Advertisement

Conservation Genetics

, Volume 4, Issue 2, pp 167–177 | Cite as

Molecular and other biological evidence supports the recognition of at least three species of brown kiwi

  • Maryann L. Burbidge
  • Rogan M. Colbourne
  • Hugh A. Robertson
  • Allan J. Baker
Article

Abstract

The presence of morphologically crypticlineages within the threatened brown kiwi ofNew Zealand has confounded their taxonomy. Recent genetic studies (Herbert and Daugherty1994; Baker et al. 1995) revealed that atleast two phylogenetic species exist within thebrown kiwi, and suggested that further researchshould resolve the taxonomic problems. In thispaper we extend genetic analyses to includesequences from 58 brown kiwi representing fivephylogenetic lineages for four mitochondrialloci (control region, cytochrome b,ATPase 6 and ATPase 8). Major lineages ofbrown kiwi are shown to be reciprocallymonophyletic, and align with other biologicaldifferences in the ecology, behavior,morphology and parasites of kiwi. BecausemtDNA sequences of major lineages of kiwi arenot evolving in a clocklike manner, we used anew penalized likelihood method withrate-smoothing to date the divergence of NorthIsland brown kiwi and the geographicallyisolated Okarito population (rowi) at about 6.2Mya. These lineages diverged about 8.2 Myafrom the brown kiwi in Fiordland and Haast inthe southern part of the South Island, and arethus older than the species of spotted kiwi(5.8 Mya). Given their distinctness, long-termgeographical isolation, lack of hybridizationin introduced populations, and accumulation ofnew biological characters within theselineages, we hypothesize that reproductiveincompatibilities have probably arisen as well. We therefore recommend that these divergentlineages be formally recognized as fullspecies; Apteryx mantelli should bere-instated for the North Island brown kiwi,A. australis should be restricted to thetokoeka, and a new species A. rowiishould be erected to describe the rowi atOkarito. Tokoeka should be split into at leastthree conservation management units (Haast,Fiordland and Stewart Island [Rakiura]), butfurther research is required to determine theexact relationships and status of theselineages. Further investigation is alsorequired into the genetic structuring of theNorth Island brown kiwi to confirm conservationmanagement units on the North Island.

