Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Ecology and Evolution logoLink to Ecology and Evolution
. 2017 Dec 21;8(2):1260–1270. doi: 10.1002/ece3.3728

Interspecies introgressive hybridization in spiny frogs Quasipaa (Family Dicroglossidae) revealed by analyses on multiple mitochondrial and nuclear genes

Qi‐Peng Zhang 1,2, Wen‐Fang Hu 1,2, Ting‐Ting Zhou 1,2, Shen‐Shen Kong 1,2, Zhi‐Fang Liu 1,2, Rong‐Quan Zheng 1,2,3,✉
PMCID: PMC5773314  PMID: 29375796

Abstract

Introgression may lead to discordant patterns of variation among loci and traits. For example, previous phylogeographic studies on the genus Quasipaa detected signs of genetic introgression from genetically and morphologically divergent Quasipaa shini or Quasipaa spinosa. In this study, we used mitochondrial and nuclear DNA sequence data to verify the widespread introgressive hybridization in the closely related species of the genus Quasipaa, evaluate the level of genetic diversity, and reveal the formation mechanism of introgressive hybridization. In Longsheng, Guangxi Province, signs of asymmetrical nuclear introgression were detected between Quasipaa boulengeri and Q. shini. Unidirectional mitochondrial introgression was revealed from Q. spinosa to Q. shini. By contrast, bidirectional mitochondrial gene introgression was detected between Q. spinosa and Q. shini in Lushan, Jiangxi Province. Our study also detected ancient hybridizations between a female Q. spinosa and a male Q. jiulongensis in Zhejiang Province. Analyses on mitochondrial and nuclear genes verified three candidate cryptic species in Q. spinosa, and a cryptic species may also exist in Q. boulengeri. However, no evidence of introgressive hybridization was found between Q. spinosa and Q. boulengeri. Quasipaa exilispinosa from all the sampling localities appeared to be deeply divergent from other communities. Our results suggest widespread introgressive hybridization in closely related species of Quasipaa and provide a fundamental basis for illumination of the forming mechanism of introgressive hybridization, classification of species, and biodiversity assessment in Quasipaa.

Keywords: introgressive hybridization, mitochondrial DNA, nuclear DNA, Quasipaa

1. INTRODUCTION

Introgressive hybridization was first described by Anderson and Hubricht (1938) in a study on plant hybridization. Since then, introgressive hybridization has been widely detected in amphibians, birds, and mammals (e.g., Dowling et al., 2016; Matosiuk, Sheremetyeva, Sheremetyev, Saveljev, & Borkowska, 2014; Mccracken, Wilson, & Martin, 2013; Sequeira et al., 2011; Marshall et al., 2011). In the initial study of introgressive hybridization, Mecham (1960) used the morphological analysis of the green tree frog Hyla cinerea and the barking tree frog Hyla gratiosa; the research has revealed the strong signal of introgressive hybridization between the two species. The rise of genomics age (Walsh, 2001) has aided in understanding introgressive hybridization in multiple evolutionary tiers (Cui et al., 2013) and between diverging species (Magalhaes, Ornelas‐Garcıa, Leal‐Cardin, Ramírez, & Barluenga, 2015). Fitzpatrick and Shaffer (2007) revealed the hybridization between native California tiger salamanders (Ambystoma californiense) and introduced barred tiger salamanders (Ambystoma mavortium); the hybrid offspring has higher survival rates than most native or introduced individuals. Interspecific hybridization is a force that erodes biodiversity (Dowling et al., 2016). However, many authors regard introgressive hybridization as a creative factor by introducing an unprecedented genetic material during speciation and exploring mechanisms of gene flow between populations (Arnold, 1997; Jiggins & Mallet, 2000; Templeton, 1989). This perspective is particularly common in botanical studies, and botanists verify that groups of interbreeding species of ecological, morphological, genetic, and evolutionary differences are not influenced by extensive hybridization (Hedrick, 2013; Templeton, 1989).

Introgressive hybridization confuses our capability in verifying accurate phylogenetic relationships (Smith, 1992) and leads to mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) conflicts with nuclear DNA data or vice versa (Chen, Bi, & Fu, 2009; Chen, Ke, & Jinzhong, 2009). Neutral markers can flow from one species to another. Since the emergence of phylogeography as a discipline, mtDNA has been considered an evolutionarily nearly neutral marker that is used mainly to infer evolutionary and demographic history of populations and species (Avise, 2004). Introgressive hybridization has been discovered in many types of organisms on the basis of mtDNA data (Scheffer & Lewis, 2001; Murray et al., 2008; Witt & Hebert, 2011). Inheritance patterns of mtDNA frequently introgress more rapidly than paternally inherited components of the nuclear genome (Bryson, de Oca, Jaeger, & Riddle, 2010), and mtDNA introgression also occurs from one species to another without revealing any trace of nuclear introgression (Ballard & Whitlock, 2004; Chen, Bi, et al., 2009; Chen, Ke, et al., 2009; Liu et al., 2010). However, mtDNA also has its disadvantages. If the species contain mitochondrial pseudogenes, these pseudogenes may amplify or even replace the authentic target mtDNA (Hlaing et al., 2009). Regardless, if a gene or the entire mitochondrial genome is used, the hereditary information of mtDNA only comes from the matriarchal parent and thus has great randomness in studies on population evolution (Granero‐Porati & Porati, 1988). To compensate for the shortcomings of mtDNA, easy‐to‐design primers and high polymorphism in nuclear DNA sequences were used for detecting introgressive hybridization. However, nuclear genes compared with mtDNA are not prone to infiltrate in the process of biological evolution. Therefore, the coevolution between the mitochondrial and nuclear genomes is often disrupted by introgression (Liu et al., 2010). For nearly a decade, mtDNA in combination with nuclear genes exhibited signs of introgressive hybridization among species in which gene flow was unknown (Che et al., 2009, 2010).

