 369-381

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/j.1095-8312.2011.01802.x

关键词

biological invasion; constraints; contemporary evolution; islands; predation release; morphological diversity

资金

  1. Rotary International travel grant [2009 BQRl 01 4]
  2. Region Bourgogne PARI [079]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Mozambique tilapia Oreochromis mossambicus (Teleostei, Cichlidae) has been transplanted worldwide during the 20th century, and now belongs to the list of the most invasive species. Using a geometric morphometric approach, we describe body shape differentiation among 15 populations from native (Mozambique) and invaded (New Caledonia and Guadeloupe) ranges. A dominant phylogeographic signal is detected, despite the broad range of environmental conditions at the local scale. This result suggests that phylogeographic background rather than phenotypic plasticity responding to environmental variation constitutes the main factor correlated with shape divergence. This could result from successive founder events that occurred during the process of colonization of new geographic areas, and therefore strongly suggests heritable phenotypic differentiation. In addition, shape changes along a major axis of divergence hypothetically refer to different swimming abilities, possibly related to divergent functional requirements between the native and invaded ranges. Overall, patterns of contemporary shape diversification in O. mossambicus probably result from both phylogenetic constraints and adaptive divergence processes. We show that critically taking into account recent phylogenetic history of populations as a constraint on rapid phenotypic divergence is necessary for an improved view of contemporary evolution. (C) 2012 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2012, 105, 369381.

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

4.2
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