Fuzzy species borders of glacial survivalists in the Carpathian biodiversity hotspot revealed using a multimarker approach
1.Schäferna, K. Amphipoda balcanica, spolu s poznámkami o jiných sladkovodních Amphipodech. Mem. Soc. R. Sci. Boheme Prague 12, 1–111 (1922).
Google Scholar
2.Martynov, A. B. Zur Kenntnis der Amphipoden der Krim. Zool. Jahrb. 60, 573–606 (1931).
Google Scholar
3.Karaman, S. L. Beitrag zur Kenntni s der Susswasseramphiopden. Bull. Soc. Scien Skoplje IX, 93–107 (1931).
Google Scholar
4.Schellenberg, A. Schlussel und Diagnosen der dem Susswasser-Gammarus nahestehenden Einheiten ausschlisslich der Arten des Baikalsees und Australiens. Zool. Anz. 117, 267–280 (1937).
Google Scholar
5.Barnard, J. L. & Karaman, S. G. Classificatory revisions in gammaridean amphipoda (Crustacea), Part 2. Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. 95, 167–187 (1982).
Google Scholar
6.Karaman, G. & Pinkster, S. Freshwater Gammarus species from Europe, North Africa and adjacent regions of Asia (CrustaceaAmphipoda): Part I: Gammarus pulex-group and related species. Bijdr Dierkd 47, 1–97 (1977).Article
Google Scholar
7.Karaman, G. & Pinkster, S. Freshwater Gammarus species from Europe, North Africa and adjacent regions of Asia (Crustacea Amphipoda): Part II: Gammarus roeseli-group and related species. Bijdr Dierkd 47, 165–196 (1977).Article
Google Scholar
8.Karaman, G. & Pinkster, S. Freshwater Gammarus species from Europe, North Africa and adjacent regions of Asia (Crustacea-Amphipoda): Part III: Gammarus balcanicus-group and related species. Bijdr Dierkd 57, 207–260 (1987).Article
Google Scholar
9.Jażdżewski, K. Remarks on Gammarus lacustris G.O. Sars, 1863, with description of Gammarus varsoviensis n. sp. Bijdr Dierkd 45, 71–86 (1975).Article
Google Scholar
10.Jażdżewski, K. & Konopacka, A. Gammarus leopoliensis nov. sp. (Crustacea, Amphipoda) from Eastern Carpathians. Bull. Zoölogisch Museum 11, 185–196 (1989).
Google Scholar
11.Karaman, G. S. New species of the family Gammaridae from Ohrid Lake basin, Gammarus sketi, n. sp., with emphasis on the subterranean members of genus Gammarus Fabr. (Contribution to the knowledge of the Amphipoda 191). Glasnik Odjeljenja prirodnih nauka, Crnogorska akademija nauka i umjetnosti 7, 53–71 (1989).
Google Scholar
12.Iannilli, V. & Ruffo, S. Apennine and Sardinian species of Gammarus, with the description of Gammarus elvirae n. sp. (Crustacea Amphipoda, Gammaridae). Boll. Acc. Gioenia Sci. Nat 35, 519–532 (2002).
