{"title":"硬边、软边和物种范围的演变:坎伯兰高原蝾螈的基因组分析","authors":"Emily F. Watts, Brian P. Waldron, Shawn R. Kuchta","doi":"10.1111/jbi.14962","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Aim</h3>\n \n <p>Gene flow from central to edge populations is thought to limit population growth at range edges by constraining local adaptation. In this study, we explore the thesis that range edges can differ in their dynamics and be either ‘hard’ (e.g. a river) or ‘soft’ (e.g. ecological gradients). We hypothesize that soft edge populations will have smaller effective population sizes than central populations and that gene flow will be greater from the centre to the edge than vice versa. Conversely, we hypothesize that hard edge populations should have similar effective population sizes to central populations and that gene flow will be equal between the two.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Location</h3>\n \n <p>Kentucky, West Virginia, and Virginia, USA.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Taxon</h3>\n \n <p>\n <i>Plethodon kentucki</i> (Caudata: Plethodontidae).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We evaluated landscape suitability using an ecological niche model, then we compared gene flow and effective population sizes between edge and central populations and quantified gene flow between populations. Finally, we characterized landscape genetic variation, testing for isolation by distance and isolation by environment.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>We found continuously decreasing habitat quality along soft edges, with hard edges more variable. Additionally, we found that soft edges had lower effective population sizes than central populations and that gene flow was greater from the centre of the range to the soft edges than the reverse. In hard edges, by contrast, we found effective population sizes in edge populations were similar to central populations, with relatively equal gene flow in both directions.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Main Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Understanding why species have range limits is central to investigations of the structure of biodiversity, yet the evolutionary dynamics of range edges remain poorly understood. We show that within a single species with a small range, the evolutionary dynamics operating at range boundaries may depend on the nature of the boundary.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":15299,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Biogeography","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jbi.14962","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Hard edges, soft edges, and species range evolution: A genomic analysis of the Cumberland Plateau salamander\",\"authors\":\"Emily F. Watts, Brian P. Waldron, Shawn R. Kuchta\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jbi.14962\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Aim</h3>\\n \\n <p>Gene flow from central to edge populations is thought to limit population growth at range edges by constraining local adaptation. In this study, we explore the thesis that range edges can differ in their dynamics and be either ‘hard’ (e.g. a river) or ‘soft’ (e.g. ecological gradients). We hypothesize that soft edge populations will have smaller effective population sizes than central populations and that gene flow will be greater from the centre to the edge than vice versa. Conversely, we hypothesize that hard edge populations should have similar effective population sizes to central populations and that gene flow will be equal between the two.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Location</h3>\\n \\n <p>Kentucky, West Virginia, and Virginia, USA.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Taxon</h3>\\n \\n <p>\\n <i>Plethodon kentucki</i> (Caudata: Plethodontidae).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>We evaluated landscape suitability using an ecological niche model, then we compared gene flow and effective population sizes between edge and central populations and quantified gene flow between populations. Finally, we characterized landscape genetic variation, testing for isolation by distance and isolation by environment.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>We found continuously decreasing habitat quality along soft edges, with hard edges more variable. Additionally, we found that soft edges had lower effective population sizes than central populations and that gene flow was greater from the centre of the range to the soft edges than the reverse. In hard edges, by contrast, we found effective population sizes in edge populations were similar to central populations, with relatively equal gene flow in both directions.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Main Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>Understanding why species have range limits is central to investigations of the structure of biodiversity, yet the evolutionary dynamics of range edges remain poorly understood. We show that within a single species with a small range, the evolutionary dynamics operating at range boundaries may depend on the nature of the boundary.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15299,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Biogeography\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jbi.14962\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Biogeography\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jbi.14962\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Biogeography","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jbi.14962","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Hard edges, soft edges, and species range evolution: A genomic analysis of the Cumberland Plateau salamander
Aim
Gene flow from central to edge populations is thought to limit population growth at range edges by constraining local adaptation. In this study, we explore the thesis that range edges can differ in their dynamics and be either ‘hard’ (e.g. a river) or ‘soft’ (e.g. ecological gradients). We hypothesize that soft edge populations will have smaller effective population sizes than central populations and that gene flow will be greater from the centre to the edge than vice versa. Conversely, we hypothesize that hard edge populations should have similar effective population sizes to central populations and that gene flow will be equal between the two.
Location
Kentucky, West Virginia, and Virginia, USA.
Taxon
Plethodon kentucki (Caudata: Plethodontidae).
Methods
We evaluated landscape suitability using an ecological niche model, then we compared gene flow and effective population sizes between edge and central populations and quantified gene flow between populations. Finally, we characterized landscape genetic variation, testing for isolation by distance and isolation by environment.
Results
We found continuously decreasing habitat quality along soft edges, with hard edges more variable. Additionally, we found that soft edges had lower effective population sizes than central populations and that gene flow was greater from the centre of the range to the soft edges than the reverse. In hard edges, by contrast, we found effective population sizes in edge populations were similar to central populations, with relatively equal gene flow in both directions.
Main Conclusions
Understanding why species have range limits is central to investigations of the structure of biodiversity, yet the evolutionary dynamics of range edges remain poorly understood. We show that within a single species with a small range, the evolutionary dynamics operating at range boundaries may depend on the nature of the boundary.
期刊介绍:
Papers dealing with all aspects of spatial, ecological and historical biogeography are considered for publication in Journal of Biogeography. The mission of the journal is to contribute to the growth and societal relevance of the discipline of biogeography through its role in the dissemination of biogeographical research.