Phylogenetic relationships based on two mitochondrial genes and hybridization patterns in Anatidae

Abstract

We produced DNA sequence data from two mitochondrial genes (cytochrome b and the NADH dehydrogenase subunit 2) to reconstruct the phylogenetic relationships among 121 species of the Anseriformes (waterfowls including ducks, geese, swans, the magpie goose and screamers). Phylogenetic analyses converged into a congruent topology and defined several well-supported clades. We calibrated a molecular clock and reconstructed ancestral biogeographical areas using Bayesian inference supporting an austral continental (Gondwanaland) origin of the waterfowls. Ducks, swans and geese might have diversified during the Miocene (23-5 Myr ago) reaching northern distributions in Holarctic and Afrotropical regions. The evolution of hybridization patterns in Anseriformes has been investigated using a cladistic analysis (morphology), which may underestimate or overestimate the phylogenetic divergence among species, or restricted only to ducks. Using a phylogenetic framework, genetic-based distances and a Bayesian time calibration, our data support the hypothesis based on immunological distances of slow rate of appearance of reproductive incompatibilities in waterfowls compared with other vertebrates and the view that these birds may be like frogs in having lost their interspecific hybridization potential more slowly than mammals.

A tree of geese: A phylogenomic perspective on the evolutionary history of True Geese

“…The monophyly of the White Geese was already well established from a morphological perspective (Livezey, 1996), but molecular analyses were unable to recover this clade (Donne Gousse et al, 2002;Gonzalez et al, 2009;Lee et al, 2008;Paxinos et al, 2002). We were able to confirm the mono phyly of this clade, although gene tree discordance was apparent in the consensus method as only 17.1% of the gene trees supported this clade.…”

“…Phylogenetic relationships within the genus Branta (commonly referred to as the Black Geese) could be unambiguously inferred, consisting of a clade of White cheeked Geese Canada Goose (B. canadensis), Cackling Goose (B. hutchinsii), Barnacle Goose (B. leu copsis) and Hawaiian Goose (B. sandvicensis) and two basal splits leading to Brent Goose (B. bernicla) and Red breasted Goose (B. ruficollis). The exact phylogenetic position of the latter two species remained uncertain up to our study: some studies reported a sister species relation (Lee et al, 2008;Paxinos et al, 2002), while others placed either Red breasted Goose (Donne Gousse et al, 2002;Livezey, 1996) or Brent Goose at the base of the Branta clade (Gonzalez et al, 2009). We find strong support for a basal split leading to the Brent Goose in Branta.…”

“…Fossil evi dence suggested that these two groups of geese have a common ancestor between 5 and 4 Mya (Brodkorb, 1964;Wetmore, 1956), and this date has been used to calibrate the molecular clock in birds (Shields and Wilson, 1987). The consistency of this molecular clock has been questioned (van Tuinen and Hedges, 2001;Weir and Schluter, 2008), because subsequent molecular studies reported older dates for the Anser Branta split ranging from 23 to 9 million years ago (Brown et al, 2008;Fulton et al, 2012;Gonzalez et al, 2009;Jetz et al, 2012;Jiang et al, 2010;Pereira and Baker, 2006). We decided to use 9 million years to calibrate the mutation rate, based on recent estimates (Fulton et Jetz et al, 2012).…”

“…One example of the discrepancies among previous studies involves the phylogenetic position of the Lesser White fronted Goose (Anser erythropus). Morphological analyses (Livezey, 1996) and some mitochondrial markers (cytb and ND2, Donne Gousse et al, 2002;Gonzalez et al, 2009) report a sister relationship with the Greater White fronted Goose (Anser alb ifrons), whereas studies using the mitochondrial control region (Lee et al, 2008;Ruokonen et al, 2000) place the Lesser White fronted Goose in a clade with Taiga Bean Goose (Anser fabalis) and Pink footed Goose (Anser brachyrhynchus).…”

“…Although there have been several studies delving into the phylogeography of particular goose species (Humphries et al, 2009;Jonker et al, 2013;Paxinos et al, 2002;Quinn, 1992;Ruokonen et al, 2005Ruokonen et al, , 2008Scribner et al, 2003;Volkovsky et al, 2013), the phylogenetic relationships between most species remained unclear. Until now, species level phylogenies were based either on morphology (Livezey, 1996), or mitochondrial markers (Donne Gousse et al, 2002;Gonzalez et al, 2009;Lee et al, 2008;Ruokonen et al, 2000). These approaches resulted in contra dicting topologies and different mitochondrial markers led to dif ferent phylogenetic reconstructions (Fig.…”