Google Scholar
13.Alther, R., Fišer, C. & Altermatt, F. Description of a widely distributed but overlooked amphipod species in the European Alps. Zool. J. Linn Soc.-Lond. https://doi.org/10.1111/zoj.12477 (2016).Article
Google Scholar
14.Grabowski, M., Wysocka, A. & Mamos, T. Molecular species delimitation methods provide new insight into taxonomy of the endemic gammarid species flock from the ancient Lake Ohrid. Zool. J. Linn. Soc.-Lond. 20, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1093/zoolinnean/zlw025 (2017).Article
Google Scholar
15.Hupalo, K., Mamos, T., Wrzesinska, W. & Grabowski, M. First endemic freshwater Gammarus from Crete and its evolutionary history-an integrative taxonomy approach. PeerJ 6, e4457. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4457 (2018).Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
16.Rudolph, K., Coleman, C. O., Mamos, T. & Grabowski, M. Description and post-glacial demography of Gammarus jazdzewskii sp. Nov. (Crustacea: Amphipoda) from Central Europe. Syst. Biodivers. 16, 587–603. https://doi.org/10.1080/14772000.2018.1470118 (2018).Article
Google Scholar
17.Hou, Z., Sket, B. & Li, S. Phylogenetic analyses of Gammaridae crustacean reveal different diversification patterns among sister lineages in the Tethyan region. Cladistics https://doi.org/10.1111/cla.12055 (2014).Article
Google Scholar
18.Hou, Z. & Sket, B. A review of Gammaridae (Crustacea: Amphipoda): The family extent, its evolutionary history, and taxonomic redefinition of genera. Zool. J. Linn. Soc.-Lond. 176, 323–348. https://doi.org/10.1111/zoj.12318 (2016).Article
Google Scholar
19.Sket, B. & Hou, Z. Family Gammaridae (Crustacea: Amphipoda), mainly its Echinogammarus clade in SW Europe. Further elucidation of its phylogeny and taxonomy. ABS 61 (2018).20.Mamos, T., Wattier, R., Burzyński, A. & Grabowski, M. The legacy of a vanished sea: A high level of diversification within a European freshwater amphipod species complex driven by 15 My of Paratethys regression. Mol. Ecol. 25, 795–810. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.13499 (2016).Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
21.Mamos, T., Wattier, R., Majda, A., Sket, B. & Grabowski, M. Morphological vs. molecular delineation of taxa across montane regions in Europe: The case study of Gammarus balcanicus Schäferna, 1922 (Crustacea: Amphipoda). J. Zoolog. Syst. Evol. Res. 52, 237–248. https://doi.org/10.1111/jzs.12062 (2014).Article
Google Scholar
22.Grabowski, M., Mamos, T., Bącela-Spychalska, K., Rewicz, T. & Wattier, R. A. Neogene paleogeography provides context for understanding the origin and spatial distribution of cryptic diversity in a widespread Balkan freshwater amphipod. PeerJ 5, e3016. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.3016 (2017).Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
23.Copilaş-Ciocianu, D., Zimţa, A.-A., Grabowski, M. & Petrusek, A. Survival in northern microrefugia in an endemic Carpathian gammarid (Crustacea: Amphipoda). Zool. Scr. 47, 357–372. https://doi.org/10.1111/zsc.12285 (2018).Article
Google Scholar
24.Copilaş-Ciocianu, D. & Petrusek, A. Phylogeography of a freshwater crustacean species complex reflects a long-gone archipelago. J. Biogeogr. 44, 421–432. https://doi.org/10.1111/jbi.12853 (2017).Article
Google Scholar
25.Wattier, R. et al. Continental-scale patterns of hyper-cryptic diversity within the freshwater model taxon Gammarus fossarum (Crustacea, Amphipoda). Sci. Rep. 10, 16536. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-73739-0 (2020).CAS
Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
26.Meier, R. & Wheeler, Q. D. in The New Taxonomy (ed Q. D. Wheeler) 256 (CRC Press, 2008).27.Coleman, C. O. Taxonomy in times of the taxonomic impediment: Examples from the community of experts on amphipod crustaceans. J. Crustacean Biol. 35, 729–740. https://doi.org/10.1163/1937240x-00002381 (2015).Article
Google Scholar
28.Puillandre, N., Brouillet, S. & Achaz, G. ASAP: Assemble species by automatic partitioning. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 21, 609–620. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.13281 (2021).Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
29.Kondracki, J. Karpaty. (WSiP, 1989).30.Mráz, P. & Ronikier, M. Biogeography of the Carpathians: Evolutionary and spatial facets of biodiversity. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 119, 528–559. https://doi.org/10.1111/bij.12918 (2016).Article
Google Scholar
31.Balint, M. et al. Biodiversity Hotspots: Distribution and Protection of Conservation Priority Areas 189–205 (Springer, 2011).Book
Google Scholar
32.Schmitt, T. & Varga, Z. Extra-Mediterranean refugia: The rule and not the exception?. Front Zool. https://doi.org/10.1186/1742-9994-9-22 (2012).Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
33.Ronikier, M. Biogeography of high-mountain plants in the Carpathians: An emerging phylogeographical perspective. Taxon 60, 373–389. https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.602008 (2011).Article
Google Scholar
34.Hájková, P. et al. Using multi-proxy palaeoecology to test a relict status of refugial populations of calcareous-fen species in the Western Carpathians. The Holocene 25, 702–715. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959683614566251 (2015).ADS
Article
Google Scholar
35.Malicky, H. Chorological patterns and biome types of European Trichoptera and other freshwater insects. Arch. Hydrobiol. 96, 223–244 (1983).
Google Scholar
36.Malicky, H. Arealdynamik und Biomgrundtypen am Beispiel der Köcherfliegen (Trichoptera). Entom Basi 22, 235–259 (2000).
Google Scholar
37.Keresztes, L., Kolcsár, L.-P., Török, E. & Dénes, A.-L. in The Carpathians as speciation centres and barriers: From case studies to general patterns (eds L Keresztes & B. Markó) 168 (Cluj University Press, 2011).38.Bozáová, J., Čiamporová Zat’ovičová, Z., Čiampor, F., Mamos, T. & Grabowski, M. The tale of springs and streams: How different aquatic ecosystems impacted the mtDNA population structure of two riffle beetles in the Western Carpathians. PeerJ 8, e10039. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.10039 (2020).Article
Google Scholar
39.Copilas-Ciocianu, D., Rutová, T., Pařil, P. & Petrusek, A. Epigean gammarids survived millions of years of severe climatic fluctuations in high latitude refugia throughout the Western Carpathians. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 112, 218–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2017.04.027 (2017).Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
40.Grabowski, M. & Mamos, T. Contact Zones, Range Boundaries, and Vertical Distribution of Three Epigean Gammarids (Amphipoda) in the Sudeten and Carpathian Mountains (Poland). Crustaceana 84, 153–168. https://doi.org/10.1163/001121611×554328 (2011).Article
Google Scholar
41.Jażdżewski, K. Morfologia, taksonomia i występowanie w Polsce kiełży z rodzajów Gammarus Fabr. i Chaetogammarus Mart. (Crustacea, Amphipoda). 185 (Acta Universitatis Lodziensis, 1975).42.Jażdżewski, K. & Konopacka, A. Notes on the Gammaridean Amphipoda of the Dniester River Basin and Eastern Carpathians. Crustaceana. Supplement, 72–89 (1988).43.Zieliński, D. Life History of Gammarus balcanicus Schäferna, 1922 from the Bieszczady Mountains (Eastern Carpathians, Poland). Crustaceana 68(1), 61–72 (1995).Article
Google Scholar
44.Zieliński, D. Life Cycle and Altitude Range of Gammarus leopoliensis Jażdżewski & Konopacka, 1989 (Amphipoda) in South-Eastern Poland. Crustaceana 71 (1998).45.Konopacka A., Jażdżewski K., Jędryczkowski W. In Monografie Bieszczadzkie, vol. VII (ed. Pawłowski, J.) (2000).46.Straškraba, M. Předběžná zpráva o rozšíření rodu Gammarus v ČSR. Věstník Československé Společnosti Zoologické 17, 212–227 (1953).
Google Scholar
47.Straškraba, M. Beitrag zur Kenntnis der Amphipodenfauna Karpatenrusslands (USSR). Věstník Československé Společnosti Zoologické 21, 256–272 (1957).
Google Scholar
48.Micherdziński, W. Kiełże rodzaju Gammarus Fabricius (Amphipoda) w wodach Polski. Acta Zoologica Cracoviensia 4, 527–637 (1959).