The Quasipaa is a genus of frogs in the Dicroglossidae family. The genus has no established common name, but many individual species are referred to as spiny frogs. They consist of 11 species distributed in east and southeast Asia, from Thailand and Cambodia to southern and eastern China (Frost, 2014; Hu, Dong, Kong, Mao, & Zheng, 2017; Kong, Zheng, & Zhang, 2016). Most species of Quasipaa inhabit rocky streams and mountains from 300 to 1,900 m above sea level (Fei, 2012), and they are likely to possess high genetic divergences between populations (Che et al., 2009). These frogs also have highly nutritional and medicinal values recorded in the compendium of Materia Medica (Li, 2006). In this paper, we studied five species in a widespread overlapping area in southern China. Quasipaa spinosa (David, 1875) is mainly distributed in the east of the Yunnan–Kweichow Plateau and the south of the Yangtze River. Quasipaa boulengeri (Günther 1889) is mainly located in the middle of South China. These two species share numerous secondary contact regions. Quasipaa shini (Ahl, 1930) is mainly spread over two contact zones between the south of Guizhou or Hunan Province and the north of Guangxi Province. Quasipaa jiulongensis is mainly found in the southwest of Zhejiang Province and the northern border of Jiangxi and Fujian provinces. Quasipaa exilispinosa mainly inhabits a narrow area from northwest to southeast of Fujian Province, Hunan (Yizhang), Guangxi (Longsheng), Guangdong (Ruyuan, Longmen), and Hong Kong. These species share similar morphology. In the last decade, numerous scholars have investigated morphological taxonomy (Huang, 2012), reproduction (Yu et al., 2008), and molecular phylogenetics (Che et al., 2010; Ye et al., 2013; Yu, Zheng, Zhang, Shen, & Dong, 2014; Yu et al., 2016); however, the direction and the level of gene flow between species of Quasipaa have yet to be determined.

In our preliminary study, results indicated that one sample of Q. spinosa in the contact zone exhibits the mtDNA genotype of Q. shini, and one Q. shini individual presents the mtDNA genotype of Q. spinosa (Ye et al., 2013). Therefore, we hypothesized extensive introgressive hybridization in the species of Quasipaa. To verify our hypothesis, we captured a large sample of specimens that were distributed from west to east of South China and studied them using mtDNA and nuclear genes to test whether introgressive hybridization extensively occurs in Quasipaa in the sympatric distribution region. We also investigated the distribution region and survival environment of the genus Quasipaa to obtain further information on genetic diversity. This study provides a fundamental basis for elucidating the forming mechanism of introgressive hybridization, classification of species, and genetic diversity assessment in Quasipaa.

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

2.1. Sampling of specimens

A total of 299 individuals of the genus Quasipaa were obtained from six locations across South China from 2013 to 2015 (Table 1 and Figure 1). Fieldwork was mainly conducted in the first 5–10 months, rendering the collection of frogs in breeding condition. All frogs were initially identified by morphological traits and then labeled by haplotype numbers. Dead frogs were frozen at −80°C, and surviving frogs were fed for subsequent DNA sequencing and hybridization. Four species from Fejervarya limnocharis, Hoplobatrachus rugulosus, Nanorana parkeri, and Nanorana quadranus were chosen as outgroup taxa based on Frost et al. (2006). We obtained the outgroup sequences from GenBank (Appendix S1).

Table 1.

GPS coordinates and sample size for six sampling sites in southern China

Location Coordinates Q. spinosa Q. exilispinosa Q. boulengeri Q. jiulongensis Q. shini
Jiulongshan E118°53′21″, N28°21′41″ 25 0 0 23 0
Songyang E119°29′7″, N28°27′23″ 36 0 0 9 0
Wuyishan E118°0′36″, N27°16′12″ 28 8 0 21 0
Lushan E116°13′19″, N29°40′06″ 18 0 9 0 24
Longsheng E109°58′48″, N25°49′12″ 30 0 40 0 8
Rongjiang E108°30′54″, N25°56′17″ 6 0 23 0 0
Total 143 8 72 44 32
Open in a new tab

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Map of sampling based on morphology localities for this study. The background represents the distribution of five species of Quasipaa. The pie chart shows the proportion and category of the sample. Six localities are grouped by city, with the following codes: Jls, Jiulongshan; Sy, Songyang; Wys, Wuyishan; Xls, Lushan; Ls, Longsheng; and Rj, Rongjiang

2.2. DNA extraction, PCR, and sequencing

Genomic DNA was extracted from the muscles of dead frogs by standard three‐step phenol–chloroform extraction (Sambrook & Russell, 2001) or noninvasive sampling of individual survival using Genomic DNA kits (Sangon) in accordance with the manufacturer's protocol. The parameters of DNA were assessed via a DNA spectrophotometer, and DNA was stored at −20°C. We amplified and sequenced two fragments of mtDNA (partial sequences of 12S and 16S ribosomal RNA genes) and two nuclear DNAs (partial sequence of recombinase activating 1 protein gene and a single exon 1 of rhodopsin gene).

Polymerase chain reaction amplification of mtDNA fragments was conducted in a 25‐ml volume reaction under the following conditions: initial denaturation for 4 min at 95°C, 35 cycles of denaturation for 30 s at 94°C, annealing for 30 s at 58°C, extension for 1 min at 72°C, and a final extension for 10 min at 72°C. Amplification of nuclear genes was performed using the same PCR protocols except for the denaturation for 1 min at 94°C and annealing for 1 min at 58°C (Rag‐1) and 60°C (Rhodopsin). The primer sequences of mtDNA and nuclear genes are provided in Table 2. PCR products were visualized with a 1% agarose gel, and products were purified using an Axygen DNA kit (Invitrogen, Shanghai, China). We sequenced amplified fragments with PCR primers using a commercial sequencing service in both directions (Sangon Biotech, Shanghai, China) and then determined the identity of raw sequences to BLAST searches in GenBank.

