Spatial variation in the phylogenetic structure of flea assemblages across geographic ranges of small mammalian hosts in the Palearctic

Mitrani Department of Desert Ecology, Institute for Dryland Environmental Research, Jacob Blaustein Institutes for Desert Research, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Sede-Boqer Campus, 84990 Midreshet Ben-Gurion, Israel. Electronic address: .
International journal for parasitology (Impact Factor: 3.87). 06/2013; 43(9). DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpara.2013.05.001
Source: PubMed


We investigated spatial variation in the phylogenetic structure (measured as a degree of phylogenetic clustering) of flea assemblages across the geographic ranges of 11 Palearctic species of small mammalian hosts and asked whether the phylogenetic structure of the flea assemblage of a host in a locality is affected by (i) distance of this locality from the centre of the host's geographic range, (ii) geographic position of the locality (distance to the equator) and (iii) phylogenetic structure of the entire flea assemblage of the locality. Our results demonstrated that the key factor underlying spatial variation of the phylogenetic structure of the flea assemblage of a host was the distance from the centre of the host's geographic range. However, the pattern of this spatial variation differed between host species and might be explained by their species-specific immunogenetic and/or distributional patterns. Local flea assemblages may also, to some extent, be shaped by environmental filtering coupled with historical events. In addition, the phylogenetic structure of a local within-host flea assemblage may mirror the phylogenetic structure of the entire across-host flea assemblage in that locality and, thus, be affected by the availability of certain phylogenetic lineages.

Download full-text


Available from: Irina S. Khokhlova, Jul 21, 2014
60 Reads
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The increasing availability of phylogenetic data, computing power and informatics tools has facilitated a rapid expansion of studies that apply phylogenetic data and methods to community ecology. Several key areas are reviewed in which phylogenetic information helps to resolve long-standing controversies in community ecology, challenges previous assumptions, and opens new areas of investigation. In particular, studies in phylogenetic community ecology have helped to reveal the multitude of processes driving community assembly and have demonstrated the importance of evolution in the assembly process. Phylogenetic approaches have also increased understanding of the consequences of community interactions for speciation, adaptation and extinction. Finally, phylogenetic community structure and composition holds promise for predicting ecosystem processes and impacts of global change. Major challenges to advancing these areas remain. In particular, determining the extent to which ecologically relevant traits are phylogenetically conserved or convergent, and over what temporal scale, is critical to understanding the causes of community phylogenetic structure and its evolutionary and ecosystem consequences. Harnessing phylogenetic information to understand and forecast changes in diversity and dynamics of communities is a critical step in managing and restoring the Earth's biota in a time of rapid global change.
    Ecology Letters 08/2009; 12(7):693-715. DOI:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01314.x · 10.69 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Phylogenetic diversity (PD) captures the shared ancestry of species, and is increasingly being recognized as a valuable conservation currency. Regionally, PD frequently covaries closely with species richness; however, variation in speciation and extinction rates and/or the biogeographic history of lineages can result in significant deviation. Locally, these differences may be pronounced. Rapid recent speciation or high temporal turnover of lineages can result in low PD but high richness. In contrast, rare dispersal events, for example, between biomes, can elevate PD but have only small impact on richness. To date, environmental predictors of species richness have been well studied but global models explaining variation in PD are lacking. Here, we contrast the global distribution of PD versus species richness for terrestrial mammals. We show that an environmental model of lineage diversification can predict well the discrepancy in the distribution of these two variables in some places, for example, South America and Africa but not others, such as Southeast Asia. When we have information on multiple diversity indices, conservation efforts directed towards maximizing one currency or another (e.g. species richness versus PD) should also consider the underlying processes that have shaped their distributions.
    Philosophical Transactions of The Royal Society B Biological Sciences 08/2011; 366(1576):2414-25. DOI:10.1098/rstb.2011.0058 · 7.06 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: There is growing interest in quantifying genetic population structure across the geographical ranges of species to understand why species might exhibit stable range limits and to assess the conservation value of peripheral populations. However, many assertions regarding peripheral populations rest on the long-standing but poorly tested supposition that peripheral populations exhibit low genetic diversity and greater genetic differentiation as a consequence of smaller effective population size and greater geographical isolation relative to geographically central populations. We reviewed 134 studies representing 115 species that tested for declines in within-population genetic diversity and/or increases in among-population differentiation towards range margins using nuclear molecular genetic markers. On average, 64.2% of studies detected the expected decline in diversity, 70.2% of those that tested for it showed increased differentiation and there was a positive association between these trends. In most cases, however, the difference in genetic diversity between central and peripheral population was not large. Although these results were consistent across plants and animals, strong taxonomic and biogeographical biases in the available studies call for a cautious generalization of these results. Despite the large number of studies testing these simple predictions, very few attempted to test possible mechanisms causing reduced peripheral diversity or increased differentiation. Almost no study incorporated a phylogeographical framework to evaluate historical influences on contemporary genetic patterns. Finally, there has been little effort to test whether these geographical trends in putatively neutral variation at marker loci are reflected by quantitative genetic trait variation, which is likely to influence the adaptive potential of populations across the geographical range.
    Molecular Ecology 04/2008; 17(5):1170-88. DOI:10.1111/j.1365-294X.2007.03659.x · 6.49 Impact Factor
Show more