Dissemin is shutting down on January 1st, 2025

Published in

Wiley, Molecular Ecology, 6(24), p. 1164-1171, 2015

DOI: 10.1111/mec.13108

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

The evolution of phylogeographic data sets

This paper is made freely available by the publisher.
This paper is made freely available by the publisher.

Full text: Download

Green circle
Preprint: archiving allowed
Orange circle
Postprint: archiving restricted
Red circle
Published version: archiving forbidden
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

Empirical phylogeographic studies have progressively sampled greater numbers of loci over time, in part motivated by theoretical papers showing that estimates of key demographic parameters improve as the number of loci increases. Recently, next-generation sequencing has been applied to questions about organismal history, with the promise of revolutionizing the field. However, no systematic assessment of how phylogeographic datasets have changed over time with respect to overall size and information content has been performed. Here, we quantify the changing nature of these genetic datasets over the past 20 years, focusing on papers published in Molecular Ecology. We found that the number of independent loci, the total number of alleles sampled, and the total number of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) per dataset has improved over time, with particularly dramatic increases within the past five years. Interestingly, uniparentally-inherited organellar markers (e.g., animal mitochondrial and plant chloroplast DNA) continue to represent an important component of phylogeographic data. Single-species studies (cf. comparative studies) that focus on vertebrates (particularly fish and to some extent, birds) represent the gold standard of phylogeographic data collection. Based on the current trajectory seen in our survey data, forecast modelling indicated that the median number of SNPs per dataset for studies published by the end of the year 2016 may approach ~20,000. This survey provides baseline information for understanding the evolution of phylogeographic datasets, and underscores the fact that development of analytical methods for handling very large genetic datasets will be critical for facilitating growth of the field.This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.