Table 2.

Primers used for mitochondrial and nuclear DNA amplification in this study

Locus Primer primer sequences (5′‐3′) Size (bp) Source
16S rRNA Zh4823 5′‐CGCCTGTTTACCAAAAACAT‐3′5′‐CTCCGGTCTGAACTCAGATC‐3′ 557 Bossuyt and Milinkovitch (2000)
12SrRNA Ch4823 5′‐AGTGCTGAAAACGCTAAGAC‐3′5′‐AGGGCGACGGGCGGTGTGTAC‐3′ 841 Zhou, Zhang, Zheng, Yu, and Yang (2009), Kocher et al.(1989)
Rag‐1 Amp 5′‐ACAGGATATGATGARAAGCTTGT‐3′5′‐TCGCGTTCGATGATCTCTGG‐3′ 730 Hoegg, Vences, Brinkmann, and Meyer (2004)
Rhodopsin Rhod 5′‐ACCATGAACGGAACAGAAGGYCC‐3′5′‐GTAGCGAAGAARCCTTCAAMGTA‐3′ 318 Bossuyt and Milinkovitch (2000)
Open in a new tab

2.3. Sequence alignment and phylogenetic analyses

Amplified fragments of mitochondrial and nuclear genes were aligned using ClustalX1.81 (Thompson, Gibson, Plewniak, Jeanmougin, & Higgins, 1997) and then aligned manually using MEGA 6.0 (Tamura, Stecher, Peterson, Filipski, & Kumar, 2013). Nucleotide and haplotype diversities of each taxon and population were calculated using DnaSP 5.0 (Librado & Rozas, 2009). We conducted phylogenetic relationships among haplotypes using maximum parsimony (MP), maximum likelihood (ML), and Bayesian inference (BI). Heuristic MP searches with tree bisection and reconnection branch swapping in PAUP*4.0 (Swofford, 2002) were executed. The stability of support values was estimated from nonparametric bootstrap replications using PAUP*4.0 with 100 replicates. ML analyses were performed using PAUP*4.0 (Swofford, 2002) with the best‐fitting model (mtDNA: GTR+I+G, nuclear DNA: HKY+I+G) by the Akaike information criterion (AIC) in Modeltest 3.7 (Posada & Crandall, 1998). To display information on the relationships between markers with genetic diversity, a nuclear network was created with neighbor‐net (Huson & Bryant, 2006) using SplitsTree (ver. 4.1). The best nucleotide substitution model of AIC was to be used. Bayesian analysis was performed in MrBayes3.1.2 with the best‐fitting model (mtDNA: GTR+I+G, nuclear DNA: K80) using four incrementally heated Markov Chain Monte Carlo for 6,000,000 generations with sampling trees every 100th generation. The first 50% were discarded as burn‐in, and the Bayesian posterior probabilities were estimated by the remaining trees.

3. RESULTS

3.1. Sequence characteristics

All 299 specimens were sequenced for the mtDNA (i.e., 12srRNA and 16srRNA) and nuclear DNA (i.e., Rag‐1 and Rhodopsin) fragments. Sequences of the 12srRNA fragment were 841 bp in length, and the ambiguous fragments of 73 bp were excluded from further analysis. The 557 bp of 16srRNA was produced, and the ambiguous alignment of one region with 24 bp was excluded from further analysis. The total amplified mtDNA includes 370 variable sites and 82 parsimony informative sites. All 299 specimens of two nuclear fragments were successfully sequenced. A total of 730 bp of Rag‐1 and 315 bp of rhodopsin were used for analyses, and 109 bp of Rag‐1 and 3 bp of Rhodopsin were excluded from further analysis due to ambiguous alignment. The total alignment consisted of two nuclear fragments for the dataset in which 195 sites were variable and 119 sites were potentially phylogenetically informative.

3.2. Genetic distances

Genetic distances of Quasipaa with mitochondrial and nuclear DNA were calculated following the Tamura and Nei (1993) distance module in MEGA 6.0 (Tamura et al., 2013). The average genetic distance between all mitochondrial sequences ranged from 2.4% to 7.5% (Table 3), and the intraspecific genetic distance of Q. spinosa (3.6%) and Q. shini (3.2%) was greater than the smallest genetic distance of the species (2.4%). The average genetic distance of nuclear sequences ranged from 0.9% to 3.0%. Interestingly, the mean genetic distance between Q. shini and Q. boulengeri was 0.9%; however, the intraspecific genetic distance of Q. shini was 0.9% and that of Q. boulengeri was 1.1%.

Table 3.

Population parameters of divergence for genus Quasipaa based on the fragment of mitochondrial/nuclear gene (median, %)

Species Q. spinosa Q. jiulongensis Q. boulengeri Q. shini Q. exilispinosa
Q. spinosa 3.6/1.1
Q. jiulongensis 2.9/1.1 2.4/0.8
Q. boulengeri 5.5/1.7 7.2/2.3 2.0/1.1
Q. shini 3.5/1.8 6.0/1.8 5.5/0.9 3.2/0.9
Q. exilispinosa 2.4/0.9 5.2/1.5 7.5/3.0 6.3/3.0 1.1/0.3
Open in a new tab

