Phylogenetic distinctiveness of a threatened aquatic turtle (Sternotherus depressus)

Conservation Biology

Volumn 12, Issue 3, 1998, Pages 639-645

  Walker, Deette ^a,b   Ortí, Guillermo ^a   Avise, John C ^a  

^a University of Georgia ^*  (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BATHYLACO NIGRICANS; KINOSTERNIDAE; STERNOTHERUS DEPRESSUS; STERNOTHERUS MINOR; TESTUDINES;

EID: 0031807663     PISSN: 08888892     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.1998.97056.x     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Allard, M. V., M. M. Miyamoto, K. A. Bjorndal, A. D. Boltcn, and B. W. Bowcn. 199-4. Support for natal homing in green turtles.from mitochondrial DNA sequences. Copeia 1994:34-41.
2. Avise, J. C. 1989. A role for molecular genetics in the recognition and conservation of endangered species. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 4:279-281.
3. Avise, J. C. 1994. Molecular markers, natural history and evolution. Chapman & Hall, New York.
4. Avise, J. C., and J. L. Hamrick, editors. 1996. Conservation genetics: case histories from nature. Chapman & Hall, New York.
5. Avise, J. C.,-ahu \V. S. Nelson. 1989. Molecular genetic relationships of the extinct Dusk)- Seaside Sparrow. Science 243:646-648.
6. Avise, J. C., and K. Wollenberg. 1997. Phylogenetics and the origin of species. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences U.S.A. 94:7748-7755.
7. Behler, J. L, and F. W. King. 1979. The Audubon Society field guide to North American reptiles and amphibians. A. A. Knopf, New York.
8. Bowen, B. W., A. B. Meylan, and J. C. Avise. 1991. Evolutionäry distinctiveness of the endangered Kemp's ridley sea turtle. Nature 352: 709-711.
9. Brooks, D. R., R. L. Mayden, and D. A. McLennan. 1992. Phylogeny and biodiversity: conserving our evolutionär)' legacy. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 7:55-59.
10. Conant, R. 1975. A field guide to reptiles and amphibians of eastern and central North America. 2nd edition. Houghton-Mifflin, Boston.
11. Conant, R., and J. T. Collins. 1991. A field guide to reptiles and amphibians. Houghton-Mifflin, Boston.
12. Crozicr, R. H. 1992. Genetic diversity and the agony of choice. Biological Conservation 61:11-15.
13. Devereux, J., P. Haeberli, and O. Smithies. 1984. A comprehensive set of sequence analysis programs for the VAX. Nucleic Acids Research 12:387-395.
14. Dodd, C. K., Jr. 1986. Movements and habitat use by the flattened musk turtle, Stertiothems deprcssiis. Association of Southeastern Biologists Bulletin 33:63.
15. Dodd, C. K., Jr., K. M. Enge, andj. N. Stuart. 1988. Aspects of the biology of the flattened musk turtle, Stemotberiis tleprcssiis, in northern Alabama. Bulletin of the Florida State Museum of Biological Sciences 34:1-64.
16. Edmunds, M. 1974 Defence in animals: a survey of anti-predator defences. Longman, Burnt Mills, England.
17. Ernst, C. II., and R. W. Barbour. 1972. Turtles of the United States. Kentucky University Press, Lexington.
18. Ernst, C. H., J. E. Lovich, and R. W. Barbour. 1994. Turtles of the United States and Canada. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
19. Ernst, C. H., J. L. Miller, K. R. Marion, and W. A. Cox. 1988. Comparisons of shell morphology among turtles of the Kinostemon minor complex. American Midland Naturalist 120:282-288.
20. Estridge, R. E. 1970. The taxonomic status of Stemothaertts ticprcssus (Testudinata, Kinosternidae) with observations on its ecology. Master's thesis. Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama.
21. Faith, D. P. 1992. Conservation evaluation and phylogenetic diversity. Biological Conservation 61:1-10.
22. Faith, D. P. 199-4. Phylogenetic diversity: a general framework for the prediction of feature diversity. Pages 251-268 in P. L. Foley, C. J. Humphries, and R. I. Vanc-Wright, editors. Systematics and conservation evaluation. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
23. Farris, J. S. 1989. The retention index and the rescaled consistency index. Cladistics 5:417-419.
24. Felsenstein, J. 1985. Confidence limits on phylogenies: an approach using the bootstrap. Evolution 39:783-791.
25. Hascgawa, M., II. Kishino, and T. Yano. 1985. Dating of the human-ape splitting by a molecular clock of mitochondria! DNA. Journal of Molecular Evolution 22:160-174.
26. Hibbett, D. S., and M. J. Donoghue. 1996. Implications of phylogenetic studies for conservation of genetic diversity in shiitake mushrooms. Conservation Biology 10:1321-1327.
27. Iverson, J. B. 1977. Geographic variation in the musk turtle Slcrnotbems minor. Copeia 1977:502-517.
28. Iverson, J. B. 1991. Phylogenetic hypotheses for the evolution of modern kinosternine turtles. Herpetological Monographs 5:1-27.
29. Jackson, J. F. 1988. Crevice occupation by musk turtles: taxonomic distribution and crevice attributes. Animal Behavior 36:793-801.
30. Kidd, K. K., and L. A. Sgaramella-Zonta. 1971. Phylogenetic analysis: concepts and methods. American Journal of Human Genetics 23: 235-252.
