Low intraspecific genetic divergence and weak niche differentiation despite wide ranges and extensive sympatry in two epigean Niphargus species (Crustacea: Amphipoda)

Copilaş‐Ciocianu, Denis; Borza, Péter; Balázs, Gergely; Angyal, Dorottya; Petrusek, Adam

doi:10.1093/zoolinnean/zlw031

Cited by 28 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 55 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, ribosomal DNA markers such as intervening spacer sequences (ITSs) are also characterized by small effective population sizes due to their concerted mode of evolution, and their fast mutation rates make them ideal candidate markers for single‐locus species delimitation. Although they remain rare, studies using single diploid sequence markers to delineate species are presently on the rise, either alone (Adjeroud et al., ; Daïnou et al., ) or in conjunction with an organellar marker such as COI (Copilaş‐Ciocianu et al., ; Flot, Dahl, & André, ; Papakostas et al., ). Our take‐home message may therefore be: if you sequence a single marker to delineate species, make it a nuclear one; and if you sequence two markers, include at least one nuclear marker (instead of piling up two mitochondrial or chloroplastic DNA regions, which behave as a single marker because they are linked together on the same molecule).…”

Section: Conclusion and Recommendationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The hitchhiker's guide to single‐locus species delimitation

Dellicour

Flot

2018

Molecular Ecology Resources

155

116

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Molecular approaches to species delimitation are increasingly used to ascertain the number of species in a sample prior to taxonomic, ecological or physiological studies. Although multilocus approaches are gaining fast in popularity, single-gene methods still predominate in the literature. However, available simulation benchmarks of these methods focus exclusively on species-poor samples and/or tree-based approaches: as a result, travellers in the land of single-locus species delimitation lack a comprehensive "hitchhiker's guide" highlighting the sweet spots and dangers on their road. To fill this gap, we compared the performances of distance-based (ABGD, "automatic barcode gap discovery"), allele sharing-based (haplowebs) and tree-based approaches (GMYC, "generalized mixed Yule-coalescent" and PTP, "Poisson tree processes") to detect interspecific boundaries in samples of 6, 60 and 120 simulated species with various speciation rates, effective population sizes, mutation rates and sampling patterns. We found that all approaches performed poorly when population sizes and speciation rates were large, with haplowebs yielding best results followed by ABGD then tree-based approaches. The latter's error type was mostly oversplitting, whereas ABGD chiefly overlumped and haplowebs leaned either way depending on simulation parameters: such widely divergent error patterns suggest that, if all three types of methods agree, then the resulting delimitation is probably correct. Perfect congruence being quite rare, travellers in search of a one-size-fit-all approach to single-locus species delimitation should forget it; however, our hitchhiker's guide raises hope that such species delimitation's Holy Grail may be found in the relatively uncharted nearby land of multilocus species delimitation.

show abstract

Section: Conclusion and Recommendationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The hitchhiker's guide to single‐locus species delimitation

Dellicour

Flot

2018

Molecular Ecology Resources

155

116

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, in different parts of United States, 20%-45% of subterranean species are single-site endemics (Christman, Culver, Madden, & White, 2005;Niemiller & Zigler, 2013), while in France, 38% of aquatic subterranean species have latitudinal linear range extents <3 km (Ferreira, Malard, Dole-Olivier, & Gibert, 2007). In general, aquatic subterranean species with linear range extents above 200 km are an exception (Copilaș-Ciocianu et al, 2017;Eme et al, 2018;Trontelj et al, 2009;Zagmajster et al, 2014). The extremely high proportion of rare species leads to an intuitive hypothesis that they are essential in formation of SRPs.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contribution of rare and common species to subterranean species richness patterns

Bregović

Zagmajster

2019

Ecology and Evolution

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AimCommon species contribute more to species richness patterns (SRPs) than rare species in most studies. Our aim was to test this hypothesis using a novel model system, species living exclusively in subterranean habitats. They consist of mainly rare species (small ranges), only a few of them being common (large ranges), and challenge whether rare species are less important for the development of SRPs in this environment. We separately analyzed aquatic and terrestrial species.LocationWestern Balkans in southeastern Europe.MethodsWe assembled two datasets comprising 431 beetle and 145 amphipod species, representing the model groups of subterranean terrestrial and aquatic diversity, respectively. We assessed the importance of rare and common species using the stepwise reconstruction of SRPs and subsequent correlation analyses, corrected also for the cumulative information content of the subsets based on species prevalence. We applied generalized linear regression models to evaluate the importance of rare and common species in forming SRPs. Additionally, we analyzed the contribution of rare and common species in species‐rich cells.ResultsPatterns of subterranean aquatic and terrestrial species richness overlapped only weakly, with aquatic species having larger ranges than terrestrial ones. Our analyses supported higher importance of common species for forming overall SRPs in both beetles and amphipods. However, in stepwise analysis corrected for information content, results were ambiguous. Common species presented a higher proportion of species than rare species in species‐rich cells.Main ConclusionWe have shown that even in habitats with the domination of rare species, it is still common species that drive SRPs. This may be due to an even spatial distribution of rare species or spatial mismatch in hotspots of rare and common species. SRPs of aquatic and terrestrial subterranean organisms overlap very little, so the conservation approaches need to be habitat specific.

show abstract

“…The first cluster is further split into three subclusters corresponding to 424 lake, lake giant and daddy-longlegs ecomorphs Although most of the surface-water Niphargus species have known populations 455 both in subterranean and surface / ecotonal habitats (Fišer C. et al, 2006;2010b;2014;456 Fišer Ž. et al, 2015), N. hrabei and N. valachicus are probably the most detached from the Therefore, it appears that there were at least two independent colonization events of truly , 2016;Borza et al, 2017;Mauchart et al, 2017). Experimental evidence has shown that niphargids can tolerate hypoxia and other adverse environmental conditions much 495 better than surface-water gammarids (Danielopol et al, 1994;Hervant et al, 1995;Malard 496 and Hervant, 1999;Coppellotti Krupa and Guidolin, 2003;Simčič et al, 2005Simčič et al, , 2006Flot 497 et al, 2014).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%