Google Scholar
49.Straškraba, M. Amphipoden der Tschechoslovakei nach den Sammlungen von. Prof. Hrabě. I. Věstník Československé Společnosti Zoologické 26, 117–145 (1962).50.Provan, J. & Bennett, K. D. Phylogeographic insights into cryptic glacial refugia. Trends Ecol. Evol. 23, 564–571. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2008.06.010 (2008).Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
51.Tzedakis, P. C., Emerson, B. C. & Hewitt, G. M. Cryptic or mystic? Glacial tree refugia in northern Europe. Trends Ecol. Evol. 28, 696–704. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2013.09.001 (2013).CAS
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
52.Harl, J., Duda, M., Kruckenhauser, L., Sattmann, H. & Haring, E. In Search of Glacial Refuges of the Land Snail Orcula dolium (Pulmonata, Orculidae): An Integrative Approach Using DNA Sequence and Fossil Data. PLoS ONE 9, e96012. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0096012 (2014).ADS
CAS
Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
53.Juřičková, L., Horáčková, J. & Ložek, V. Direct evidence of central European forest refugia during the last glacial period based on mollusc fossils. Quaternary Res. 82, 222–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yqres.2014.01.015 (2014).ADS
Article
Google Scholar
54.Väinölä, R. et al. Global diversity of amphipods (Amphipoda; Crustacea) in freshwater. Hydrobiologia 595, 241–255. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-007-9020-6 (2008).Article
Google Scholar
55.Zasadni, J. & Kłapyta, P. The tatra mountains during the last glacial maximum. J. Maps 10, 440–456. https://doi.org/10.1080/17445647.2014.885854 (2014).Article
Google Scholar
56.Sworobowicz, L., Mamos, T., Grabowski, M. & Wysocka, A. Lasting through the ice age: The role of the proglacial refugia in the maintenance of genetic diversity, population growth, and high dispersal rate in a widespread freshwater crustacean. Freshwater Biol. 65, 1028–1046. https://doi.org/10.1111/fwb.13487 (2020).CAS
Article
Google Scholar
57.Ratnasingham, S. & Hebert, P. Bold: The barcode of life data system. Mol. Ecol. Not. 7, 355–364. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-8286.2007.01678.x (2007).CAS
Article
Google Scholar
58.Weigand, H. et al. DNA barcode reference libraries for the monitoring of aquatic biota in Europe: Gap-analysis and recommendations for future work. STOTEN 678, 499–524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.04.247 (2019).ADS
CAS
Article
Google Scholar
59.Katouzian, A.-R. et al. Drastic underestimation of amphipod biodiversity in the endangered Irano-Anatolian and Caucasus biodiversity hotspots. Sci. Rep. 6, 22507. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep22507 (2016).ADS
CAS
Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
60.Bickford, D. et al. Cryptic species as a window on diversity and conservation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 22, 148–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2006.11.004 (2007).Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
61.Delić, T., Trontelj, P., Rendoš, M. & Fišer, C. The importance of naming cryptic species and the conservation of endemic subterranean amphipods. Sci. Rep. 7, 3391. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-02938-z (2017).ADS
CAS
Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
62.Maddison, W. P. Gene trees in species trees. Syst. Biol. 46, 523–536. https://doi.org/10.2307/2413694 (1997).Article
Google Scholar
63.Nosil, P. Speciation with gene flow could be common. Mol. Ecol. 17, 2103–2106. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2008.03715.x (2008).Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
64.Berner, D. & Salzburger, W. The genomics of organismal diversification illuminated by adaptive radiations. Trends Genet. 31, 491–499. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tig.2015.07.002 (2015).CAS
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
65.Altschul, S. F., Gish, W., Miller, W., Myers, E. W. & Lipman, D. J. Basic local alignment search tool. J. Mol. .Biol 215, 403–410. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmbi.1990.9999 (1990).CAS
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
66.Katoh, K. & Standley, D. M. MAFFT multiple sequence alignment software version 7: Improvements in performance and usability. Mol. Biol. Evol. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/mst010 (2013).Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
67.Xia, X. DAMBE5: A comprehensive software package for data analysis. Mol. Biol. Evol. 30, 1720–1728. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/mst064 (2013).CAS
Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
68.Xia, X., Xie, Z., Salemi, M., Chen, L. & Wang, Y. An index of substitution saturation and its application. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 26, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1055-7903(02)00326-3 (2003).CAS
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
69.Kumar, S., Stecher, G., Li, M., Knyaz, C. & Tamura, K. MEGA X: Molecular evolutionary genetics analysis across computing platforms. Mol. Biol. Evol. 35, 1547–1549. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msy096 (2018).CAS
Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
70.Saitou, N. & Nei, M. The neighbor-joining method: A new method for reconstructing phylogenetic trees. Mol. Biol. Evol. 4, 406–425. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a040454 (1987).CAS
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
71.Kimura, M. A simple method for estimating evolutionary rates of base substitutions through comparative studies of nucleotide sequences. J. Mol. Evol. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01731581 (1980).Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
72.Felsenstein, J. Confidence limits on phylogenies: An approach using the bootstrap. Evol. Int. J. Org. Evol. 39, 783–791 (1985).Article
Google Scholar
73.Ratnasingham, S. & Hebert, P. D. A DNA-based registry for all animal species: The barcode index number (BIN) system. PLoS ONE 8, e66213. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0066213 (2013).ADS
CAS
Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
74.Puillandre, N., Lambert, A., Brouillet, S. & Achaz, G. ABGD, Automatic Barcode Gap Discovery for primary species delimitation. Mol. Ecol. 21, 1864–1877. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2011.05239.x (2012).CAS
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
75.Bouckaert, R. et al. BEAST 2.5: An advanced software platform for Bayesian evolutionary analysis. Plos Comput. Biol. 15, e1006650. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006650 (2019).CAS
Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
76.Bouckaert, R. R. & Drummond, A. J. bModelTest: Bayesian phylogenetic site model averaging and model comparison. BMC Evol. Biol. 17, 42. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12862-017-0890-6 (2017).Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
77.Rambaut, A., Drummond, A. J., Xie, D., Baele, G. & Suchard, M. A. Posterior summarization in bayesian phylogenetics using tracer 1.7. Syst. Biol. 67, 901–904. https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syy032 (2018).CAS
Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
78.Pons, J. et al. Sequence-based species delimitation for the DNA taxonomy of undescribed insects. Syst. Biol. 55, 595–609. https://doi.org/10.1080/10635150600852011 (2006).Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
79.Ezard, T., Fujisawa, T. & Barraclough, T. G. SPLITS: SPecies’ LImits by Threshold Statistics. R package version 1.0–18/r45 Available from: http://R-Forge.R-project.org/projects/splits/ (2009).80.Team, R. C. R: A language and environment for statistical computing, https://www.R-project.org/ (2020).81.Zhang, J., Kapli, P., Pavlidis, P. & Stamatakis, A. A general species delimitation method with applications to phylogenetic placements. Bioinformatics 29, 2869–2876. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btt499 (2013).CAS
Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
82.Kapli, P. et al. Multi-rate Poisson tree processes for single-locus species delimitation under maximum likelihood and Markov chain Monte Carlo. Bioinformatics 33, 1630–1638. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btx025 (2017).CAS
Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
83.Jones, G. Algorithmic improvements to species delimitation and phylogeny estimation under the multispecies coalescent. J. Math. Biol. 74, 447–467. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00285-016-1034-0 (2017).MathSciNet
Article
PubMed
MATH
Google Scholar
84.Jones, G., Aydin, Z. & Oxelman, B. DISSECT: An assignment-free Bayesian discovery method for species delimitation under the multispecies coalescent. Bioinformatics 31, 991–998. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btu770 (2015).CAS
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
85.Rabosky, D. L. Automatic detection of key innovations, rate shifts, and diversity-dependence on phylogenetic trees. PLoS ONE 9, e89543. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0089543 (2014).ADS
CAS
Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
86.Rabosky, D. L. et al. BAMMtools: An R package for the analysis of evolutionary dynamics on phylogenetic trees. Methods Ecol. Evol. 5, 701–707. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12199 (2014).Article
Google Scholar
87.Rozas, J. et al. DnaSP 6: DNA sequence polymorphism analysis of large data sets. Mol. Biol. Evol. 34, 3299–3302. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msx248 (2017).CAS
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
88.Heled, J. & Drummond, A. Bayesian inference of population size history from multiple loci. BMC Evol. Biol. 8, 289 (2008).Article
Google Scholar
89.Leigh, J. W. & Bryant, D. POPART: Full-feature software for haplotype network construction. Methods Ecol. Evol. 6, 1110–1116. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12410 (2015).Article
Google Scholar
90.Flot, J. F., Couloux, A. & Tillier, S. Haplowebs as a graphical tool for delimiting species: A revival of Doyle’s “field for recombination” approach and its application to the coral genus Pocillopora in Clipperton. BMC Evol. Biol. 10, 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2148-10-372 (2010).Article
Google Scholar
91.Stephens, M., Smith, N. J. & Donnelly, P. A new statistical method for haplotype reconstruction from population data. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 68, 978–989. https://doi.org/10.1086/319501 (2001).CAS
Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
92.Spöri, Y. & Flot, J.-F. HaplowebMaker and CoMa: Two web tools to delimit species using haplowebs and conspecificity matrices. Methods Ecol. Evol. 11, 1434–1438. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13454 (2020).Article
Google Scholar More