Comparison of species tree methods for reconstructing the phylogeny of bearded manakins (Aves: Pipridae, Manacus) from multilocus sequence data
Although the power of multi-locus data in estimating species trees is apparent, it is also clear that the analytical methodologies for doing so are still maturing. For example, of the methods currently available for estimating species trees from multiocus data, the Bayesian method introduced by Liu and Pearl (2007; BEST) is the only one that provides nodal support values. Using gene sequences from five nuclear loci, we explored two analytical methods (deep coalescence and BEST) to reconstruct the species tree of the five primary Manacus OTUs: M. aurantiacus, M. candei, M. vitellinus, populations of M. manacus from west of the Andes (M. manacus (w)), and populations of M. manacus from east of the Andes (M. manacus (e)). Both BEST and deep coalescence supported a sister relationship between M. vitellinus and M. manacus (w). A lower probability tree from the BEST analysis and one of the most parsimonious deep coalescence trees also supported a sister relationship between M. candei and M. aurantiacus. Because hybrid zones connect the distributions of most Manacus species, we examined the potential influence of post-divergence gene flow on the sister relationship of parapatrically distributed M. vitellinus and M. manacus (w). An isolation-with-migration (IM) analysis found relatively high levels of gene flow between M. vitellinus and M. manacus (w). Whether the gene flow is obscuring a true sister relationship between M. manacus (w) and M. manacus (e) remained unclear, pointing to the need for more detailed models accommodating multispecies, multilocus DNA sequence data. Copyright © Society of Systematic Biologists.
Publication Source (Journal or Book title)
Brumfield, R., Liu, L., Lum, D., & Edwards, S. (2008). Comparison of species tree methods for reconstructing the phylogeny of bearded manakins (Aves: Pipridae, Manacus) from multilocus sequence data. Systematic Biology, 57 (5), 719-731. https://doi.org/10.1080/10635150802422290