Advertisement

Conservation Genetics

, Volume 12, Issue 3, pp 845–849 | Cite as

Taxonomic uncertainty of a highly endangered brook damselfly, Copera tokyoensis Asahina, 1948 (Odonata: Platycnemididae), revealed by the mitochondrial gene genealogy

  • Takuya Kiyoshi
  • Jun-ichi Takahashi
  • Takehiko Yamanaka
  • Koichi Tanaka
  • Kenji Hamasaki
  • Koji Tsuchida
  • Yoshitaka Tsubaki
Short Communication

Abstract

In the Japanese main islands, two brook damselfly species are sympatrically distributed. One is highly endangered damselfly, Copera tokyoensis, Asahina, 1948, and the other is a congeneric common species, C. annulata (Selys, 1863). Mitochondrial gene genealogy reconstructed by the maximum likelihood method showed that they are not reciprocally monophyletic. These two congeneric species might have experienced mitochondrial introgressions possibly through hybridizations. The effect of hybridization against endangered species is generally poorly understood. Taxonomic uncertainty might also explain this situation because extremely dispersed pattern of the haplotype network could not be appeared by once or twice hybridization. Three closely located populations of C. tokyoensis in the Kanto district showed significant population differentiation. It might suggest the low dispersal tendency of this endangered species.

Keywords

Copera Brook damselfly Odonata Taxonomic uncertainty 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Kiyoshi, Takahashi and Tsubaki were financially supported in part by the Global Center of Excellence Program “Formation of a Strategic Base for Biodiversity and Evolutionary Research: from Genome to Ecosystem” of the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports and Technology (MEXT), Japan. Yamanaka, Tanaka and Hamasaki were supported in part by a Grant-in-Aid for project research on Developing Technology for Coexisting with Nature within Agro-forest and Aquatic Watershed Landscapes, from the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries of Japan.

References

  1. Clement M, Posada D, Crandall KA (2000) TCS: a computer program to estimate gene genealogies. Mol Ecol 9:1657–1659PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Edgar RC (2004) MUSCLE: multiple sequence alignment with high accuracy and high throughpput. Nucleic Acids Res 32:1792–1797PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Excoffier L, Laval G, Schneider S (2005) Arlequin ver. 3.0: an integrated software package for population genetics data analysis. Evol Bioinf Online 1:47–50Google Scholar
  4. Felsenstein J (1985) Confidence-limits on phylogenies—an approach using the bootstrap. Evolution 39:783–791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Funk DJ, Omland KE (2003) Species-level paraphyly and polyphyly: frequency, causes, and consequences, with insights from animal mitochondrial DNA. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34:397–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hasegawa M, Kishino H, Yano T (1985) Dating of the human-ape splitting by a molecular phylogenetics. J Mol Evol 22:160–174PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kadoya T, Suda SI, Washitani I (2009) Dragonfly crisis in Japan: a likely consequence of recent agricultural habitat degradation. Biol Conserv 142:1899–1905CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kiyoshi T, Sota T (2006) Differentiation of the Dragonfly Genus Davidius (Odonata: Gomphidae) in Japan inferred from mitochondrial and nuclear gene genealogies. Zool Sci 23:1–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ministory of Environment of Japan (2007) Red data book of Japan. Ministry of the Environment of Japan, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  10. Nei M (1987) Molecular evolutionary genetics. New York, Columbia University PressGoogle Scholar
  11. Raymond M, Rousset F (1995) An exact test for population differentiation. Evolution 49:1280–1283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Rhymer JM, Simberloff D (1996) Extinction by hybridization and introgression. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 27:83–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Sugimura M, Ishida S, Kojima K, Ishida K, Aoki T (1999) Dragonflies of the Japanese Archipelago in color. Hokkaido University Press, SapporoGoogle Scholar
  14. Sugiura N (1978) Further analysis of the data by Akaike’s information criterion and the finite corrections. Commun Stat: Theory Method A7:13–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Swofford DL (2002) PAUP*, Phylogenetic analysis using parsimony, and other methods, version 4.0. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MAGoogle Scholar
  16. Tajima F (1983) Evolutionary relationships of DNA sequence in finite populations. Genetics 105:437–460PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Tanabe AS (2007) Kakusan: a computer program to automate the selection of a nucleotide substitution model and the configuration of a mixed model on multilocus data. Mol Ecol Notes 7:962–964CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Tsuda S (2000) A distributional list of world Odonata 2000. Published by the author, OsakaGoogle Scholar
  19. Yamanaka T, Tanaka K, Hamasaki K, Nakatani Y, Iwasaki N, Sprague DS, Bjørnstad ON (2009) Evaluating the relative importance of patch quality and connectivity in a damselfly metapopulation from a one-season survey. Oikos 118:67–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Takuya Kiyoshi
    • 1
  • Jun-ichi Takahashi
    • 2
  • Takehiko Yamanaka
    • 3
  • Koichi Tanaka
    • 3
  • Kenji Hamasaki
    • 3
  • Koji Tsuchida
    • 4
  • Yoshitaka Tsubaki
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for Ecological ResearchKyoto UniversityOtsuJapan
  2. 2.Faculty of Life ScienceKyoto Sangyo UniversityKyotoJapan
  3. 3.National Institute for Agro-Environmental SciencesTsukubaJapan
  4. 4.Faculty of Applied Biological Sciences, Gifu UniversityGifuJapan

Personalised recommendations