3.3. Phylogenetic relationships and network

Based on the haplotype data, we analyzed every gene of MP, BI, and ML, and the results of the analysis generated almost identical tree topology (Figures 2 and 3). MtDNA consisted of seven major haplotype clades, whereas nuclear DNA consisted of six major haplotype clades. In the mtDNA topology, Q. spinosa A included all haplotypes of Q. spinosa from Zhejiang, Jiangxi, and Guizhou provinces. Q. spinosa B included Q. spinosa from Zhejiang, Fujian, Guangxi, and Jiangxi provinces, except one haplotype of Q. shini C9. Q. spinosa C included Q. spinosa from Guizhou and Guangxi provinces. Results supported the presence of three candidate cryptic species of Q. spinosa (Ye et al., 2013), each of which corresponded to a geographical region. The clade of Q. jiulongensis included all haplotypes of Q. jiulongensis from Zhejiang Province, except Q. spinosa X12. The clade of Q. exilispinosa included all haplotypes of Q. exilispinosa from Fujian, whereas the clade of Q. shini included all haplotypes of Q. shini from Guangxi and Jiangxi, except Q. spinosa X17. The clade of Q. boulengeri included all haplotypes of Q. boulengeri from Guangxi, Jiangxi, and Guizhou.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Phylogenetic relationships of haplotypes in genus Quasipaa based on the mitochondrial DNA sequences, as determined by MP, ML, and Bayesian inference. Numbers indicate the percentage confidence level of each node estimated by 1,000 bootstrap samplings of the data. Bootstrap support values over 50% were provided. Legend: asterisk (*) indicates 100% ML and MP bootstrap support and 1.0 Bayesian posterior probabilities. “F,” haplotypes of Q. boulengeri; “X,” haplotypes of Q. spinosa; “L,” haplotypes of Q. jiulongensis; “E,” haplotypes of Q. exilispinosa; and “C,” haplotypes of Q. shini

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Open in a new tab

Phylogenetic relationships of haplotypes in genus Quasipaa based on the DNA sequences, as determined by MP, ML, and Bayesian inference. Numbers indicate the percentage confidence level of each node estimated by 1,000 bootstrap samplings of the data. Bootstrap support values over 50% were provided. Legend: asterisk (*) indicates 100% ML and MP bootstrap support and 1.0 Bayesian posterior probabilities. “F,” haplotypes of Q. boulengeri; “X,” haplotypes of Q. spinosa; “L,” haplotypes of Q. jiulongensis; “E,” haplotypes of Q. exilispinosa; and “C,” haplotypes of Q. shini

In the phylogenetic relationships of the nuclear DNA, Q. spinosa consisted of Q. spinosa A (Zhejiang, Fujian, and Jiangxi provinces) and Q. spinosa B (Guangxi, Guizhou provinces). The nuclear network is similar to the nuclear gene tree (Figure 4) and strongly supports the existence of cryptic lineages in Q. spinosa. The clade of Q boulengeri included all haplotypes of Q. boulengeri from Guangxi, Guizhou, and Jiangxi, except two haplotypes of Q. shini C4 and C5 (Figures 3 and 4). All samples of Q. exilispinosa (Fujian), Q. jiulongensis (Zhejiang and Fujian), and Q. shini (Guangxi and Jiangxi) were classified into three separate haplotype clades, except for Q. jiulongensis L5 and L6, which were distributed to Q. spinosa.

Figure 4.

Figure 4

Open in a new tab

Nuclear DNA neighbor‐net network created using maximum likelihood distances. Oval highlights clade that contains two spinosa species

4. DISCUSSION

Introgressive hybridization has been detected in a variety of isolated populations that have come into secondary contact (Rubidge & Taylor, 2004) and has been regarded as a creative factor by introducing a new genetic material during speciation (Arnold, 1997; Jiggins & Mallet, 2000; Templeton, 1989). At present, molecular markers offer an opportunity to reveal gene flow in divergent lineages and infer introgressive hybridization by detecting topological incongruence between gene trees (Choleva et al., 2014). The incongruence may be caused by the overall amount of differentiation (Toews & Brelsford, 2012). In the present study, we analyzed the phylogenetic relationships of mtDNA. The haplotype sharing between Q spinosa and Q. shini has been detected in analysis of mtDNA dates (Figure 2), and our results were consistent with the 12srRNA and 16srRNA sequences in the study of Ye et al. (2013). By contrast, the morphological characteristics of Q. spinosa or Q. shini had not detected the gene flow in nuclear gene. The network of nuclear is presented in a radial shape (Figure 3), indicating that there are obvious expansions of each species. The population parameters of divergence for genus Quasipaa based on the fragment of mitochondrial and nuclear gene have showed that intraspecific genetic distance of Q. spinosa was greater than interspecific genetic distance between Q. spinosa and Q. shini (Table. 3). We infer that the differentiation of genetic lineage in Quasipaa is in contact with each other at the later stage of differentiation, leading to hybridization and gene introgression, resulting in incongruence between mitochondrial and nuclear gene. Our results do not exclude ancient introgression between Q. spinosa (or Q. shini) and previously sympatric species. The gradients of population density, asymmetry of hybridization, or differential adaptation of the parents between the parental taxa may cause hybrid zone movement (Barton & Hewitt, 1985; Key, 1968), but we did not specifically investigate the size of the habitat and population density. So related field work in the further will help to reveal the specific mechanism. However, the anomalous results for Q. spinosa and Q. shini can also be explained by incomplete lineage sorting. If the interspecific segregation is complete, even then, both species retain more common ancestor polymorphism, the differentiation of species is less than that of interspecific populations (Muir & Schlötterer, 2005).

