Search for: All records

Abstract Molecular phylogenies are a cornerstone of modern comparative biology and are commonly employed to investigate a range of biological phenomena, such as diversification rates, patterns in trait evolution, biogeography, and community assembly. Recent work has demonstrated that significant biases may be introduced into downstream phylogenetic analyses from processing genomic data; however, it remains unclear whether there are interactions among bioinformatic parameters or biases introduced through the choice of reference genome for sequence alignment and variant calling. We address these knowledge gaps by employing a combination of simulated and empirical data sets to investigate the extent to which the choice of reference genome in upstream bioinformatic processing of genomic data influences phylogenetic inference, as well as the way that reference genome choice interacts with bioinformatic filtering choices and phylogenetic inference method. We demonstrate that more stringent minor allele filters bias inferred trees away from the true species tree topology, and that these biased trees tend to be more imbalanced and have a higher center of gravity than the true trees. We find the greatest topological accuracy when filtering sites for minor allele count (MAC) >3–4 in our 51-taxa data sets, while tree center of gravity was closest to the true value when filtering for sites with MAC >1–2. In contrast, filtering for missing data increased accuracy in the inferred topologies; however, this effect was small in comparison to the effect of minor allele filters and may be undesirable due to a subsequent mutation spectrum distortion. The bias introduced by these filters differs based on the reference genome used in short read alignment, providing further support that choosing a reference genome for alignment is an important bioinformatic decision with implications for downstream analyses. These results demonstrate that attributes of the study system and dataset (and their interaction) add important nuance for how best to assemble and filter short-read genomic data for phylogenetic inference. 

ABSTRACT Adaptive radiations are rich laboratories for exploring, testing, and understanding key theories in evolution and ecology because they offer spectacular displays of speciation and ecological adaptation. Particular challenges to the study of adaptive radiation include high levels of species richness, rapid speciation, and gene flow between species. Over the last decade, high‐throughput sequencing technologies and access to population genomic data have lessened these challenges by enabling the analysis of samples from many individual organisms at whole‐genome scales. Here we review how population genomic data have facilitated our knowledge of adaptive radiation in five key areas: (1) phylogenetics, (2) hybridization, (3) timing and rates of diversification, (4) the genomic basis of trait evolution, and (5) the role of genome structure in divergence. We review current knowledge in each area, highlight outstanding questions, and focus on methods that facilitate detection of complex patterns in the divergence and demography of populations through time. It is clear that population genomic data are revolutionising the ability to reconstruct evolutionary history in rapidly diversifying clades. Additionally, studies are increasingly emphasising the central role of gene flow, re‐use of standing genetic variation during adaptation, and structural genomic elements as facilitators of the speciation process in adaptive radiations. We highlight hybridization—and the hypothesized processes by which it shapes diversification—and questions seeking to bridge the divide between microevolutionary and macroevolutionary processes as rich areas for future study. Overall, access to population genomic data has facilitated an exciting era in adaptive radiation research, with implications for deeper understanding of fundamental evolutionary processes across the tree of life. 

Abstract Polymorphism facilitates coexistence of divergent morphs (e.g., phenotypes) of the same species by minimizing intraspecific competition, especially when resources are limiting. Arctic char (Salvelinussp.) are a Holarctic fish often forming morphologically, and sometimes genetically, divergent morphs. In this study, we assessed the morphological and genetic diversity and divergence of 263 individuals from seven populations of arctic char with varying length‐frequency distributions across two distinct groups of lakes in northern Alaska. Despite close geographic proximity, each lake group occurs on landscapes with different glacial ages and surface water connectivity, and thus was likely colonized by fishes at different times. Across lakes, a continuum of physical (e.g., lake area, maximum depth) and biological characteristics (e.g., primary productivity, fish density) exists, likely contributing to characteristics of present‐day char populations. Although some lakes exhibit bimodal size distributions, using model‐based clustering of morphometric traits corrected for allometry, we did not detect morphological differences within and across char populations. Genomic analyses using 15,934 SNPs obtained from genotyping by sequencing demonstrated differences among lake groups related to historical biogeography, but within lake groups and within individual lakes, genetic differentiation was not related to total body length. We used PERMANOVA to identify environmental and biological factors related to observed char size structure. Significant predictors included water transparency (i.e., a primary productivity proxy), char density (fish·ha^‐1), and lake group. Larger char occurred in lakes with greater primary production and lower char densities, suggesting less intraspecific competition and resource limitation. Thus, char populations in more productive and connected lakes may prove more stable to environmental changes, relative to food‐limited and closed lakes, if lake productivity increases concomitantly. Our findings provide some of the first descriptions of genomic characteristics of char populations in arctic Alaska, and offer important consideration for the persistence of these populations for subsistence and conservation. 

Abstract The study of biodiversity started as a single unified field that spanned both ecology and evolution and both macro and micro phenomena. But over the 20th century, major trends drove ecology and evolution apart and pushed an emphasis towards the micro perspective in both disciplines. Macroecology and macroevolution re‐emerged as self‐consciously distinct fields in the 1970s and 1980s, but they remain largely separated from each other. Here, we argue that despite the challenges, it is worth working to combine macroecology and macroevolution. We present 25 fundamental questions about biodiversity that are answerable only with a mixture of the views and tools of both macroecology and macroevolution.