ArticleThe Journal of heredity2019
Phylogeography, Population Structure, and Species Delimitation in Rockhopper Penguins (Eudyptes chrysocome and Eudyptes moseleyi).
Article in The Journal of heredity, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Rockhopper penguins are delimited as 2 species, the northern rockhopper (Eudyptes moseleyi) and the southern rockhopper (Eudyptes chrysocome), with the latter comprising 2 subspecies, the western rockhopper (Eudyptes chrysocome chrysocome) and the eastern rockhopper (Eudyptes chrysocome filholi). We conducted a phylogeographic study using multilocus data from 114 individuals sampled across 12 colonies from the entire range of the northern/southern rockhopper complex to assess potential population structure, gene flow, and species limits. Bayesian and likelihood methods with nuclear and mitochondrial DNA, including model testing and heuristic approaches, support E. moseleyi and E. chrysocome as distinct species lineages with a divergence time of 0.97 Ma. However, these analyses also indicated the presence of gene flow between these species. Among southern rockhopper subspecies, we found evidence of significant gene flow and heuristic approaches to species delimitation based on the genealogical diversity index failed to delimit them as species. The best-supported population models for the southern rockhoppers were those where E. c. chrysocome and E. c. filholi were combined into a single lineage or 2 lineages with bidirectional gene flow. Additionally, we found that E. c. filholi has the highest effective population size while E. c. chrysocome showed similar effective population size to that of the endangered E. moseleyi. We suggest that the current taxonomic definitions within rockhopper penguins be upheld and that E. chrysocome populations, all found south of the subtropical front, should be treated as a single taxon with distinct management units for E. c. chrysocome and E. c. filholi.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.