Differences in morphological characteristics between Q. spinosa and Q. jiulongensis are mainly concentrated in the roughness of back skin and individual size. The roughness of back skin and individual size of Q. spinosa is evident, and the back of Q. jiulongensis has four or five tan markings that are symmetrically arranged (Fei, 2012). In the present study, the haplotype sharing between Q spinosa and Q. jiulongensis has been detected in analysis of DNA dates (Figures 2 and 3). Although young species complexes between Q. spinosa and Q. jiulongensis have not been found in the wild or through artificial breeding, a conflict between morphological and molecular data in Q. spinosa and Q. jiulongensis has been detected. We inferred that nucleocytoplasmic inconsistencies or ancient introgression had occurred in a male Q. spinosa and a female Q. jiulongensis in historical evolution and that intraspecific mating in hybrid offspring produces no viable offspring while hybrid offspring mating with a male Q. spinosa produces fully fertile hybrid offspring. Female preference matches the unusual system with female hybrid offspring preferring to mate with a male Q. spinosa. This response may be beneficial because it allows the female hybrid offspring to increase their own residual reproductive value through a second mating with a male Q. spinosa in the same breeding season. The example has occurred in the water frog complex between Rana lessonae and Rana ridibunda. The hybrid offspring may be more prone to mate with a male R. lessonae (Reyer, Frei, & Som, 1999). Recent studies have also demonstrated that the mitochondrial genome of Stenella clymene is more closely related to that of Stenella coeruleoalba, whereas the nuclear genome is more closely related to Stenella longirostris (Amaral, Gretchen, Coelho, George, & Rosenbaum, 2014). This phenomenon may be interpreted as an ancient hybridization between a female Stenella coeruleoalba and a male S. longirostris. Discrepancies were also found in the hybrid origin of Trachemys and Hyla arborea (Gvoždík et al., 2015; Parham et al., 2013).

The morphological characteristics of Q. boulengeri were similar to those of Q. shini, and the most obvious difference was the location of the secondary sexual characteristics of the keratinized spines on the toe (Fei, 2012). The haplotype of Q. shini was detected in that of Q. boulengeri on the basis of the present study's nuclear genetic analysis (Figure 3); however, the opposite situation of mitochondrial DNA was not detected. Thus, we inferred that the unidirectional introgression of nuclear genes infiltrated from Q. boulengeri to Q. shini. The directional introgression between Q. boulengeri and Q. shini may be due to the following two reasons: (I) the degree of gene flow from Q. boulengeri was greater than that of Q. shini to Q. boulengeri. For a long time, gene flow from Q. shini to Q. boulengeri was hidden by that from Q. boulengeri to Q. shini. The dominant manner in gene introgression of Q. boulengeri may play a leading role in hybridization; dominant species have a greater capacity to adapt to environmental changes than other species, and genes that encode dominant species can easily pass to other species (Salvini et al., 2009). The hybrid offspring of Q. boulengeri and Q. shini would rather mate with Q. boulengeri than with Q. shini. This biased gene introgression was also detected in Abramis bram (Demandt & Bergek, 2009). (II) This phenomenon is an evidence of a biased diffusion of Q. boulengeri (biased diffusion refers to a speculation that the male diffusion of Q. boulengeri is the major mechanism in the sympatric distribution zone between Q. boulengeri and Q. shini or part of the female Q. boulengeri is also involved in the diffusion process). Population expansion of Q. boulengeri and Q. shini possibly entered the sympatric distribution zone. Given that backcross progenies constantly passed the nuclear genes of Q. boulengeri to the gene pool of Q. shini, populations of Q. shini were relatively local, which may cause the nuclear genes of Q. shini to be similar to those of Q. boulengeri. Research has revealed that genes of a relatively small population may be diluted or replaced by dominant species during genetic assimilation in the introgressive hybridization of two species, thereby reducing biodiversity (Wang & Peng, 2003). The adverse effects of one‐way introgressive hybridization still need to be clarified further in future research.

Morphological characteristics are factors of species identification (Rubidge & Taylor, 2004). Different geographical populations have adapted to their living environments, thereby altering intraspecific genetic composition. In the phylogenetic analysis of mtDNA, Q. spinosa may also divide into three independent clades based on the corresponding geography, which consists with the research of Ye et al. In addition, the tree topology of the nuclear gene showed that the population of Q. boulengeri was divided into three branches; this result also agrees with the suggestion of four major matrilines of Q. boulengeri (Yan et al., 2012). The incomplete lineage sorting and the ancestral polymorphism were to be considered in Quasipaa; sex‐biased dispersal, human introductions, hybrid offspring infertility, and low viability or low fertility also resulted in the directional or nondirectional gene introgression pattern in Quasipaa (Toews & Brelsford, 2012). In the present study, introgression between Q. exilispinosa and other species of Quasipaa (e.g., Q. jiulongensis and Q. spinosa) was not detected. This phenomenon may be due to two reasons. First, the samples of Q. exilispinosa were inadequate. Second, the morphological divergence between Q. exilispinosa and other species of Quasipaa was evident, which may hinder mating between Q. exilispinosa and other syntrophic species. The specific reasons need further studies.

Introgressive hybridization is a manner of speciation that reveals fitness of hybrid offspring, analyzes genetic differences between hybrid offspring and pure offspring via microsatellite or genome scanning, and tests hybrid offspring as a new species. These questions need to be researched and solved urgently. Given the special physical and life history characteristics of amphibious animals, their sensitivity to the external environment is significantly higher than that in other species (Schmidt, 2000). In China, the main leading threats to amphibians are habitat degeneration and loss, human capture, and pollution. Protection zones such as Mount Wuyi (Fujian Province) and Mount Jiulong (Zhejiang Province), which have relatively high biodiversity, should be protected and prioritized.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

None declared.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTION

R. Q. Zheng and W. F. Hu conceived and designed the experiments. Q. P. Zhang, T. T. Zhou, and Z. F. Liu performed the experiments. R. Q. Zheng, Q. P. Zhang, T. T. Zhou, and S. S. Kong analyzed the data and wrote the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Supporting information

 

Click here for additional data file. (30.2KB, docx)

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank Yi‐Yun Mei, Zhi‐Gang Wang, Yan Hong, and Jia‐Yong Zhang for their help in the field, and two anonymous reviewers for their comments on the manuscript. The research was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 31472015 and 31172116) and Key project of Natural Science Foundation of Zhejiang Province, China (No. LZ17C030001).

