Table 1.
List of phylogeographic studies that investigated the genetic diversity of NW Pacific marine species and summary of the relevant information reported in each study.
| Species | Organism | Genetic info. | N | Structure/Refugium | NL | % div. | cryptic sp. | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mugil cephalus | Fish | control region | 126 | East China Sea vs South China Sea | 2 | 48% | yes | [14] |
| Mugil cephalus | Fish | control region | 140 | East China Sea vs South China Sea | 2 | 55% | no | [21] |
| Mugil cephalus | Fish | cyto b | 98 | Japan Sea vs East China Sea vs South China Sea | 3 | 5.1-6.6% | no | [17] |
| Mugil cephalus | Fish | COI | 448 | Japan Sea vs South China Sea vs SW Pacific origin | 3 | 2.5-4.8% | yes | This study |
| Mugil cephalus | Fish | 16 S, 12 S | 9 | East China Sea vs South China Sea | 2 | 1.87%, 1.61% | yes | [71] |
| Mugil cephalus | Fish | microsatellites | 713 | Japan Sea vs South China Sea vs SW Pacific origin | 3 | 11.5-30.5% | yes | This study |
| Mugil cephalus | Fish | AFLP | 118 | Bohai Sea vs Yellow Sea vs East China Sea vs South China Sea | 4 | - | no | [23] |
| Chelon haematocheilus | Fish | control region | 272 | Japan Sea vs East China Sea vs South China Sea | 3 | 1.55-2.41% | no | [16] |
| Chelon haematocheilus | Fish | 16 S, 12 S | 8 | East China Sea vs South China Sea | 2 | 2.81%, 4.11% | yes | [71] |
| Odontamblyopus sp. | Fish | ND5 | 85 | East China Sea vs South China Sea | 3 | 2.37-8.96% | yes | [15] |
| Lateolabrax sp. | Fish | control region | 256 | Japan Sea vs East China Sea | 2 | 22.60% | yes | [72] |
| Lateolabrax sp. | Fish | cyto b | 256 | Japan Sea vs East China Sea | 2 | 7.80% | yes | [72] |
| Eriocheir sensu stricto | Crustacean | COII, cyto b | 154 | Japan Sea vs East China Sea vs South China Sea | 3 | 3.2-4.05% | yes | [13] |
| Eriocheir sensu stricto | Crustacean | COI, cyto b | 446 | Japan Sea vs East China Sea vs South China Sea vs Ryukyu | 4 | - | no | [54] |
| Penaeus japonicus | Crustacean | control region | 95 | Japan Sea vs East China Sea vs South China Sea | 3 | FCT = 0.04 | no | [73] |
| Cyclina sinensis | Mollusk | RAPD | 50 | Yellow Sea vs South China Sea | 2 | 10.90% | no | [74] |
| Cyclina sinensis | Mollusk | AFLP | 160 | Yellow Sea vs China Sea | 2 | - | no | [75] |
| Tegillarca granosa | Mollusk | COI | 38 | East China Sea vs South China Sea | 2 | 15% | no | [76] |
| Tegillarca granosa | Mollusk | RAPD | 96 | East China Sea vs South China Sea | 2 | 32.6 -45.1% | no | [77] |
| Helice sp. | Mollusk | COI, 16 S, 12 S, ITS2 | 123 | East China Sea vs South China Sea vs Ryukyu & Taiwan Islands | 3 | 0.16-1.13% | yes | [78] |
N: sample size, NL: number of lineage, % div.: percentage of divergence.