1 / 17

Species boundaries, phylogeography and conservation genetics of the red-legged frog (Rana aurora/drytonii) complex

Species boundaries, phylogeography and conservation genetics of the red-legged frog (Rana aurora/drytonii) complex. Presented by: Chris Burton & Matt Meyer. Presentation Overview. Introduction – Matt Materials and Methods – Chris Results – Chris Discussion and Implications - Matt.

victoria
Télécharger la présentation

Species boundaries, phylogeography and conservation genetics of the red-legged frog (Rana aurora/drytonii) complex

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Species boundaries, phylogeography and conservation genetics of the red-legged frog (Rana aurora/drytonii) complex Presented by: Chris Burton & Matt Meyer

  2. Presentation Overview • Introduction – Matt • Materials and Methods – Chris • Results – Chris • Discussion and Implications - Matt

  3. R. Aurora • Originally classified as two distinct species: R. aurora (Northern red-legged frog) and R. draytonii (California red-legged frog) • Reclassified R. aurora as a single polytypic species with two subspecies, R. a. aurora & R. a. draytonii • Currently R. a. aurora and R. a. draytonii are conspecific subspecies R. a. aurora R. a. draytonii

  4. R. aurora • Once widespread in Sierra Nevada and San Joaquin Valley • Currently only 6 known, recently discovered, populations still in existence in these areas • R. a. draytonnii – threatened under US Endangered Species Act. – Enormous economic and ecological consequences • Mark Twain’s – “The Celebrated Jumping Frog of Calaveras County”

  5. Range Restricted to Pacific Coast of North America from southern British Columbia to northern Mexico. • Broad Zone of Intergradation – several hundred kilometers in northern California http://www.californiaherps.com/anurans/maps/rauroramap.jpg

  6. Materials and Methods Specimen • 108 Specimen from six taxa • Sample 50 sites that span the range of aurora and draytonii – (1 to 4 from each site) • Included three outgroup taxa • R. boylii • R. muscosa • R. catesbeiana

  7. Molecular Methods • DNA was extracted • Primers were developed to amplify a fragment of cytochrome b mtDNA from all taxa • Species specific Primers • cytb1-ra • cytb1-rm • cytb1-rb • cytb2-ra • Individual were sequenced in both directions • Sequences ranged from 297 to 397bp (most ~ 350bp)

  8. Analysis • Parsimony analysis was ran on both short and full fragments • Likelihood analysis used MODELTEST for a common 287bp fragment • Bootstrap proportions (BP) were used to asses the strength of the trees • Parametric bootstrapping used to test a prior hypthesis of relationships

  9. Results • 47of 107 sequnces were unique • All individuals showed low frequency of guanine. – f(G)=0.15 • Optimal Model selection HKY+G Sequence Variance

  10. Phylogeny • Several well supported clades • Demonstrate a sister-group between aurora and cascadae • aurora and cascadae are not a monophyletic group

  11. Bootstrap Likelihood of Subset of Unique Sequences • 15 sequences – 3 of each major group • Show monophyly of individual taxon and the monophyly of aurora and cascadea clade

  12. Parametric Bootstrap Analysis • Test Hypothesis that Rana a. aurora and R. a. draytonii are sister taxa • Search for a model tree, with aurora + draytonii forming an exclusive clade

  13. The aurora/draytonii contact zone • Sample effort was supplemented • To approximate the width of the contact zone • To identify biogeographical barriers • Found that the two over lap over a several-km region • Pure aurora found from Big River north • Pure draytonii from Mills Creek south • In between both were found • Breeding dynamics or restriction of overlap zone can not be determined due to only one or a few indiviuals being sequenced per site • However, mtDNA contact zone can be determined to be narrow with no obvious barriers to gene flow

  14. Discussion and Conclusions • mtDNA data supports the separate species hypothesis based on: • Relatively deep differentiation and reciprocal monophyly of aurora and draytonii • The sister group relationship of aurora and cascadae and the exclusion of draytonii • Assuming the data reflects the correct order of speciation: • Split 1 – between northern (aurora & cascadae) and southern frogs (draytonii) • Split 2 – between coast range (aurora) and interior cascade mountains (cascadae)

  15. Biogeography • Past studies have shown two distinct phylogeographical splits along the Pacific Coast in California • North/South break • Northern California break • These phylogeographic boundaries relatively coincide with the north and south ends of the aurora and draytonii contact zone • Data reflects history of species, not just mitochondrion

  16. Species Conservation / Implications • As a result of the data, many of the population that were thought to be intergrades are not. • draytonii (protected species) extends farther north • Confirmation with nuclear markers could result in a conservation status adjustment • Single draytonii population in southern California • Only 3 adult males • Captive breeding • Data suggests more closely related to distant draytonii populations rather than closest ones

  17. Questions???

More Related