Zhang Q‐P, Hu W‐F, Zhou T‐T, Kong S‐S, Liu Z‐F, Zheng R‐Q. Interspecies introgressive hybridization in spiny frogs Quasipaa (Family Dicroglossidae) revealed by analyses on multiple mitochondrial and nuclear genes. Ecol Evol. 2018;8:1260–1270. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.3728

REFERENCES

  1. Amaral, A. R. , Gretchen, L. , Coelho, M. M. , George, A. , & Rosenbaum, H. C. (2014). Hybrid speciation in a marine mammal: The clymene dolphin (Stenella clymene). PLoS ONE, 9, e83645 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0083645 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Anderson, E. , & Hubricht, L. (1938). Hybridization in Tradescantia. III. The evidence for introgressive hybridization. American Journal of Botany, 25, 396–402. https://doi.org/10.2307/2436413 [Google Scholar]
  3. Arnold, M. L. (1997). Natural hybridization and evolution. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  4. Avise, J. C. (2004). Molecular markers, natural history, and evolution, 2nd ed. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates. [Google Scholar]
  5. Ballard, J. W. , & Whitlock, M. C. (2004). The incomplete natural history of mitochondria. Molecular Ecology, 13, 729–744. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-294X.2003.02063.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Barton, N. H. , & Hewitt, G. M. (1985). Analysis of hybrid zones. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 16, 113–148. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.16.110185.000553 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bossuyt, F. , & Milinkovitch, M. C. (2000). Convergent adaptive radiations in Madagascan and Asian ranid frogs reveal covariation between larval and adult traits. PNAS, 97, 6585–6590. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.97.12.6585 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Bryson, R. W.. Jr , de Oca, A. N. , Jaeger, J. R. , & Riddle, B. R. (2010). Elucidation of cryptic diversity in a widespread nearctic treefrog reveals episodes of mitochondrial gene capture as frogs diversified across a dynamic landscape. Evolution, 64, 2315–2330. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Che, J. , Hu, J. S. , Zhou, W. W. , Murphy, R. W. , Papenfuss, T. J. , Chen, M. Y. , … Zhang, Y. P. (2009). Phylogeny of the Asian spiny frog tribe Paini (Family Dicroglossidae) sensu dubois. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 50, 59–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2008.10.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Che, J. , Zhou, W. W. , Hu, J. S. , Yan, F. , Papenfuss, T. J. , Wake, D. B. , & Zhang, Y. P. (2010). Spiny frogs (Paini) illuminate the history the himalayan region and southeast Asia. PNAS, 107, 13765–13770. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1008415107 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Chen, W. , Bi, K. , & Fu, J. (2009). Frequent mitochondrial gene introgression among high elevation tibetan megophryid frogs revealed by conflicting gene genealogies. Molecular Ecology, 18, 2856–2876. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2009.04258.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Chen, W. , Ke, B. I. , & Jinzhong, F. U. (2009). Frequent mitochondrial gene introgression among high elevation Tibetan megophryid frogs revealed by conflicting gene genealogies. Molecular Ecology, 18, 2856–2876. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2009.04258.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Choleva, L. , Musilova, Z. , Kohoutovasediva, A. , Paces, J. , Rab, P. , & Janko, K. (2014). Distinguishing between incomplete lineage sorting and genomic introgressions: Complete fixation of allospecific mitochondrial DNA in a sexually reproducing fish (Cobitis; teleostei), despite clonal reproduction of hybrids. PLoS ONE, 9, e80641 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0080641 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Cui, R. , Schumer, M. , Kruesi, K. , Walter, R. , Andolfatto, P. , & Rosenthal, G. (2013). Phylogenomics reveals extensive reticulate evolution in Xiphophorus fishes. Evolution, 67, 2166–2179. https://doi.org/10.1111/evo.12099 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Demandt, M. H. , & Bergek, S. (2009). Identification of cyprinid hybrids by using geometric morphometrics and microsatellites. Journal of Applied Ichthyology, 25, 695–701. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0426.2009.01329.x [Google Scholar]
  16. Dowling, T. E. , Markle, D. F. , Tranah, G. J. , Carson, E. W. , Wagman, D. W. , & May, B. P. (2016). Introgressive hybridization and the evolution of lake‐adapted catostomid fishes. PLoS ONE, 11, e0149884 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0149884 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Fei, L. (2012). Colored Atlas of Chinese Amphibians and Their Distributions In: Sichuan science & technology publishing house. pp. 460–470. December, 2012. Sichuan, China. [Google Scholar]
  18. Fitzpatrick, B. M. , & Shaffer, H. B. (2007). Hybrid vigor between native and introduced salamanders raises new challenges for conservation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104, 15793–15798. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0704791104 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Frost, D. R. (2014). Amphibian species of the world. American Museum of Natural History, 28, 32. [Google Scholar]
  20. Frost, D. R. , Grant, T. , Faivovich, J. , Bain, R. H. , Haas, A. , Haddad, C. F. , … Raxworthy, C. J. (2006). The amphibian tree of life. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 297, 257–291. [Google Scholar]
