title: Exploring the effect of asymmetric mitochondrial DNA introgression on estimating niche divergence in morphologically cryptic species.
abstract: If potential morphologically cryptic species, identified based on differentiated mitochondrial DNA, express ecological divergence, this increases support for their treatment as distinct species. However, mitochondrial DNA introgression hampers the correct estimation of ecological divergence. We test the hypothesis that estimated niche divergence differs when considering nuclear DNA composition or mitochondrial DNA type as representing the true species range. We use empirical data of two crested newt species (Amphibia: Triturus) which possess introgressed mitochondrial DNA from a third species in part of their ranges. We analyze the data in environmental space by determining Fisher distances in a principal component analysis and in geographical space by determining geographical overlap of species distribution models. We find that under mtDNA guidance in one of the two study cases niche divergence is overestimated, whereas in the other it is underestimated. In the light of our results we discuss the role of estimated niche divergence in species delineation.
authors.affiliation: Naturalis Biodiversity Center, Leiden, The Netherlands; Department of Animal and Plant Sciences, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom.
authors.forename: Ben
authors.initials: B
authors.lastname: Wielstra
authors.affiliation: Naturalis Biodiversity Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
authors.forename: Jan W
authors.initials: JW
authors.lastname: Arntzen
mesh_terms: D000818:Animals; D004272:DNA, Mitochondrial / Q000235:genetics*; D058974:Phylogeography; D014319:Triturus / Q000145:classification / Q000235:genetics*
chemical_list: D004272:DNA, Mitochondrial
references.citation: BMC Evol Biol. 2011 Jun 14;11:162
references.pmid: 21672214
references.citation: PLoS One. 2009 Nov 24;4(11):e7843
references.pmid: 19956684
references.citation: Trends Ecol Evol. 2007 Mar;22(3):148-55
references.pmid: 17129636
references.citation: Evolution. 2008 Aug;62(8):1908-20
references.pmid: 18452573
references.citation: Zootaxa. 2013;3682:441-53
references.pmid: 25243299
references.citation: Trends Ecol Evol. 2008 Mar;23(3):141-8
references.pmid: 18291557
references.citation: Front Zool. 2010 May 25;7:16
references.pmid: 20500846
references.citation: Evolution. 2005 Apr;59(4):720-9
references.pmid: 15926684
references.citation: Mol Ecol. 2012 Aug;21(16):3907-30
references.pmid: 22738314
references.citation: Mol Ecol. 2013 Apr;22(7):1884-903
references.pmid: 23379646
references.citation: Trends Ecol Evol. 2001 Jul 1;16(7):372-380
references.pmid: 11403870
references.citation: Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2013 Apr;67(1):167-75
references.pmid: 23353071
references.citation: Evolution. 1989 Jan;43(1):88-104
references.pmid: 28568488
references.citation: Mol Ecol Resour. 2014 Sep;14(5):1080-9
references.pmid: 24571307
references.citation: PLoS One. 2013 Dec 04;8(12):e80563
references.pmid: 24324611
references.citation: Proc Biol Sci. 2003 Feb 7;270(1512):313-21
references.pmid: 12614582
references.citation: Evolution. 2008 Nov;62(11):2868-83
references.pmid: 18752605
references.citation: Front Zool. 2013 Mar 20;10(1):13
references.pmid: 23514662
references.citation: BMC Evol Biol. 2012 Aug 30;12:161
references.pmid: 22935041
references.citation: Ecol Lett. 2005 Sep;8(9):993-1009
references.pmid: 34517687
references.citation: Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2010 Sep;56(3):888-96
references.pmid: 20435147
references.citation: Trends Ecol Evol. 2009 Jul;24(7):386-93
references.pmid: 19409650
references.citation: PLoS One. 2012;7(9):e46671
references.pmid: 23029564