Abstract

BackgroundPopulations may be bound by contemporary gene flow, selective sweeps, and extinction-recolonization processes. Indeed, existing molecular estimates indicate that species with low levels of gene flow are rare. However, strong priority effects and local selective regimes may hinder gene flow (despite dispersal) sending populations on independent evolutionary trajectories. In this scenario (the monopolization hypothesis), population differentiation will increase with time and genealogical evidence should yield ample private haplotypes. Cyclical parthenogens (e.g. rotifers and cladocerans such as Daphnia) have an increased capacity for rapid local adaptation and priority effects because sexual reproduction is followed by multiple generations of clonal selection and massive egg bank formation. We aimed to better understand the history of population differentiation and ongoing gene flow in Daphnia rosea s.l., by comparing population and regional divergences in mature unglaciated areas and younger previously glaciated areas. We also examined the timing and paths of colonization of previously-glaciated areas to assess the dispersal limitations of D. rosea s.l. We used DNA sequence variation (84 populations and >400 individuals) at the mitochondrial ND2 and nuclear HSP90 loci from Holarctic populations for our genetic analyses.ResultsThe genetic evidence indicated pronounced historical structure. Holarctic mtDNA phylogenies of D. rosea s.l. revealed three geographically restricted and divergent clades: European, Siberian and Japanese/American. The Japanese/American clade showed marked population genetic structure (FST > 0.8) that was weakly associated with geographic distance, and a high proportion of private haplotypes. Populations from older unglaciated habitats (i.e., Japan) showed higher DNA sequence divergences than populations from presumed younger habitats (i.e. non-Beringian North America) with nDNA and with mtDNA. Mismatch analyses of mtDNA and nDNA were consistent with a single rapid post-glacial expansion of D. rosea that covered most of the New World.ConclusionOur evidence agrees with negligible gene flow after founding, and the accumulation of genetic divergence with habitat age. Existing direct evidence and our mismatch analyses indicate that the pronounced population differentiation is unlikely to be due to dispersal limitation. Instead, priority effects and local selection regimes may play a role in limiting gene flow. The results challenge the notion that lacustrine populations of cladocerans are generally unified by contemporary gene flow.

Highlights

  • Populations may be bound by contemporary gene flow, selective sweeps, and extinction-recolonization processes

  • We found marked regional structure of D. rosea s.l with three divergent allopatric mtDNA clades: European; Siberian and Japanese-American and no indication of recent long-distance dispersal among regions (Fig. 1 and 2) [see Additional file 1]

  • The maximum likelihood (ML) distance between the European and Siberian clades was 4.47%, while the ML distances from the American-Japanese clade to the European clade and the Siberian clade were 7.61% and 8.13% respectively

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Populations may be bound by contemporary gene flow, selective sweeps, and extinction-recolonization processes. Ehrlich and Raven [2] recognized that selection may act as a cohesive force, they posited that in most cases selection keeps populations on independent evolutionary trajectories, and predicted that the increasing use of refined genetic tools would eventually reveal that gene flow is unimportant in unifying populations. In their monopolization hypothesis, De Meester et al [3] concluded that many aquatic populations possess weak ongoing gene flow – local adaptations, priority effects, and large egg/seed banks may restrict gene flow despite pronounced dispersal from nearby populations. The disruptive selection and monopolization schools view the population as the primary unit of evolution whereas the cohesion school views the species as the primary unit of evolution

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.