  21. Granero‐Porati, M. I. , & Porati, A. (1988). Informational parameters and randomness of mitochondrial DNA. Journal of Molecular Evolution, 27, 109–113. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02138369 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Gvoždík, V. , Canestrelli, D. , García‐París, M. , Moravec, J. , Nascetti, G. , Recuero, E. , … Kotlík, P. (2015). Speciation history and widespread introgression in the European short‐call tree frogs (Hyla arborea sensu lato, H. intermedia and H. sarda). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 83, 143–155. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Hedrick, P. W. (2013). Adaptive introgression in animals: Examples and comparison to new mutation and standing variation as sources of adaptive variation. Molecular Ecology, 22, 4606–4618. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.12415 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Hlaing, T. , Tun‐Lin, W. , Somboon, P. , Socheat, D. , Setha, T. , Min, S. , … Walton, C. (2009). Mitochondrial pseudogenes in the nuclear genome of Aedes aegypti mosquitoes: Implications for past and future population genetic studies. BMC Genetics, 10, 1–11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Hoegg, S. , Vences, M. , Brinkmann, H. , & Meyer, A. (2004). Phylogeny and comparative substitution rates of frogs inferred from sequences of three nuclear genes. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 21, 1188–1200. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msh081 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Hu, W. , Dong, B. , Kong, S. , Mao, Y. , & Zheng, R. (2017). Pathogen resistance and gene frequency stability of major histocompatibility complex class IIB alleles in the giant spiny frog Quasipaa Spinosa . Aquaculture, 468, 410–416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2016.11.001 [Google Scholar]
  27. Huang, H. (2012). Cryptic diversity of giant spiny frogs inferred from mitochondrial DNA markers. Zhejiang Normal University. Dissertation (in Chinese).
  28. Huson, D. H. , & Bryant, D. (2006). Application of phylogenetic networks in evolutionary studies. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 23, 254–267. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msj030 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Jiggins, C. D. , & Mallet, J. (2000). Bimodal hybrid zones and speciation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 15, 250–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(00)01873-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Key, K. H. L. (1968). The concept of stasipatric speciation. Systematic Zoology, 17, 14–22. https://doi.org/10.2307/2412391 [Google Scholar]
  31. Kocher, T. D. , Thomas, W. K. , Meyer, A. , Edwards, S. V. , Pääbo, S. , & Villablanca, F. X. (1989). Dynamics of mitochondrial DNA evolution in animals: Amplification and sequencing with conserved primers. PNAS, 86, 6196–6200. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.86.16.6196 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Kong, S. S. , Zheng, R. Q. , & Zhang, Q. P. (2016). The advertisement calls of Quasipaa shini (Ahl, 1930) (Anura: Dicroglossidae). Zootaxa, 4205, 087–089. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4205.1.8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Li, S. (2006). Compendium of materia medica (bencao gangmu). China Int Book Trading C.
  34. Librado, P. , & Rozas, J. (2009). DnaSP v5: A software for comprehensive analysis of DNA polymorphism data. Bioinformatics, 25, 1451–1452. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btp187 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Liu, K. , Wang, F. , Chen, W. , Tu, L. , Min, M. S. , Bi, K. , & Fu, J. (2010). Rampant historical mitochondrial genome introgression between two species of green pond frogs, Pelophylax nigromaculatus and P. plancyi. BMC . Evolutionary Biology, 10, 201. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Magalhaes, I. S. , Ornelas‐Garcıa, C. P. , Leal‐Cardin, M. , Ramírez, T. , & Barluenga, M. (2015). Untangling the evolutionary history of a highly polymorphic species: Introgressive hybridization and high genetic structure in the desert cichlid fish herichtys minckleyi. Molecular Ecology, 24, 4505–4520. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.13316 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Marshall, D. C. , Hill, K. B. , Cooley, J. R. , & Simon, C. (2011). Hybridization, mitochondrial DNA phylogeography and prediction of the early stages of reproductive isolation: Lessons from New Zealand cicadas (Genus Kikihia). Systematic Biology, 60, 482–502. https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syr017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Matosiuk, M. , Sheremetyeva, I. N. , Sheremetyev, I. S. , Saveljev, A. P. , & Borkowska, A. (2014). Evolutionary neutrality of mtDNA introgression: Evidence from complete mitogenome analysis in roe deer. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 27, 2483–2494. https://doi.org/10.1111/jeb.12491 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Mccracken, K. G. , Wilson, R. E. , & Martin, A. R. (2013). Gene flow and hybridization between numerically imbalanced populations of two duck species on the subantarctic island of South Georgia. PLoS ONE, 8, e82664 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0082664 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Mecham, J. S. (1960). Introgressive hybridization between two southeastern treefrogs. Evolution, 14, 445–457. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.1960.tb03112.x [Google Scholar]
  41. Muir, G. , & Schlötterer, C. (2005). Evidence for shared ancestral polymorphism rather than recurrent gene flow at microsatellite loci differentiating two hybridizing oaks (Quercus spp.). Molecular Ecology, 14, 549–561. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Murray, T. E. , Úna, F. , Brown, M. J. F. , & Paxton, R. J. (2008). Cryptic species diversity in a widespread bumble bee complex revealed using mitochondrial DNA RFLPs. Conservation Genetics, 9, 653–666. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10592-007-9394-z [Google Scholar]