Apteryx conservation cryptic species mitochondrial DNA phylogenetic systematics 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allibone RM, Crowl TA, Holmes JM, King TM, McDowall RM, Townsend CR, Wallis GP (1996) Isozyme analysis of Galaxias species (Teleostei: Galaxiidae) from the Taieri River, South Island, New Zealand: A species complex revealed. Biol. J. Linn. Soc., 57, 107–127.Google Scholar
  2. Avise JC (1989) A Role for molecular genetics in the recognition and conservation of endangered species. Trends Ecol. Evol., 4, 279–281.Google Scholar
  3. Avise JC, Nelson WS (1989) Molecular genetic relationships of the extinct dusky seaside sparrow. Science 243, 646–648.Google Scholar
  4. Baker AJ, Daugherty CH, Colbourne R, McLennan JL (1995) Flightless brown kiwi of New Zealand possess extremely subdivided population structure and cryptic species like small mammals. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 92, 8254–8258.Google Scholar
  5. Bartlett AD (1850) On the genus Apteryx. Proc. Zool. Soc. London, 1850, 274–276.Google Scholar
  6. Boles WE (1992) Revision of Dromaius gidju Patterson and Rich 1987 from Riversleigh, northwestern Queensland, Australia with a reassessment of it generic position. Nat. Hist. Mus. LA County Sci. Ser., 36, 195–208.Google Scholar
  7. Buller WL (1882) Manual of the Birds of New Zealand. Government Printer, Wellington.Google Scholar
  8. Buller (1891) On the large kiwi from Stewart Island (Apteryx maxima). Trans. Proc. NZ Inst., 24, 91–92.Google Scholar
  9. Buller (1896) Notes on the ornithology of New Zealand. Trans. Proc. NZ Inst., 29, 179–207.Google Scholar
  10. Butler D, McLennan J (1991) Kiwi Recovery Plan. Department of Conservation, Wellington.Google Scholar
  11. Cabot E, Beckenback AT (1985) Simultaneous editing of multiple nucleic acid and protein sequences with ESEE. Comp. App. Bios., 5, 233–234.Google Scholar
  12. Cao Y, Adachi J, Pääbo S, Heasegawa M (1994) Phylogenetic relationships among eutherian orders estimated from inferred sequences of mitochondrial proteins: Instability of a tree based on a single gene. J. Mol. Evol., 39, 519–527.Google Scholar
  13. Charlesworth B, Lande R (1982) Morphological stasis and developmental constraint: No problem for Neo-Darwinism. Nature, 296, 610.Google Scholar
  14. Cooper A, Lalueza-Fox C, Anderson S, Rambaut A, Austin J, Ward R (2001) Complete mitochondrial genome sequences of two extinct moas clarify ratite evolution. Nature, 409, 704–707.Google Scholar
  15. Cracraft J (1983) Species concepts and speciation analysis. Curr. Ornithol., 1, 159–187.Google Scholar
  16. Daugherty CH, Patterson GB, Thorn CJ, French DC (1990) Differentiation of the members of the New Zealand Leiolopisma nigriplantare species complex (Lacertilla: Scincidae). Herp. Mon., 4, 61–76.Google Scholar
  17. Dean AD, Greenwald JE (1995) Use of filtered pipet tips to elute DNA from agarose gels. BioTechniques, 18, 980.Google Scholar
  18. Friesen VL, Baker AJ, Piatt JF (1996) Phylogenetic relationships within the Alcidae (Charadriiformes: Aves) inferred from total molecular evidence. Mol. Biol. Evol., 13, 359–367.Google Scholar
  19. Haddrath O, Baker AJ (2001) Complete mitochondrial DNA genome sequences of extinct birds: ratite phylogenetics and the vicariance biogeography hypothesis. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B, 268, 939–945.Google Scholar
  20. Hall T (1997) BioEdit 4.8.8. North Carolina State University, Raleigh NC.Google Scholar
  21. Heather BD, Robertson HA (2000) The Field Guide to the Birds of New Zealand, revised edn. Viking, Auckland.Google Scholar
  22. Herbert J, Daugherty CH (1994) Genetic Variation, Systematics and Management of Kiwi. Unpub. report. Department of Conservation, Wellington.Google Scholar
  23. Hitchmough R (1997) A Systematic Revision of the New Zealand Gekkonidae. PhD Thesis, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington.Google Scholar
  24. Huelsenbeck JP, Hillis DM (1993) Success of phylogenetic methods in the four-taxon case. Syst. Biol., 42, 247–264.Google Scholar
  25. Hutton FW, Drummond J (1904) The Animals of New Zealand. Whitcombe and Tombs, Christchurch.Google Scholar
  26. Jolly JN (1989) A Field study of the breeding biology of the little spotted kiwi (Apteryx owenii) with emphasis on the causes of nest failures. J. Roy. Soc. NZ, 19, 433–448.Google Scholar
  27. Kimura M (1981) Estimation of evolutionary distances between homologous nucleotide sequences. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 78, 454–458.Google Scholar
  28. King JL, Hanner R (1998) Cryptic species in a “living fossil” lineage: Taxonomic and phylogenetic relationships within the genus Lepidurus (Crustacea: Notostraca) in North America. Mol. Phyl. Evol., 10, 23–36.Google Scholar
  29. Kocher TD, Thomas WK, Meyer A, Edwards SV, Pääbo S, Villablanca FX, Wilson AC (1989) Dynamics of mitochondrial DNA evolution in animals: Amplification and sequencing with conserved primers. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 86, 6196–6200.Google Scholar
  30. Kumar S, Tamura K, Jakobsen IB, Nei M (2001) MEGA2: Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis software. Bioinfor, 17, 1244–1245.Google Scholar
  31. Mathews GM (1927) Systema Avium Australasianarum. British Ornithologists' Union, London.Google Scholar
  32. Mathews GM (1931) A List of the Birds of Australasia (Including New Zealand, Lord Howe and Norfolk Island and the Australasian Antarctic Quadrant). Taylor and Francis, London.Google Scholar
  33. McLennan J, McCann T (1989) Incubation by female great spotted kiwis. Notornis, 36, 325–326.Google Scholar
  34. McLennan J, McCann T (1991) Incubation temperatures of great spotted kiwi, Apteryx haastii. NZ J. Ecol., 15, 163–166.Google Scholar
  35. Moritz C (1994) Defining ‘Evolutionary Significant Units’ for conservation. Trends Ecol. Evol., 9, 373–375.Google Scholar
  36. Oliver WRB (1930) New Zealand Birds. Fine Art, Wellington.Google Scholar
  37. Oliver WRB (1955) New Zealand Birds, 2nd edn. AH and AWReed, Wellington.Google Scholar
  38. Page RDM, Holmes EC (1998) Molecular Evolution a Phylogenetic Approach. Blackwell Science, Oxford.Google Scholar
  39. Pianka ER (1973) The structure of lizard communities. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst., 4, 53–74.Google Scholar
  40. Posada D, Crandall KA (1998) MODELTEST: Testing the model of DNA substitution. Bioinformatics, 14, 817–818.Google Scholar
  41. Potts TH (1872) Trans Proc. NZ Inst., 5, 171–205.Google Scholar
  42. Russo CAM, Takezaki N, Nei M (1996) Efficiences of different genes and different tree-building methods in recoverying known vertebrate phylogeny. Mol. Biol. Evol., 13, 525–536.Google Scholar
  43. Sambrook J, Fritsch EF, Maniatis T (1989) Molecular Cloning, A Laboratory Manual, 2nd edn. Cold Springs Harbor Laboratory Press, New York.Google Scholar
  44. Sanderson MJ (2001) R8S, Version 1.01 (beta) Users'Manual. University of California, Davis, CA.Google Scholar
  45. Sturmbauer C, Meyer A (1992) Genetic divergence, speciation and morphological stasis in a lineage of African cichlid fishes. Nature, 358, 578–581.Google Scholar
  46. Swofford DL (1998) PAUP* Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony and other Methods. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland.Google Scholar
  47. Tamura K, Nei M (1993) Estimation of the number of nucleotide substitutions in the control region of mitochondrial DNA in humans and chimpanzees. Mol. Biol. Evol., 10, 512–526.Google Scholar
  48. Tisdall C (1994) Setting Priorities for the Conservation of New Zealand Threatened Plants and Animals. Department of Conservation, Wellington.Google Scholar
  49. Trewick SA, Wallis GP, Morgan-Richards M (2000) Phylogeographic pattern correlates with Pliocene mountain building in the alpine scree weta (Orthoptera, Anostostomatidae). Mol. Ecol., 9, 657–666.Google Scholar
  50. Waters JM, Wallis GP (2000) Across the Southern Alps by river capture? Freshwater fish phylogeography in South Island, New Zealand. Mol. Ecol., 9, 1577–1582.Google Scholar
  51. Yang Z (2000) Phylogenetic Analysis by Maximum Likelihood (PAML), Version 3.0. University College London, London, England (http://abacus.gene.ucl.ac.uk/software/paml.html).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maryann L. Burbidge
    • 1
  • Rogan M. Colbourne
    • 2
  • Hugh A. Robertson
    • 2
  • Allan J. Baker
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of ZoologyUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Department of ConservationScience and Research UnitWellingtonNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations