↓ Skip to main content

Cryptic diversity, geographical endemism and allopolyploidy in NE Pacific seaweeds

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Ecology and Evolution, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
78 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Cryptic diversity, geographical endemism and allopolyploidy in NE Pacific seaweeds
Published in
BMC Ecology and Evolution, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12862-017-0878-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

João Neiva, Ester A. Serrão, Laura Anderson, Peter T. Raimondi, Neusa Martins, Licínia Gouveia, Cristina Paulino, Nelson C. Coelho, Kathy Ann Miller, Daniel C. Reed, Lydia B. Ladah, Gareth A. Pearson

Abstract

Molecular markers are revealing a much more diverse and evolutionarily complex picture of marine biodiversity than previously anticipated. Cryptic and/or endemic marine species are continually being found throughout the world oceans, predominantly in inconspicuous tropical groups but also in larger, canopy-forming taxa from well studied temperate regions. Interspecific hybridization has also been found to be prevalent in many marine groups, for instance within dense congeneric assemblages, with introgressive gene-flow being the most common outcome. Here, using a congeneric phylogeographic approach, we investigated two monotypic and geographically complementary sister genera of north-east Pacific intertidal seaweeds (Hesperophycus and Pelvetiopsis), for which preliminary molecular tests revealed unexpected conflicts consistent with unrecognized cryptic diversity and hybridization. The three recovered mtDNA clades did not match a priori species delimitations. H. californicus was congruent, whereas widespread P. limitata encompassed two additional narrow-endemic species from California - P. arborescens (here genetically confirmed) and P. hybrida sp. nov. The congruence between the genotypic clusters and the mtDNA clades was absolute. Fixed heterozygosity was apparent in a high proportion of loci in P. limitata and P. hybrida, with genetic analyses showing that the latter was composed of both H. californicus and P. arborescens genomes. All four inferred species could be distinguished based on their general morphology. This study confirmed additional diversity and reticulation within NE Pacific Hesperophycus/Pelvetiopsis, including the validity of the much endangered, modern climatic relict P. arborescens, and the identification of a new, stable allopolyploid species (P. hybrida) with clearly discernable ancestry (♀ H. californicus x ♂ P. arborescens), morphology, and geographical distribution. Allopolyploid speciation is otherwise completely unknown in brown seaweeds, and its unique occurrence within this genus (P. limitata possibly representing a second example) remains enigmatic. The taxonomic separation of Hesperophycus and Pelvetiopsis is not supported and the genera should be synonymized; we retain only the latter. The transitional coastline between Point Conception and Monterey Bay represented a diversity hotspot for the genus and the likely sites of extraordinary evolutionary events of allopolyploid speciation at sympatric range contact zones. This study pinpoints how much diversity (and evolutionary processes) potentially remains undiscovered even on a conspicuous seaweed genus from the well-studied Californian intertidal shores let alone in other, less studied marine groups and regions/depths.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 78 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 21%
Researcher 13 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 6%
Other 13 17%
Unknown 14 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 33 42%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 14%
Environmental Science 8 10%
Arts and Humanities 3 4%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 3 4%
Other 4 5%
Unknown 16 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 August 2017.
All research outputs
#7,962,193
of 25,377,790 outputs
Outputs from BMC Ecology and Evolution
#1,833
of 3,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#136,943
of 422,539 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Ecology and Evolution
#42
of 73 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,377,790 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,714 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 422,539 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 73 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.