The two most basal subgroups in P. rugosus (Baja Prug and Basal Prug, five.4 ) is similar towards the typical distances among basal branches in P. barbatus (4.0 to 5.six ), however the Basal Prug and Baja Prug subgroups appear to become fairly narrowly distributed and are represented by just 5 total samples. The outcomes from our pairwise FSTs showed powerful assistance for all nominal subgroups with >2 RAF709 chemical information samples (i.e., all but Baja Prug, MX2, Basal Pbar North, and Basal Pbar South). The analyses have been rerun without having Baja Prug and MX2, and having a combined Basal Pbar subgroup, and all subgroups have been strongly supported (P < 0.005; Tables S1 and S2). The results from our AMOVAs supported a hypothesis of regionally nested population structure within mtDNA P. barbatus (i.e., differentiation between macrogroups and?2015 The Authors. Ecology and Evolution published by John Wiley Sons Ltd.Phylogeography of Pogonomyrmex Harvester AntsB. M. Mott et al.Table 3. Average uncorrected pairwise distances within (center diagonal) and between (lower triangle) all nominal macrogroups as identified in the phylogeny (Fig. 3).between subgroups), but only a single level of structure in P. rugosus (i.e., differentiation between subgroups but not between macrogroups). These results are shown in Table 5, based on population structures that excluded singleton groups (Baja Prug and MX2), merged the two doubleton groups (Basal Pbar N. and S.) as a single subgroup within their own macrogroup, and merged J1 with the rest of Prug North so that macrogroup was monophyletic (thus, there were 4 macrogroups and 7 subgroups for mtDNA P. barbatus, and 2 macrogroups with 6 subgroups for mtDNA P. rugosus). To test the robustness of these results, the AMOVAs were repeated with several other hypothetical population structures PubMed ID:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21107380 constant using the phylogeny for each and every mtDNA species (i.e., including the singleton and/or doubleton groups and treating J1 as a separate macrogroup; data not shown). Only a single option population structure had an effect around the benefits (the inclusion of Baja Prug yielded a considerable FCT value for P. rugosus, see Discussion). The results of our tests with R2, Tajima’s D, Fu’s Fs, plus the mismatch distribution analysis supplied mixed assistance for any hypothesis of current population expansion in a number of the subgroups (Table six). None of your Tajima’s D estimates have been drastically different from 0, suggesting no deviations from neutrality as may well be anticipated beneath a model of choice, bottlenecks, or expansion. In contrast, all of the mismatch distribution tests had been nonsignificant, which indicates that the data for every single subgroup were constant using a model of recent population expansion. The two other tests, R2 and Fu’s Fs, created a less uniform image across subgroups. Two on the thirteen subgroups yielded considerable values for R2 (Prug three and J1), and six of thirteen yielded considerable values for Fu’s Fs (H lineages, SWest Pbar 1, East Pbar 1, East Pbar 2, Prug three, and J1). For each R2 and Fs, important values indicate deviations from neutrality constant having a current population expansion or selective sweep (Fu 1997; Ramos-Onsins and Rozas 2002).Discussionhis study has 3 principal objectives: For the initial time, we describe almost the complete range of the P. barbatus/ P. rugosus species complicated having a molecular marker, identifying a series of genetically distinct phylogroups inside the nominal morphospecies, and delineating the boundaries with the reproductively isolated J a.