31. Krajewski, C. 1994. Phylogenetic measures of biodiversity: a comparison and critique. Biological Conservation 69:33-39.
32. Laerm, J., J. C. Avise, J. C. Patton, and R. A. Lansman. 1982. Genetic determination of the status of an endangered species of pocket gopher in Georgia. Journal of Wildlife Management 46:513-518.
33. Lansman, R. A., R. O. Shade, J. F. Shapira, andj. C. Avise. 1981. The use of restriction cndonucleases to measure mitochondrial DNA sequence rclatedness in natural populations. III. Techniques and potential applications. Journal of Molecular Evolution 17:214-226.
34. LIFE Magazine. 1974. The endangered 100. Scptemben51-63.
35. Mount, R. H. 1975. The reptiles and amphibians of Alabama. Auburn University Agricultural Experiment Station, Auburn, Alabama.
36. Mount, R. H. 1981. The status of the flattened musk turtle, Stcrnotbcrus minor tlepressns. Tinkle and Webb. Contract report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta.
37. Pritchard, P. C. H. 1979. Encyclopedia of turtles. T. H. F. Publishers, Neptune, New Jersey.
38. Rzhetsky, A., and M. Nei. 1992. A simple method for estimating and testing minimum-evolution trees. Molecular Biology and Evolution 9:845-967.
39. Saitou, N., and M. Nei. 1987. The neighbor-joining method: a new method for reconstructing phylogenetic trees. Molecular Biology and Evolution 4:406-425.
40. Seidel, M. E., J. B. Iverson, and M. D. Adkins. 1986. Biochemical comparisons and phylogenetic relationships in the family Kinosternidae (testudines). Copeia 1986:285-294.
41. Seidel, M. E., and R. V. Lucchino. 1981. Allozymic and morphological Variation among the musk turtles Stemothertis carinatiis, S. deprcssus and S. minor (Kinosternidae). Copeia 1981:119-128.
42. Seidel, M. E., S. L. Reynolds, and R. V. Lucchino. 1981. Phylogenetic re-
43. lationships among musk turtles (genus Sternotbcnis) and genie variation in Stemotherns odoratiis. Herpetologica 37:161-165.
44. Smith, T. B., and R. K. Wayne, editors. 1996. Molecular genetic approaclies in conservation. Oxford University Press, New York.
45. Swofford, D. L. 1997. PAUP: phylogenetic analysis using parsimony (*and other methods) version 4.0. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts.
46. Tinkle, D. W. 1958. The systematics and ecology of the Stemothaenis citrinattis complex (Testudinata, Chelydridae). Tulane Studies in Zoology 6:1-56.
47. Tinkle, D. W., and R. G. Webb. 1955. A new species of Steniotbems with a discussion of the Stemotherus carinatns complex (Chelonia, Kinosternidae). Tulane Studies in Zoolog)' 3:53-67.
48. USFWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 1987. Determination of threatened status for the flattened musk turtle (Sternotbcnis tleprcsstis). Federal Register 52:22418-22430.
49. USFWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 1990. Flattened musk turtle recover)' plan. USFWS, Jackson, Mississippi.
50. USFWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 1995. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
51. Vane-Wright, R. I. 1996. Systematics and the conservation of biological diversity. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Gardens 83:47-57.
52. Vane-Wright, R. I., C. J. Humphries, and P. H. Williams. 1991. What to protect? Systematics and the agony of choice. Biological Conservation 55:235-254.
53. Vanc-Wright, R. I., C. R. Smith, and I. J. Kitching. 1994. Systematic assessment of taxic diversity by summation. Pages 309-326 in P. L. Foley, C. J. Humphries, and R. I. Vane-Wright, editors. Systematics and conservation evaluation. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
54. Vogler, A. P., and R. DeSalle.' 1993. Phylogeographic patterns in coastal North American tiger beetles (Cicinelela dorsalis Say) inferred from mitochondria! DNA sequences. Evolution 47:1192-1202.
55. Walker, D., V.J. Burke, I. Barak, and J. C. Avise. 1995. A comparison of mtDNA restriction sites vs. control region sequences in phylogeographic assessment of the musk turtle (Slemotbertis minor). Molecular Ecology 4:365-373-
56. Walker, D., P. E. Moler, K. A. Buhlmann, and J. C. Avise. 1998. Phylogeographic patterns in Kinostemon subnibrwn and A bnnrii based on mitochondria! DNA restriction analysis. Herpetologica 54:174-184.
57. Walker, D., W. S. Nelson, K. A. Buhlmann, and J. C. Avise. 1997. Mitochondrial DNA phylogeography and subspecies issues in the monotypic freshwater turtle Stemotbenis odoratiis. Copeia 1997:16-21.
58. Wayne, R. K., and S. M. Jenks. 1991. Mitochondria! DNA analysis supports extensive hybridization of the endangered red wolf (Cam's ruf its). Nature 351:565-568.
59. Wermuth, H., and R. Mertens. 1961. Schildkröten, krokodilc, bruclienechsen. VEB Gustav Fischer Verlag, Jena, Germany.
60. Yang, Z. 1993- Maximum likelihood estimation of phylogeny from DNA sequences when substitution rates differ over sites. Molecular Biology and Evolution 10:1396-1401.