  43. Parham, J. F. , Papenfuss, T. J. , Van Dijk, P. P. , Wilson, B. S. , Marte, C. , Schettino, L. R. , & Simison, W. B. (2013). Genetic introgression and hybridization in Antillean freshwater turtles (Trachemys) revealed by coalescent analyses of mitochondrial and cloned nuclear markers. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 67, 176–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2013.01.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Posada, D. , & Crandall, K. A. (1998). Modeltest: Testing the model of DNA substitution. Bioinformatics, 14, 817–818. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/14.9.817 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Reyer, H. U. , Frei, G. , & Som, C. (1999). Cryptic female choice: Frogs reduce clutch size when amplexed by undesired males. Proceeding Biological Science, 266, 2101 https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.1999.0894 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Rubidge, E. M. , & Taylor, E. B. (2004). Hybrid zone structure and the potential role of selection in hybridizing populations of native westslope cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki lewisi) and introduced rainbow trout (O. mykiss). Molecular Ecology, 13, 3735–3749. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2004.02355.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Salvini, D. , Bruschi, P. , Fineschi, S. , Grossoni, P. , Kjær, E. D. , & Vendramin, G. G. (2009). Natural hybridisation between Quercus petraea (Matt) Liebl. and Quercus pubescens Willd. within an Ltalian stand as revealed by microsatellite fingerprinting. Plant Biology, 11, 758–765. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1438-8677.2008.00158.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Sambrook, J. F. , & Russell, D. W. (2001). Molecular cloning: A laboratory manual (3‐Volume Set). CSH, 1, 895–909. [Google Scholar]
  49. Scheffer, S. J. , & Lewis, M. L. (2001). Two nuclear genes confirm mitochondrial evidence of cryptic species within liriomyza huidobrensis (Diptera: Agromyzidae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 94, 648–653. https://doi.org/10.1603/0013-8746(2001)094[0648:TNGCME]2.0.CO;2 [Google Scholar]
  50. Schmidt, B. R. (2000). Quantitative evidence for global amphibian population declines. Nature, 404, 752–755. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Sequeira, F. , Sodré, D. , Ferrand, N. , Bernardi, J. A. , Sampaio, I. , Schneider, H. , & Vallinoto, M. (2011). Hybridization and massive mtDNA unidirectional introgression between the closely related Neotropical toads Rhinella marina and R. schneideri inferred from mtDNA and nuclear markers. BMC Evolutionary Biology, 11, 264 https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2148-11-264 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Smith, G. R. (1992). Introgression in fishes: Significance for paleontology, cladistics, and evolutionary rates. Systematic Biology, 41, 41–57. https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/41.1.41 [Google Scholar]
  53. Swofford, D. L. (2002). Paup*. phylogenetic analysis using parsimony (*and other methods). version 4.0b10. Mccarthy.
  54. Tamura, K. , & Nei, M. (1993). Estimation of the number of nucleotide substitutions in the control region of mitochondrial dna in humans and chimpanzees. Molecular biology and evolution, 10, 512. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Tamura, K. , Stecher, G. , Peterson, D. , Filipski, A. , & Kumar, S. (2013). Mega6: Molecular evolutionary genetics analysis version 6.0. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 30, 2725–2729. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/mst197 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Templeton, A. R. (1989). The meaning of species and speciation; a genetic perspective In Otte D. & Endler J. A. (Eds.), Speciation and its consequences (pp. 3–27). Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates. [Google Scholar]
  57. Thompson, J. D. , Gibson, T. J. , Plewniak, F. , Jeanmougin, F. , & Higgins, D. G. (1997). The ClustalX windows interface: Flexible strategies for multiple sequence alignment aided by quality analysis tools. Nucleic Acids Resarch, 25, 4876–4882. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/25.24.4876 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Toews, D. P. , & Brelsford, A. (2012). The biogeography of mitochondrial and nuclear discordance in animals. Molecular Ecology, 21, 3907–3930. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2012.05664.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Walsh, B. (2001). Quantitative genetics in the age of genomics. Theoretical Population Biology, 59, 175–184. https://doi.org/10.1006/tpbi.2001.1512 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Wang, Z. F. , & Peng, S. L. (2003). Plant hybridization and its harmful genetic consequences. Biological Science, 11, 333–339. [Google Scholar]
  61. Witt, J. D. , & Hebert, P. D. (2011). Cryptic species diversity and evolution in the amphipod genus Hyalella within central glaciated North America: A molecular phylogenetic approach. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science, 57, 687–698. [Google Scholar]
  62. Yan, F. , Zhou, W. , Zhao, H. , Yuan, Z. , Wang, Y. , Jiang, K. , … Zhang, Y. (2012). Geological events play a larger role than Pleistocene climatic fluctuations in driving the genetic structure of Quasipaa boulengeri (Anura: Dicroglossidae). Molecular Ecology, 22, 1120–1133. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Ye, S. , Huang, H. , Zheng, R. , Zhang, J. , Yang, G. , & Xu, S. (2013). Phylogeographic analyses strongly suggest cryptic speciation in the giant spiny frog (Dicroglossidae: Paa spinosa) and interspecies hybridization in Paa . PLoS ONE, 8, e70403 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0070403 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Yu, B. G. , Ye, R. H. , Zheng, R. Q. , Yan, Z. , & Liu, C. T. (2008). The ethogram and activity rhythm of capative Paa spinosa during breeding period. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 28, 6371–6378. [Google Scholar]
  65. Yu, D. N. , Zheng, R. Q. , Lu, Q. F. , Yang, G. , Fu, Y. , & Zhang, Y. (2016). Genetic diversity and population structure for the conservation of giant spiny frog (Quasipaa spinosa) using microsatellite loci and mitochondrial DNA. Asian Herpetological Research, 7, 75–86. [Google Scholar]
  66. Yu, X. , Zheng, R. , Zhang, J. , Shen, B. , & Dong, B. (2014). Genetic polymorphism of major histocompatibility complex class IIB alleles and pathogen resistance in the giant spiny frog Quasipaa spinosa . Infection, Genetics and Evolution, 28, 175–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meegid.2014.09.028 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Zhou, Y. , Zhang, J. Y. , Zheng, R. Q. , Yu, B. G. , & Yang, G. (2009). Complete nucleotide sequence and gene organization of the mitochondrial genome of Paa spinosa (Anura: Ranoidae). Gene, 447, 86–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gene.2009.07.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

 

Click here for additional data file. (30.2KB, docx)

Articles from Ecology and Evolution are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES