Open Access

Tracing the colonization history of the Indian Ocean scops-owls (Strigiformes: Otus) with further insight into the spatio-temporal origin of the Malagasy avifauna

  • Jérôme Fuchs1, 2, 3, 4Email author,
  • Jean-Marc Pons1, 2,
  • Steven M Goodman5, 6,
  • Vincent Bretagnolle7,
  • Martim Melo8,
  • Rauri CK Bowie4,
  • David Currie9,
  • Roger Safford10,
  • Munir Z Virani11, 12, 13,
  • Simon Thomsett11, 13,
  • Alawi Hija14,
  • Corinne Cruaud15 and
  • Eric Pasquet1, 2
BMC Evolutionary Biology20088:197

DOI: 10.1186/1471-2148-8-197

Received: 14 January 2008

Accepted: 09 July 2008

Published: 09 July 2008

Abstract

Background

The island of Madagascar and surrounding volcanic and coralline islands are considered to form a biodiversity hotspot with large numbers of unique taxa. The origin of this endemic fauna can be explained by two different factors: vicariance or over-water-dispersal. Deciphering which factor explains the current distributional pattern of a given taxonomic group requires robust phylogenies as well as estimates of divergence times. The lineage of Indian Ocean scops-owls (Otus: Strigidae) includes six or seven species that are endemic to Madagascar and portions of the Comoros and Seychelles archipelagos; little is known about the species limits, biogeographic affinities and relationships to each other. In the present study, using DNA sequence data gathered from six loci, we examine the biogeographic history of the Indian Ocean scops-owls. We also compare the pattern and timing of colonization of the Indian Ocean islands by scops-owls with divergence times already proposed for other bird taxa.

Results

Our analyses revealed that Indian Ocean islands scops-owls do not form a monophyletic assemblage: the Seychelles Otus insularis is genetically closer to the South-East Asian endemic O. sunia than to species from the Comoros and Madagascar. The Pemba Scops-owls O. pembaensis, often considered closely related to, if not conspecific with O. rutilus of Madagascar, is instead closely related to the African mainland O. senegalensis. Relationships among the Indian Ocean taxa from the Comoros and Madagascar are unresolved, despite the analysis of over 4000 bp, suggesting a diversification burst after the initial colonization event. We also highlight one case of putative back-colonization to the Asian mainland from an island ancestor (O. sunia). Our divergence date estimates, using a Bayesian relaxed clock method, suggest that all these events occurred during the last 3.6 myr; albeit colonization of the Indian Ocean islands were not synchronous, O. pembaensis diverged from O. senegalensis about 1.7 mya while species from Madagascar and the Comoro diverged from their continental sister-group about 3.6 mya. We highlight that our estimates coincide with estimates of diversification from other bird lineages.

Conclusion

Our analyses revealed the occurrence of multiple synchronous colonization events of the Indian Ocean islands by scops-owls, at a time when faunistic exchanges involving Madagascar was common as a result of lowered sea-level that would have allowed the formation of stepping-stone islands. Patterns of diversification that emerged from the scops-owls data are: 1) a star-like pattern concerning the order of colonization of the Indian Ocean islands and 2) the high genetic distinctiveness among all Indian Ocean taxa, reinforcing their recognition as distinct species.

Background

The island of Madagascar is considered a biodiversity hotspot with an intriguing endemic fauna [1]. The origin of the island's peculiar and highly unique fauna can be explained by two contrasting processes: vicariance when Madagascar became separated from the African landmass approximately 165 mya and from India approximately 88 mya [2, 3], or over-water dispersal from the African, Australian and Eurasian landmasses. In near proximity to Madagascar are several archipelagos, which have different geological histories. The eastern islands in the Seychelles archipelago are of granitic origin and likely broke off from India and reached their current position some 55–75 mya when India drifted northwards [4], while the western portion of the Seychelles is comprised of recent atolls. In contrast, the volcanic Comoros archipelago is of relatively recent age (0–11 mya), hence the only plausible explanation for the colonization of its biota is by over-ocean dispersal from Africa, Australia, Madagascar or Eurasia.

The origin, timing and modes (vicariance versus over-water dispersal) of colonization by animals of Madagascar and in some cases the surrounding Comoro islands have been the focus of several research programs [510]. Given the antiquity of the break-up of Indo-Madagascar from Africa, which considerably pre-dates the first known fossil records of most modern families or genera of animals, in particular vertebrates, it is now assumed that the majority of extant groups arrived on Madagascar via over-water dispersal [11]. From recent phylogenetic studies, as well as traditional taxonomy, it is inferred that most of the Malagasy avifauna originated from African ancestors, although colonization events from Eurasia and Australia have also been documented for flying organisms such as bats and birds [1216].

Interpreting the origin of certain components of the Malagasy avifauna is in many cases difficult when based on current taxonomical classifications alone as several genera of birds are shared between Madagascar, Africa and Eurasia. Among these are scops-owls of the genus Otus. As currently defined, Otus is present in five biogeographic areas (Indo-Malaya, Afrotropics, Nearctic, Neotropics, Palearctic) [17]. However, monophyly of Otus (sensu [17]) is uncertain; some molecular studies suggested that the New World Otus (Megascops-including Otus flammeolus, see [18]), which differ from Old World Otus by song type, are genetically more closely related to the widespread owl genera Strix and Bubo [19, 20] whereas the African White-faced Owl (O. leucotis) has closer affinities with the genus Asio [20]. The above-mentioned taxa excluded, Otus species have their center of diversity in Eurasia (26 species); secondary radiations occur in the Indian Ocean (six or seven species) and Africa (four species). To our knowledge, the earliest known Otus fossil, a distal end of the right humerus, is from western Kenya and dates from the Miocene (16.5–18.5 mya; [21]). This partial fossil is morphologically close to O. senegalensis, but its relationship among members of the genus is not clear. The western Indian Ocean taxa are often thought to constitute a superspecies (rutilus group) of five or six species [22]: O. capnodes from Anjouan, O. mayottensis from Mayotte, O. moheliensis from Mohéli, O. pauliani from Grande Comore, and O. rutilus/O. madagascariensis from Madagascar (see [23] for a discussion about phylogeography and taxonomic status of the two Malagasy forms), and O. insularis from the granitic Seychelles. The latter species shows apparent affinities, based on vocalization data, to the Indonesian O. magicus [24]. Most of the western Indian Ocean taxa are poorly known: specific status has been proposed only within the last twenty years for Otus pauliani, O. capnodes, O. madagascariensis and O. mayottensis using both biometric and vocalization data [2528], while O. moheliensis was first described in 1998 [29].

The evolutionary and biogeographic history of the Indian Ocean Otus taxa has not been the focus of a phylogenetic study. In this paper, we use two nuclear introns (myoglobin intron-2 and TGFB2 intron-5) and four mitochondrial protein coding-genes (ND2, ND3, ATP6, cytochrome-b) in order to propose a first multi-locus phylogeny of scops-owls and to track their colonization history of the western Indian Ocean islands in space and time. We additionally compare the biogeographic affinities of Malagasy scops-owl species to those of other Malagasy avian lineages which have been the focus of recent genetic studies [12, 13, 16].

Results

Sequence properties

We obtained between 680 and 726 bp (Otus lettia ussuriensis and Aegolius acadicus, respectively) for the myoglobin intron-2 resulting in a final alignment of 749 bp. Among the 749 bp, 151 were variable (20%) and 56 were parsimony informative (7.5%). Maximum Likelihood (ML) analyses yielded one tree (-ln = 2198.81) that slightly differs topologically from the 50% majority consensus rule tree obtained from the Bayesian analyses (-ln = 2442.98). We obtained between 561 and 593 bp (O. leucotis and O. pembanesis/O. senegalensis Allele 1, respectively) for the TGFB2 intron-5 resulting in a final alignment of 605 bp. Three individuals were found to be length-variant heterozygotes: O. leucotis possesses a CCT duplication in a region with a CCT pattern in all other species, O. rutilus (FMNH 431150) possesses a one base pair deletion (G) in position 171 of the alignment, and O. senegalensis possesses a one base pair insertion (A in position 559 of our alignment; this insertion was also found in the two O. pembaensis individuals sequenced). The two O. senegalensis alleles also differ by two further mutations; these two alleles clustered together as the sister-group to O. pembaensis in a ML analysis (tree not shown). Therefore, we use the consensus sequence (the two single nucleotide polymorphisms were coded using the appropriate IUPAC code) from the two O. senegalensis alleles for further phylogenetic analyses. Only the alleles without the insertion/deletion were included in the phylogenetic analyses for O. leucotis and O. rutilus, as the insertion/deletion events were autapomorphic in both cases. Among the 601 base pairs retained for the analyses, 163 were variable (27%) and 71 were parsimony informative (11.8%). ML analyses yielded one tree (-ln = 2131.71) that slightly differs from the 50% majority consensus rule tree obtained from the Bayesian analyses (-ln = 2179.36).

The topologies obtained from the nuclear loci were very similar to each other, delineating the primary clades without achieving resolution at the tips (see Additional Files 1 and 2). The 50% majority consensus rule tree obtained from the Bayesian analyses (Figure 1, -ln = 4638.29) and Maximum Parsimony strict consensus tree (105675 equally parsimonious trees of 412 steps, CI = 0.82, RI = 0.86) of the two concatenated nuclear loci provided a well-resolved topology for inter-generic relationships as well as some resolution of relationships among the primary Otus lineages but failed to provide resolution among members of the Indian Ocean radiation.
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1471-2148-8-197/MediaObjects/12862_2008_Article_766_Fig1_HTML.jpg
Figure 1

Fifty percent majority-rule consensus tree resulting from the Bayesian mixed-model analyses of the nuclear (left, arithmetic mean, -ln = 4638.29) and mitochondrial (right, arithmetic mean, -ln = 27725.63) data sets. Values close to nodes represent MP bootstrap percentages and BI posterior probabilities. Grey blocks highlight Indian Ocean taxa. Species between quotes indicate samples for which geographic origin is unknown (captive individuals). Branch lengths of the outgroup (Tyto alba) were reduced by a scale of two for graphical purpose.

The concatenated mitochondrial sequences retained for analyses were 2983 bp long (1047 bp for ND2, 684 bp for ATP6, 351 bp for ND3 and 901 bp for cytochrome-b) and correspond to the positions 5246 to 6281 (ND2), 9240 to 9923 (ATP6), 10776 to 11120 (ND3), and 15011 to 15911 (cytochrome-b) of the Gallus gallus mitochondrial genome sequence [30]; GenBank accession number X52392). The ATP6 and cytochrome-b sequences contained no insertions, deletions and stop-codons in the reading frame. The ND2 sequence of Aegolius acadicus exhibits a two-codon insertion (CAA ACC) just before the stop codon. All the ND3 sequences exhibited the pyrimidine insertion (T for O. capnodes, C for all other species analyzed) previously reported for several clades of birds [31]; this extra-nucleotide was removed before phylogenetic analyses. Partitioning the gene by codon positions significantly improved the fit of models to the data for all four mitochondrial loci, as inferred from the Bayes Factor (BF) values (BFND2 = 826.3, BFATP6 = 681.7, BFND3 = 319.1, BFcytb = 1048.8). Mitochondrial gene trees were very similar to each other (ND2: ML -ln = 10556.45, BI partitioned by codon position = 10161.23 – Additional File 3; ATP6: ML -ln = 6550.30, BI partitioned by codon position = 6232.87 – Additional File 4; ND3: ML -ln = 3266.29, BI partitioned by codon position -ln = 3146.47 – Additional File 5; cytochrome-b, ML -ln = 8623.79, BI partitioned by codon position -ln = 8128.06 – Additional File 6), albeit levels or resolution varied among genes. As expected, no conflict was detected between the individual evolutionary histories of the mitochondrial gene trees (as inferred from posterior probabilities). The 50% majority-rule tree obtained from the concatenated analyses of the mitochondrial genes (partitioned by gene and codon position: -ln = 27725.63, Figure 1) was very similar in terms of topology and number of supported nodes to the MP strict consensus tree (two equally most parsimonious trees of 5922 steps, CI = 0.42, RI = 0.60).

Phylogenetic results

The individual trees obtained from the two nuclear introns and mitochondrial data sets were very similar to each other and no incongruence was detected between the nuclear and mitochondrial topologies (Figure 1), according to the criteria defined in the Material and Methods section. Further, there was usually strong congruence for nodal support among the different methods. Most of the nodes present in the 50% majority-rule consensus tree resulting from the Bayesian analyses performed on the concatenated data set (partitioned by gene and codon position- 14 partitions-, -ln = 32195.91, Figure 2) were very well supported in the parsimony analyses too (two equally most parsimonious trees, 6340 steps, CI = 0.44, RI = 0.62).
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1471-2148-8-197/MediaObjects/12862_2008_Article_766_Fig2_HTML.jpg
Figure 2

Fifty percent majority-rule consensus tree resulting from the mixed-model analyses of the concatenated data set (14 partitions, arithmetic mean, -ln = 32195.91). Values close to nodes represent MP bootstrap percentages and BI posterior probabilities. Note the occurrence of color morphs in most of the Otus sensu stricto species. Colors for Otus taxa names refer to geographic distribution (green: South-East Asia, red: Africa and Blue: Indian Ocean Islands). The genera Ptilopsis (African White-faced Owl) and Megascops (New World Screech Owls) refer to taxa that were previously included in Otus. Species between quotes indicate samples for which geographic origin is unknown (captive individuals). The branch length of the outgroup (Tyto alba) was reduced by a scale of two for graphical purpose. Pictures were modified from [32].

The African species O. ireneae was recovered as the sister-taxon of all remaining Otus sensu stricto scops-owls. All the western Indian Ocean taxa clustered in a clade that also contains the Eurasian O. scops, the São Tomé endemic O. hartlaubi, the Pemba Island endemic O. pembaensis, the African mainland O. senegalensis, the Philippine taxa O. mirus and O. longicornis, as well as the Indo-Malayan O. sunia. The western Indian Ocean taxa were not recovered as a monophyletic lineage since the Seychelles O. insularis was more closely related to the Indo-Malayan O. sunia than to any other taxon occurring in the western Indian Ocean region. Uncorrected-p mitochondrial distances among members of the Indian Ocean taxa/O. sunia clade range between 4.6% (between O. capnodes and O. rutilus) and 7.0% (O. sunia and O. rutilus), with a mean of 5.3% (s.d. = 0.7%). Most of the relationships between the Comorian and Malagasy taxa (capnodes, mayottensis, moheliensis, pauliani, rutilus) did not receive statistical support and short inter-nodes characterized most of the branches among these lineages. We attribute this lack of resolution to rapid speciation events ('hard polytomy') rather than a lack of sufficient character sampling ('soft polytomy') because 1) we sampled several genes with different evolutionary properties resulting in a final alignment of more than 4300 bp and, 2) the nodes above and below the polytomy received bootstrap percentages of 70% or more or posterior probabilities of 0.95 or greater. The remaining Otus species clustered in a second large clade. Within this latter clade, O. lettia ussuriensis (eastern Russia) did not cluster with another O. lettia sample from Laos, but with the Philippine taxon O. megalotis, suggesting that further work with more complete geographic sampling is needed to address the evolutionary history of the O. lettia/O. megalotis species complex.

Dating analyses

The biogeographic history inferred from the topology of the concatenated analyses is intriguing as several faunistic exchanges involving the Indian Ocean islands and Indo-Malaya region occurred (split O. mirus-O. longicornis from the Indian Ocean taxa and split between O. insularis and O. sunia). These faunistic exchanges imply either multiple colonization events of the western Indian Ocean islands or one re-colonization of the mainland by O. sunia, about 0.25–0.30 mya. The main radiation of western Indian Ocean island taxa (2.5 mya, 95% HPD = 1.2–4.0 Table 1) occurred soon after the initial colonization event (3.6 mya, 95% HPD = 1.8–6.0). Our analyses revealed that O. hartlaubi, endemic to the African Atlantic island of São Tomé, and O. pembaensis, restricted to Pemba Island off the east African coast, have strong affinities with the African mainland species O. senegalensis. A very close relationship between O. senegalensis and O. pembaensis is further supported by the fact that these two taxa share a one nucleotide insertion in the TGFB2 locus. The position of O. harlaubi in the mitochondrial and concatenated tree renders this insertion paraphyletic. Yet, it is worth noting that the two alleles of O. senegalensis differ in length at this site. Considering that the first colonizers of São Tomé and Pemba were probably in small numbers when compared to the continental and widely distributed O. senegalensis, we regard the discrepancy between the mitochondrial and nuclear trees as being due to the different effective population size of the markers (the mitochondrial genome has an effective population size that is one fourth of the nuclear genome) and random processes (coalescence). The basal split within Otus sensu stricto occurred about 11.7 mya (95% HPD = 6.0–19.0) and the divergence between the two primary clades about 9.3 mya (95% HPD = 4.7–15.1, Figure 2).
Table 1

Posterior distribution of divergence times for some selected nodes.

Calibration point

mya (95% HPD)

O. sunia/O. insularis

1.1 (0.3–2.0)

Otus pauliani/O. moheliensis *

0.7 (0.5–0.9)

Otus Indian Ocean radiation

2.5 (1.2–4.0)

Otus Indian Ocean colonization

3.6 (1.8–6.0)

Pemba island colonization

1.7 (0.7–3.3)

Clade 1/Clade 2

9.3 (4.7–15.1)

O. ireneae/remaining Otus

11.7 (6.0–19.0)

Asioninae/sister-group *

17.3 (16.7–19.3)

mya: million years ago. * denote the two calibration points.

Discussion

Phylogeny of Otus sensu stricto

Previous studies [18, 20] highlighted that several species usually assigned to Otus (Ptilopsis leucotis, Megascops) are not directly related to Otus. Our analyses, using independent samples and additional genes, confirmed the lack of direct relationships among these three lineages. Given that these results were previously suggested, we do not discuss them further.

Our analyses based on nuclear and mitochondrial sequence data provide the first phylogenetic hypothesis on the diversification of Otus sensu stricto. We suggest that Otus consists of at least three primary lineages. The first lineage consists of the 'relictual' Sokoke Scops-owl (O. ireneae), endemic to the coastal forests of Kenya and Tanzania. This species is sometimes considered to form a superspecies with the patchily distributed Sandy Scops-owl (O. icterorhynchus) [22], the only African Otus species we were not able to sample.

The second major lineage is restricted to South-East Asia and consists of O. spilocephalus, the O. bakkamoena-O. lettia-O. lempiji superspecies, as well as Otus lettia ussuriensis and O. megalotis. As inferred from our results, the current taxonomy within this group appears to be problematic as O. lettia lettia and O. l. ussuriensis are not recovered as sister-taxa. O. l. ussuriensis, restricted to Sakhalin, Ussuriland and North-East China, is sometimes considered to be related to the Japanese Scops-owl (O. semitorques), based on voice, plumage and iris color data [22]. We could not include the latter species in the present work, but highlight here that this relationship needs to be further tested using molecular data.

The third major lineage includes all the remaining Otus species we sampled and is divided in two subclades that consist of 1) O. scops, O. senegalensis, O. hartlaubi and O. pembaensis, and 2) O. longicornis, O. mirus, O. mayottensis, O. rutilus, O. capnodes, O. moheliensis, O. pauliani, O. insularis and O. sunia. Relationships among these taxa are discussed below.

Phylogeny and origin of the western Indian Ocean Otus

Data accumulated in recent years on the biology and distribution of the western Indian Ocean scops-owls [2629] together with our analyses based on DNA sequences of six loci, shed new light on the evolutionary history of these birds. The phylogeny we propose here is in full agreement with recent work based on phenotypic characters suggesting that O. pauliani, O. capnodes, O. moheliensis and O. mayottensis represent distinct evolutionary lineages [25, 28, 29]. In addition we find good support for Asian biogeographic affinities of the western Indian Ocean islands Otus spp., and highlight that they may constitute a paraphyletic assemblage.

The Indo-Malayan O. sunia formed a well-supported clade with O. insularis from the granitic Seychelles, which was very closely related to the Indian Ocean lineage, the latter forming a sequentially paraphyletic assemblage. The nested position of O. sunia/O. insularis within the Malagasy-Comorian clade, supported by a posterior probability of 0.98 (but not by MP bootstrap percentage), suggests a recent re-colonization of the mainland from an island-distributed ancestor. Yet, we also acknowledge that posterior probabilities could be misleading when short internodes/polytomies are involved [33], which is the case here, and we await the implementations of reversible-jump Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithms to explore these aspects [33].

It is also worth noting that in a similar biogeographic comparison of a different group of birds, non-monophyly of western Indian Ocean taxa was also retrieved by Warren et al. [13]; the Indo-Malayan bulbul Hypsipetes madagascariensis was nested within the western Indian Ocean taxa, suggesting a similar scenario to the one we present for Otus. Colonization of the mainland from an island distributed ancestor is generally regarded as unlikely because: 1) mainland taxa are considered more competitive than island taxa and, 2) insular populations are smaller and produce fewer emigrants compared to those on continents [34, 35]. However, empirical cases of continental re-colonization from islands are accumulating [16, 3638], including cases from Madagascar [39]; this suggests that islands can also act as colonization sources for continental faunas. Data on the phylogeographic structure within the Indo-Malaya O. sunia complex may help to decipher which hypothesis (multiple colonizations of the Indian Ocean islands or re-colonization of the mainland) best explains the current pattern. Indeed, if strong and ancient phylogeographic structure occurs within O. sunia, we would expect two independent colonizations of the western Indian Ocean islands. In contrast, if genetic data indicate weak differentiation among O. sunia populations and patterns of population expansion from western to eastern Indo-Malaya, this would support the hypothesis of re-colonization of the mainland from the Seychelles Islands.

Vocalisations as a tool to infer evolutionary relationships among scops-owls

The genus Otus is fairly homogeneous in plumage relative to many bird genera. However, the Indian Ocean taxa show strong differences from each other in structural, plumage and vocal characters [26, 28]. Considering, for example, only the songs of the Comorian taxa (which inhabit islands as close as 50 km from each other), O. pauliani gives a very long series of chaw notes repeated at about 2/sec; O. moheliensis a sequence of hisses; O. capnodes a high-pitched whistled peeooee; and O. mayottensis a series usually of 3–11 deep, single hoots. Intuitively, these differences may be used to argue against close evolutionary relationships; however, our data indicate that the relationship is indeed close in all cases, as could be predicted from the islands' proximity to one another. This study confirms that the vocal and morphological differences are indeed associated with distinct evolutionary lineages, but suggests that they are not related in any simple or obvious way to the evolutionary distance between these lineages, and therefore must be used with caution in identifying affinities between taxa (or lineages). Therefore, we highlight here that the close relationship suggested by Marshall [24] between O. insularis and O. magicus should be further tested using molecular data, especially if we consider the considerable distance between the two areas (over 6000 km).

Comparison with the biogeographic history of other avian lineages that colonised the Indian Ocean islands

The geographic and temporal origins of certain western Indian Ocean island bird taxa have received attention in recent years [e.g. [5, 9, 10, 13, 16, 4045] this study] (Table 2).
Table 2

Summary of divergence dates and geographic origins involving Comorian and/or Malagasy taxa (Note that dating methods and calibration points vary among the studies).

Taxa

Geographic origin

Date estimate

Reference

Philepittinae

Africa or Indo-Malaya

41.2 ± 2.5 mya

[40, 41]

Vangidae

Africa or Indo-Malaya

(1) 19.7 mya, (16.8–27.0);

(2) 28 ± 4.0 mya

[10, 42]

Bernieridae

Africa

25.2 mya (21.4–31.7)

[42]

Streptopelia picturata/

Nesoenas mayeri

Africa

20.8 ± 4.1 mya

[43]

Coracina cinerea

Australasia

18.8 ± 2.2 mya

[16, 43]

Hartlaubius auratus

Africa or Indo-Malaya

12.9–17 mya

[44]

Ispidina madagascariensis

Africa

13.5 ± 2.6 mya

[9, 45]

Corythornis cristata

Africa

5.5 ± 1.1 mya

[9, 45]

Indian Ocean Dicrurus

Africa

4.7 mya (95% CI: 2.7–7.4)

[46]

Motacilla flaviventris

Africa

4.5 ± 0.3 mya

[47]

Otus

Indo-Malaya

3.6 mya (95% HPD: 1.8–6.0)

This study

Nectarinia souimanga clade

Africa

1.9–3.9 mya

[48]

Nectarinia notata clade

Africa

1.5–3.5 mya

[48]

Zosterops borbonicus

lineage

Indo-Malaya

1.8 mya

[49]

Indian Ocean Hypsipetes

Indo-Malaya

0.6–2.6 mya

[13]

Zosterops maderaspatanus

lineage

Africa

1.2 mya

[49]

Anas

Australasia

No divergence date

[50]

mya: million years ago

Our estimate (3.6 mya, 95% HPD: 1.8–6.0) for the timing of colonization of the Indian Ocean islands by Otus coincides with estimates of at least seven other lineages of birds (Table 2), suggesting that the Indian Ocean islands avifauna was highly enriched at that time. The period associated with these multiple independent colonizations corresponds with the emergence of the volcanic islands of the Comoros archipelago (Mohéli 5 mya, Anjouan 11.5–3.9 mya, Mayotte 11.5–7.7 mya and Grande Comore 0.5 mya; [50, 51], thus providing possible stepping stones for dispersal between Africa and Madagascar. This possibility is also highlighted by the fact that several species or populations with African biogeographic affinities (Streptopelia capicola, Turtur tympanistria, Turdus bewsheri) [5355], colonized the Comoros islands but the colonization of Madagascar has not yet been achieved.

All faunal exchanges that unambiguously involve Madagascar and Indo-Malaya, or Madagascar and the Seychelles occurred during the last 3.5 mya [[13, 49], this study] (note that the biogeographic history of the Philepittinae, Vangidae and the Sturnidae genus Hartlaubia are still uncertain or ambiguous). Warren et al. [48] hypothesised for members of the genus Zosterops that the colonizations could have been favored by dramatic sea-level shifts that occurred during the last 2.5 mya, which would have allowed the emergence of currently submerged land-masses between the Seychelles and Madagascar [5658], implying a 'stepping-stone' model. Our divergence dates estimates are slightly older than those of Warren et al. [49], although confidence intervals are largely overlapping. This biogeographic hypothesis fits the three unambiguous described cases involving Madagascar and Indo-Malaya, or Madagascar and the Seychelles (Hypsipetes, Otus and the Zosterops borbonicus lineage).

Subfossil remains of three extinct small owl species have been described from the Mascarene Islands (La Réunion, Mauritius, Rodrigues). Based on certain osteological features, these three species have been included in their own genus, Mascarenotus, which has been suggested to be derived from Otus [59]. The relationships of Mascarenotus with respect to the other owl lineages still needs clarification, as this genus could represent a recent and derived off-shot of the western Indian Ocean lineage, possibly a first off-shot of the colonization process from the Seychelles to more westerly regional islands or even an unrelated lineage of owls.

Whereas the continental biogeographic affinities of certain western Indian Ocean island bird taxa seem largely resolved, the timing of colonizations or faunal affinities among volcanic islands are less well understood and the only aspect that is emerging is the absence of a common pattern, whatever the initial geographic origin. Indeed, all the studies that have been conducted so far indicate explosive diversification and a lack of resolution among the Comoros islands species. These data indicate that once the initial colonization was successful on any of the islands in this archipelago, dispersion and then diversification between nearby islands occurred quickly and randomly. The lack of biogeographic structure at the archipelago scale may thus be partly explained by the geographical arrangement of islands and the short inter-islands distances (maximum distance between two islands in the Comoros archipelago is 90 km) that probably favored colonization by alternative routes.

One final factor that could hide common patterns of diversification is unequal rates of extinction and recolonization across lineages. Indeed, not all lineages would face the same risk of extinction on islands as their characteristics (ecological requirements, population size) often considerably differ. For example, middle-sized birds, like owls (70–120 g), may be more prone to extinction on islands than small birds, like sunbirds (12–15 g) [60]. Yet, even if uneven extinctions rates occurred amongst these lineages, it can be concluded that the overall diversification pattern in the Indian Ocean islands is star-like.

Conclusion

Our analyses revealed the occurrence of multiple synchronous colonization events of the Indian Ocean islands by scops-owls, at a time when faunistic exchanges involving Madagascar was common as a result of lowered sea-level that would have allowed the formation of stepping-stone islands. Patterns of diversification that emerged from the scops-owls data are: 1) a star-like pattern concerning the order of colonization of the Indian Ocean islands and 2) the high genetic distinctiveness among all Indian Ocean taxa, reinforcing their recognition as distinct species.

Methods

Taxonomic sampling

We obtained tissue samples from all western Indian Ocean Otus taxa, as well as samples from several Indo-Malayan and Afrotropical species (Table 3), focusing on as many super-species complexes as possible (sensu [22]). We obtained tissues for seven of these super-species complexes. We were unable to obtain samples of the distinctive O. rufescens and O. sagittatus, as well as representatives of four super-species with localised and distant distributions relative to the western Indian Ocean (brooki/angelinae from Sumatra/Java/Borneo; mantananensis/magicus from the Lesser Sundas/Philippines/Mollucas; collari/manadensis/beccarii from Sangihe/Sulawesi/Biak and enganensis/alius/umbra from islands off Sumatra). Since the monograph of Marks et al. [22], one further Otus species, O. thilohoffmani has been described from Sri Lanka [61]. This species is only known in museum collections by the type specimen, deposited in the National Museum Colombo (Sri Lanka), and based on morphology, has been suggested to be related to either O. rufescens or O. spilocephalus [61]. As a consequence, we did not have access to a tissue sample of this newly described species. With the exception of O. magicus, considered by some authors to include O. insularis because of similarities in vocalizations [24], none of the species we were unable to sample have been considered closely related to the Indian Ocean taxa [22]. We included two individuals per color morph for O. rutilus (sensu [23]). Representatives of the Strigidae genera Aegolius, Athene and Glaucidium (Surniinae), Asio (Asioninae), and Bubo, Strix, New World 'Otus' (Megascops) and the African White-faced Owl ('Otus' Ptilopsis leucotis) (Striginae) were included as proximate outgroups. We rooted our trees using sequences from a representative of the Tytonidae (Barn Owl Tyto alba), which has been recovered as the sister-group of the Strigidae in molecular and morphological analyses [62, 63].
Table 3

List of samples used and GenBank accession numbers for the six loci analysed.

Species

Voucher/Tissue number

Geographic

Myoglobin

TGFB2

Cytochrome-b

ND2

ATP6

ND3

Aegolius acadicus

MVZ 118707 (T)

USA

EU601093

EU600970

U89172

EU601051

EU601160

EU601013

Asio otus

MVZ 180184 (T)

USA

EU601097

EU600975

AF082067

EU601055

EU601165

EU601018

Athene noctua

MNHN 1995–99 (T)

France

EU601089

EU600966

AJ003948

No sequence

EU601156

EU601009

Bubo bubo

MNHN 24–55 (T)

France

EU601069

EU600949

AJ003969

EU601029

EU601137

EU600992

Bubo virginianus

MVZ 179340 (T)

USA

EU601092

EU600969

AF168106

EU601050

EU601159

EU601012

Glaucidium cuculoides

MNHN 33-9C (JF150, B)

Laos

EU601088

EU600982

No sequence

EU601047

EU601155

No sequence

Glaucidium gnoma

MVZ 179345 (T)

USA

EU601094

EU600972

AJ003994

No sequence

EU601162

EU601015

Otus asio

MVZ 179828 (T)

USA

EU601096

EU600974

DQ190845

EU601054

EU601164

EU601017

Otus 'bakkamoena'

UWBM 67511 (T)

Captive

EU601074

EU600954

EU601110

EU601034

EU601141

EU600997

Otus capnodes

MNHN 30-10J (B)

Anjouan

EU601078

EU600957

EU601114

EU601038

EU601145

EU601000

Otus hartlaubi

MNHH 32-04G (B)

São Tomé

EU601072

EU600952

EU601108

EU601032

EU601139

EU600995

Otus hoyi

ZMUC 114834 (B)

Bolivia

EU601061

EU600942

EU601103

EU601024

EU601130

EU600985

Otus insularis

D. Currie 5H21863 (F)

Mahé, Seychelles

EU601059

EU600940

EU601101

EU601022

EU601128

EU600983

Otus insularis

D. Currie 5H21866 (F)

Mahé, Seychelles

EU601060

EU600941

EU601102

EU601023

EU601129

EU600984

Otus ireneae

MNHN 32-06J (M. Virani C30577) (B)

Kenya

EU601077

EU600956

EU601113

EU601037

EU601144

EU600999

Otus kenicottii

MVZ 182896 (T)

USA

EU601095

EU600973

DQ190850

EU601053

EU601163

EU601016

Otus koepckei

ZMUC 115283 (B)

Peru

EU601062

EU600943

EU601104

EU601025

EU601131

EU600986

Otus 'lempiji'

UWBM 73860 (T)

Captive

EU601076

EU600981

EU601112

EU601036

EU601143

No sequence

Otus lettia lettia

MNHN 33-4C (JF142, B)

Laos

EU601073

EU600953

EU601109

EU601033

EU601140

EU600996

Otus lettia ussuriensis

UWBM 75379 (T)

Russia

EU601075

EU600955

EU601111

EU601035

EU601142

EU600998

Otus leucotis

FMNH 429716 (T)

Congo RD

EU601085

EU600963

EU601120

EU601044

EU601152

EU601006

Otus longicornis

FMNH 433020 (T)

Luzon, Philippines

EU601084

EU600962

EU601119

EU601043

EU601151

EU601005

Otus longicornis

ZMUC 114206 (B)

Isabela, Philippines

EU601063

No sequence

No sequence

EU601026

EU601132

EU600987

Otus mayottensis

MNHN R22 (F)

Mayotte

EU601087

EU600965

EU601122

EU601046

EU601154

EU601008

Otus megalotis

FMNH 433019 (T)

Luzon, Philippines

EU601083

EU600961

EU601118

EU601041

EU601150

EU601004

Otus megalotis

ZMUC 114208 (B)

Isabela, Philippines

EU601064

EU600944

EU601105

EU601027

EU601133

EU600988

Otus mirus

FMNH 357429 (T)

Mindanao, Philippines

EU601099

EU600978

EU601126

EU601057

No sequence

EU601020

Otus moheliensis

MNHN E-135 (F)

Mohéli

EU601086

EU600964

EU601121

EU601045

EU601153

EU601007

Otus pauliani

MNHN R24 (F)

Grande Comore

EU601100

EU600979

EU601125

EU601058

No sequence

EU601021

Otus pembaensis

MNHN uncatalogued (B)

Pemba Island

EU601090

EU600967

EU601123

EU601048

EU601157

EU601010

Otus pembaensis

MNHN uncatalogued (B)

Pemba Island

EU601091

EU600968

EU601124

EU601049

EU601158

EU601011

Otus roboratus

ZMUC 114634 (B)

Ecuador

EU601065

EU600945

EU601106

EU601028

EU601134

No sequence

Otus rutilus

FMNH 393149 (T)

Madagascar

EU601082

EU600960

EF198256

EF198290

EU601149

EU601003

Otus rutilus

FMNH 431150/431152 (T)

Madagascar

EU601068

EU600948

EF198273

EF198307

EU601136

EU600991

Otus rutilus

FMNH 396240 (T)

Madagascar

EU601066

EU600946

EF198270

EF198304

EU601135

EU600989

Otus rutilus

FMNH 427395 (T)

Madagascar

EU601067

EU600947

EF198296

EF198262

No sequence

EU600990

Otus scops

MNHN 23-5F (T)

France

EU601079

EU600958

EU601115

EU601039

EU601146

EU601001

Otus senegalenis

MVZ uncatalogued (B)

South Africa

EU601098

EU600976, EU600977

EU601127

EU601053

EU601166

EU601019

Otus spilocephalus

MNHN 15–58 (B)

China

EU601080

EU600980

EU601116

EU601040

EU601147

No sequence

Otus sunia

MNHN 6–98 (B)

Thailand

EU601081

EU600959

EU601117

EU601041

EU601148

EU601002

Strix aluco

MNHN CG 1996-114 (T)

France

EU601070

EU600950

EU601107

EU601030

EU601138

EU600993

Strix woodfordi

MNHN 32-01H

Kenya

EU601071

EU600951

AJ004066

EU601031

No sequence

EU600994

Tyto alba

MVZ 180644

USA

DQ881879

EU600971

AJ004073

EU601052

EU601161

EU601014

B refers to blood, F to feather and T to tissue. Taxonomy follows [22]. Geographic origins of the taxa between quotes are unknown. Acronyms for specimen collections include: FMNH – Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago; MNHN – Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris; MVZ, Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, Berkeley; UWBM – University of Washington, Burke Museum, Seattle; ZMUC – Zoological Museum, University of Copenhagen.

Laboratory procedure

Total DNA was extracted from frozen, EDTA or alcohol preserved tissues (liver, blood, feathers, muscle) using a CTAB-based protocol [64] with an overnight Proteinase K (0,1 mg.ml-1) digestion. ND2, ATP6 and ND3 were amplified and sequenced using primer pairs L5219/H6313 [65], L9245/H9947 [66] and L10755/H11151 [67], respectively. A 900 bp portion of cytochrome-b was amplified with the primer pairs L14967-H15487 and L15424-H15916 [23]). Myoglobin intron-2 and TGFB2 intron-5 were amplified with primers Myo2/Myo3F [68, 69] and tgf5/tgf6 [70], respectively. The amplification and sequencing protocol were standard [23].

Phylogenetic analyses

Molecular phylogenies were estimated using parsimony (P) and model-based approaches (maximum likelihood [ML], and Bayesian inferences [BI]), as implemented in PHYML v2.4 [71] and MRBAYES 3.1 [7274]. Parsimony analyses were conducted with PAUP v4.0b10 [75] using the heuristic tree bisection and reconnection branch-swapping (TBR) algorithm with 100 random addition replicates. Likelihood models were estimated with MRMODELTEST 2.0 [76] using the Akaike Information Criterion [77]. The selected models are listed in Table 4. Clade support in the individual gene trees for the ML and MP analyses was assessed by 1000 non-parametric bootstrap replicates [78]. The six gene regions sequenced differ considerably in their properties and substitution dynamics, as inferred from the parameters of the models (Table 4). Consequently, analyses of concatenated data set were only performed using a mixed-model strategy. The relevance of partitioning the data set by gene and/or codon position was assessed with the Bayes Factor (BF) [79, 80]. Fourteen partitions (myoglobin intron-2, TGFB2 intron-5, first, second and third codon position of each of the four mitochondrial genes) were considered for the Bayesian concatenated analyses according to the functional properties of the markers. Bayesian analyses for the concatenated data set were performed allowing base frequencies, rate matrix, shape parameter and proportion of invariable sites to vary between the partitions (using the unlink and prset commands). Between four and six incrementally heated Metropolis-coupled MCMC chains were run for 15 million generations with trees sampled every 100 generations. The first 2*106 generations (20000 trees) were discarded ('burn-in' period) and the posterior probabilities were estimated from the remaining sampled generations. The default temperature for chain heating (T = 0.2) resulted in not satisfactorily mixing among chains for the concatenated data set; we therefore lowered the temperature to T = 0.05, which resulted in swap frequencies between chains within the 20–70% interval. Two independent Bayesian runs initiated from random starting trees were performed for each data set, and the log-likelihood values and posterior probabilities were checked to ascertain that the chains had reached convergence. We also checked that the Potential Scale Reduction Factor (PSRF) approached 1.0 for all parameters and that the average standard deviation of split frequencies converged towards zero. We detected significant incongruence between the individual gene trees by comparing the topologies and nodal support obtained under different analytical methods (ML, BI). Criteria for incongruence were set at 70% for the bootstrap values [81], and at 0.95 for posterior probabilities [72].
Table 4

Model selected and parameters values with their 95% credibility intervals when applicable (obtained with MRBAYES).

 

Myoglobin

TGFB2

ND2

ATP6

ND3

Cytochrome-b

Model

K80 + Γ

HKY + Γ

GTR + Γ + I

GTR + Γ + I

GTR + Γ + I

GTR + Γ + I

1st position

NA

NA

GTR + Γ + I

GTR + Γ + I

SYM + Γ

GTR + Γ + I

2nd position

NA

NA

GTR + Γ + I

GTR + Γ + I

GTR + Γ

GTR + Γ + I

3rd position

NA

NA

GTR + Γ + I

GTR + Γ + I

HKY + Γ + I

GTR + Γ

Freq A

0.25

0.25 (0.22–0.28)

0.37 (0.34–0.39)

0.33 (0.30–0.36)

0.32 (0.28–0.36)

0.32 (0.30–0.35)

Freq C

0.25

0.21 (0.18–0.24)

0.41 (0.39–0.43)

0.44 (0.41–0.46)

0.41 (0.37–0.45)

0.44 (0.42–0.47)

Freq G

0.25

0.24 (0.21–0.27)

0.06 (0.05–0.07)

0.07 (0.06–0.08)

0.09 (0.07–0.11)

0.08 (0.07–0.09)

Freq T

0.25

0.30 (0.27–0.33)

0.16 (0.15–0.18)

0.16 (0.14–0.18)

0.18 (0.16–0.21)

0.16 (0.14–0.17)

A-C

NA

NA

0.016 (0.012–0.020)

0.020 (0.013–0.027)

0.022 (0.013–0.032)

0.014 (0.009–0.020)

A-G

NA

NA

0.663 (0.607–0.718)

0.564 (0.484–0.642)

0.535 (0.429–0.637)

0.549 (0.474–0.621)

A-T

NA

NA

0.021 (0.014–0.029)

0.035 (0.022–0.050)

0.015 (0.005–0.029)

0.032 (0.019–0.047)

C-G

NA

NA

0.005 (0.0002–0.014)

0.024 (0.012–0.039)

0.007 (0.0002–0.218)

0.010 (0.0002–0.020)

C-T

NA

NA

0.232 (0.188–0.281)

0.323 (0.252–0.399)

0.327 (0.240–0.425)

0.321 (0.259–0.390)

G-T

NA

NA

0.062 (0.035–0.094)

0.035 (0.010–0.069)

0.094 (0.051–0.146)

0.074 (0.041–0.114)

Γ

0.10 (0.09–.12)

0.586 (0.382–0.936)

0.997 (0.826–1.195)

0.901 (0.676–1.158)

0.910 (0.604–1.295)

0.869 (0.702–1.069)

I

NA

NA

0.338 (0.302–0.374)

0.400 (0.345–0.447)

0.368 (0.287–0.433)

0.465 (0.426–0.501)

Ts/Tv

4.24 (3.08–5.75)

5.90 (4.32–7.795)

NA

NA

NA

NA

-ln (ML)

2198.81

2131.71

10556.45

6550.30

3266.29

8623.79

-ln (BI)

2442.98

2179.36

10582.97

6585.41

3305.87

8658.36

-ln (BI partitioned)

NA

NA

10161.23

6232.87

3146.47

8128.06

NA means not applicable. Reported likelihood scores for the BI refer to the arithmetic mean.

Molecular dating analyses

Owls have a very rich fossil record [22, 82], yet, the taxonomic history of most of these taxa remains controversial and, to our knowledge, no cladistic analyses including fossil and modern taxa has been conducted to date. This hampers the use of most of these fossils as calibration points in our analyses. The family Strigidae is usually divided into three subfamilies or tribes: Striginae, Surniinae and Asioninae [21]. These three subfamilies are defined by a combination of shared characters [[82] fide [83]]. The least inclusive of these three subfamilies, the Asioninae, consists of three genera and nine species (two of the genera, Pseudoscops and Nesasio are endemic to Jamaica and the Solomon Islands, respectively, whereas Asio is widely distributed). The Asionae differ osteologically from other owls by having: 1) the anterior rim of the internal trochlea not protruding more anteriorly than the anterior rim of the external trochlea, 2) the external calcaneal ridge bent posteriorly, 3) bony loop broad and 4) tubercle for Musculus tibialis antiquus displaced externally [83]. The most ancient fossil having this combination of characters Intulula tinnipara, has been dated from the Early Miocene (23.7–16.4 mya) [84]. We therefore used this date as a minimum age for the split between Asio otus (the member of the Asioninae we sampled) and its closest relative. As a second calibration point, we used the split between O. pauliani (endemic to Grande Comore, a volcanic island) and its closest relative at 0.5 mya. This date corresponds to the emergence of Grande Comore [51], and is thus the oldest possible age for the colonization of the O. pauliani lineage. We used these two calibration points in combination.

We used BEAST V1.4.6 [8587] to estimate the divergence dates within the genus Otus. We assigned the best fitting model, as estimated by MRMODELTEST2, to each of the six loci. We used an exponential distribution for the fossil calibration bound [88]. We set the lower bound of the exponential distribution to 16.4 mya, which correspond to the lowest bound of the Early Miocene epoch and the exponential mean to 2.5, so that the 95% distribution probability fell within the 23.7–16.4 mya interval, corresponding to the Early Miocene, which is the epoch for the first Asioninae fossil. For the geological calibration point (emergence of Grande Comore), we used a normal distribution with the mean and standard deviation set to 0.5 mya and 0.1 mya, respectively. We assumed a Yule Speciation Process for the tree prior and an Uncorrelated Lognormal distribution for the molecular clock model [86]. We used default prior distributions for all other parameters and ran MCMC chains for 75 million generations, as the effective sample size for some parameter estimates was not large enough using the default length (10 million generations).

Declarations

Acknowledgements

We are very grateful to D. Harper (Leicester University), B. Smith and A. McKechnie (University of Pretoria), S. Birks (University of Washington, Burke Museum), J. Bates, D. Willard and S. Hackett (Field Museum, Chicago), J. Fjeldså and J.-B. Kristensen (Zoological Museum, University of Copenhagen) and all the field collectors for kindly loaning us tissue samples and to G. Mayr (Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg), S. Olson (Smithsonian Institution) and D. Johnson (Global Owl Project) for help with the bibliography of fossil owls. A. Tillier, C. Bonillo and J. Lambourdière provided invaluable help in the laboratory. This work was supported by the Plan Pluriformation 'Etat et structure phylogénétique de la biodiversité actuelle et fossile', the 'Consortium National de Recherche en Génomique', and the 'Service de Systématique Moléculaire' of the Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle (IFR101). It is part of the agreement n°2005/67 between the Genoscope and the Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle on the project 'Macrophylogeny of life' directed by Guillaume Lecointre. Fieldwork in the Comoros Islands was funded by a research grant from Ministère de l'Ecologie et du Développement Durable ('programme Ecosystèmes Tropicaux'); C. Attié, R. Bruckert, R.-M. Lafontaine and R. Zotier are kindly thanked by EP and VB for assistance in the Comoros. The Phongsaly Forest Conservation and Rural Development Project, a Lao-European cooperation and its staff, P. Rousseau, C. Hatten, Y. Varelides, R. Humphrey and Y. Tipavanh provided invaluable help and assistance during fieldwork in Laos, which was conducted with A. Cibois, M. Ruedi and R. Kirsch. The 'Société des Amis du Muséum' provided fundings to JF for his fieldwork and is sincerely acknowledged. This research was supported by a postdoctoral fellowship to JF from the DST/NRF Centre of Excellence at the Percy FitzPatrick Institute. MM was supported by a post-doctoral grant from the Ministère de la Recherche and the Université de Montpellier II (France).

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
UMR5202 «Origine, Structure et Evolution de la Biodiversité», Département Systématique et Evolution, Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle
(2)
Service Commun de Systématique Moléculaire, IFR CNRS 101, Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle
(3)
DST-NRF Centre of Excellence at the Percy FitzPatrick Institute, University of Cape Town
(4)
Museum of Vertebrate Zoology and Department of Integrative Biology, University of California
(5)
Field Museum of Natural History
(6)
Vahatra
(7)
CEBC-CNRS, Beauvoir sur Niort
(8)
UMR5175 Centre d'Ecologie Fonctionnelle et Evolutive
(9)
Nature Seychelles
(10)
BirdLife International
(11)
The Peregrine Fund
(12)
Department of Biology, Leicester University
(13)
Department of Ornithology, National Museums of Kenya
(14)
Department of Environment, Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Resources, Environment and Cooperatives, Zanzibar Revolutionary Government
(15)
Genoscope, Centre National de Séquençage

References

  1. Goodman SM, Benstead JP, [eds]: The natural history of Madagascar. 2003, Chicago The University of Chicago Press
  2. Coffin MF, Rabinowitz PD: The Mesozoic East African and Madagascan conjugate continental margins. Geology and geophysics of continental margins. Edited by: Watkins JS, Zhiqiang F, McMillen KJ. 1992, Tulsa, Oklahoma American Association of Petroleum Geologists, 207-246.Google Scholar
  3. Storey M, Mahoney JJ, Saunders AD, Duncan RA, Kelley SP, Coffin MC: Timing of hot-spot related volcanism and the breakup of Madagascar and India. Science. 1995, 267: 852-855. 10.1126/science.267.5199.852.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Norton IO, Sclater JG: A model for the evolution of the Indian Ocean and the break-up of Gondwanaland. J Geophys Res. 1979, 84: 6803-6830. 10.1029/JB084iB12p06803.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Cibois A, Schulenberg TS, Pasquet E: An endemic radiation of Malagasy songbirds is revealed by mitochondrial DNA sequence data. Evolution. 2001, 55: 1198-1206.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Nágy ZT, Joger U, Wink M, Glaw F, Vences M: Multiple colonization of Madagascar and Socotra by colubrid snakes: Evidence from nuclear and mitochondrial gene phylogenies. Proc R Soc Ser B-Bio. 2003, 270: 2613-2621. 10.1098/rspb.2003.2547.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Vences M, Vieites DR, Glaw F, Brinkmann H, Kosuch J, Veith M, Meyer A: Multiple overseas dispersal in amphibians. Proc R Soc Ser B-Bio. 2003, 270: 2435-2442. 10.1098/rspb.2003.2516.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Yoder AD, Burns MM, Zehr S, Delefosse T, Veron G, Goodman SM, Flynn JJ: Single origin of Malagasy Carnivora from an African ancestor. Nature. 2003, 421: 734-737. 10.1038/nature01303.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Marks BD, Willard DE: Phylogenetic relationships of the Madagascar Pygmy Kingfisher (Ispidina madagascariensis). Auk. 2005, 122: 1271-1280. 10.1642/0004-8038(2005)122[1271:PROTMP]2.0.CO;2.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Fuchs J, Fjeldså J, Pasquet E: An ancient African radiation of corvoid birds (Aves: Passeriformes) detected by mitochondrial and nuclear sequence data. Zool Scr. 2006, 35: 375-385. 10.1111/j.1463-6409.2006.00238.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Yoder AD, Nowak MD: Has vicariance or dispersal been the predominant biogeographic force in Madagascar? Only time will tell. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst. 2006, 37: 405-431. 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.37.091305.110239.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Shapiro B, Sibthorpe D, Rambaut A, Austin J, Wragg GM, Bininda-Emonds ORP, Lee PLM, Cooper A: Flight of the dodo. Science. 2002, 295: 1683-10.1126/science.295.5560.1683.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Warren BH, Bermingham E, Prys-Jones RP, Thébaud C: Tracking island colonization history and phenotypic shifts in Indian Ocean bulbuls (Hypsipetes: Pycnonotidae). Biol J Linn Soc. 2005, 85: 271-287. 10.1111/j.1095-8312.2005.00492.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Bates PJJ, Ratrimomanarivo FH, Harrison D, Goodman SM: A review of pipistrelles and serotines (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae) from Madagascar, including the description of a new species of Pipistrellus. Acta Chiropterol. 2006, 8: 299-324. 10.3161/1733-5329(2006)8[299:ADOANS]2.0.CO;2.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Goodman SM, Cardiff SG, Ranivo J, Russell AL, Yoder AD: A new species of Emballonura (Emballonuridae: Chiroptera) from the dry regions of Madagascar. Am Mus Novitat. 2006, 3538: 1-24. 10.1206/0003-0082(2006)3538[1:ANSOEC]2.0.CO;2.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Fuchs J, Cruaud C, Couloux A, Pasquet E: Complex biogeographic history of the cuckoo-shrikes and allies (Passeriformes: Campephagidae) revealed by mitochondrial and nuclear sequence data. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2007, 44: 138-153. 10.1016/j.ympev.2006.10.014.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Dickinson EC, [eds]: The Howard and Moore complete checklist of the birds of the world. 2003, Princeton New Jersey, Princeton University Press, 3Google Scholar
  18. Proudfoot GA, Gehlbach FR, Honeycutt RL: Mitochondrial DNA variation and phylogeography of the Eastern and Western Screech Owls. Condor. 2007, 109: 617-627. 10.1650/8262.1.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Miranda HC, Kennedy RS, Mindell DP: Phylogenetic placement of Mimizuku gurneyi (Aves: Strigidae) inferred from mitochondrial DNA. Auk. 1997, 114: 315-323.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Wink M, Heidrich P: Molecular systematics and evolution of the Owls. Owls. An identification guide to the owls of the World. Edited by: König C, Becking JH, Weick F. 1999, Sussex, Pica Press, 39-58.Google Scholar
  21. Walker CA, Dyke GK: New records of fossil birds of prey from the Miocene of Kenya. Historical Biology. 2006, 18: 91-94. 10.1080/08912960600639434.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Marks JS, Cannings RJ, Mikkola H: Family Strigidae (typical owls). Handbook of the birds of the World. Volume 5 Barn Owls to hummingbirds. Edited by: del Hoyo J, Elliott A, Sargatal J. 1999, Barcelona, Lynx Edicions, 76-243.Google Scholar
  23. Fuchs J, Pons J-M, Pasquet E, Raherilalao MJ, Goodman SM: Geographical structure of the genetic variation in the Malagasy Scops-owl inferred from mitochondrial sequence data. Condor. 2007, 109: 408-418. 10.1650/0010-5422(2007)109[408:GSOGVI]2.0.CO;2.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Marshall JT: Systematics of smaller Asian night birds based on voice. 1978, Ornithological Monographs AOUGoogle Scholar
  25. Herremans M, Louette M, Stevens J: Conservation status and vocal and morphological description of the Grand Comoro Scops Owl Otus pauliani Benson 1960. Bird Conserv Int. 1991, 1: 123-133.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Safford RJ: Rediscovery, taxonomy and conservation of the Anjouan Scops Owl Otus capnodes (Gurney, 1889). Bird Conserv Int. 1993, 3: 57-74.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Lewis A: Mayotte Scops Owl Otus rutilus mayottensis. Bull Afr Bird Club. 1998, 5: 33-34.Google Scholar
  28. Rasmussen PC, Schulenberg TS, Hawkins F, Voninavoko R: Geographic variation in the Malagasy Scops-owl (Otus rutilus auct.): The existence of an unrecognized species on Madagascar and the taxonomy of other Indian Ocean taxa. Bull Br Ornithol Club. 2000, 120: 75-102.Google Scholar
  29. Lafontaine R-M, Moulaert N: Une nouvelle espèce de petit-duc (Otus, Aves) aux Comores: taxonomie et statut de conservation. J Afr Zool. 1998, 112: 163-169.Google Scholar
  30. Desjardins P, Morais R: Sequence and gene organization of the chicken mitochondrial genome a novel gene order in higher vertebrates. J Mol Biol. 1990, 212: 599-634. 10.1016/0022-2836(90)90225-B.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Mindell DP, Sorenson MD, Dimcheff DE: An extra nucleotide is not translated in mitochondrial ND3 of some birds and turtles. Mol Biol Evol. 1998, 15: 1568-1571.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. del Hoyo J, Elliott A, Sargatal J: Handbook of the birds of the World. Volume 5 Barn Owls to hummingbirds. 1999, Barcelona, Lynx EdicionsGoogle Scholar
  33. Lewis PO, Holder MT, Holsinger KE: Polytomies and Bayesian phylogenetic inference. Syst Biol. 2005, 54: 241-253. 10.1080/10635150590924208.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. MacArthur RH, Wilson EO: The theory of island biogeography. 1967, Princeton New Jersey, Princeton University PressGoogle Scholar
  35. Mayr E, Diamond J: The birds of northern Melanesia: Speciation, ecology, and biogeography. 2001, Oxford, Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  36. Carine MA, Russell SJ, Santos-Guerra A, Francisco-Ortega J: Relationships of the Macaronesian and Mediterranean floras: Molecular evidence for multiple colonizations into Macaronesia and back colonization of the continent in Convolvulus (Convolvulaceae). Am J Bot. 2004, 91: 1070-1095. 10.3732/ajb.91.7.1070.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Nicholson KE, Glor RE, Kolbe JJ, Larson A, Hedges BS, Lobos JB: Mainland colonization by island lizards. J Biogeogr. 2005, 32: 929-938. 10.1111/j.1365-2699.2004.01222.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  38. Filardi C, Moyle RG: Single origin of a pan-Pacific bird group and upstream colonization of Australasia. Nature. 2006, 438: 216-219. 10.1038/nature04057.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  39. Raxworthy CJ, Forstner MRJ, Nussbaum RA: Chameleon radiation by oceanic dispersal. Nature. 2002, 415: 784-787.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Moyle RG, Chesser RT, Prum RO, Schikler P, Cracraft J: Phylogeny and evolutionary history of Old World Suboscine birds (Aves: Eurylaimides). Am Mus Novit. 2006, 3544: 1-22. 10.1206/0003-0082(2006)3544[1:PAEHOO]2.0.CO;2.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  41. Irestedt M, Ohlson JI, Zuccon D, Källersjö M, Ericson PGP: Nuclear DNA from old collections of avian study skins reveals the evolutionary history of the Old World suboscines (Aves, Passeriformes). Zool Scr. 2006, 35: 567-580. 10.1111/j.1463-6409.2006.00249.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  42. Beresford P, Barker FK, Ryan PG, Crowe TM: African endemics span the tree of songbirds (Passeri): Molecular systematics of several evolutionary 'enigmas'. Proc R Soc Ser B-Bio. 2005, 272: 849-858. 10.1098/rspb.2004.2997.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  43. Fuchs J: Biogéographie comparée des oiseaux forestiers de l'Ancien Monde: phylogénie et datation moléculaire. PhD. 2006, thesis Université Pierre et Marie Curie, ParisGoogle Scholar
  44. Zuccon D, Cibois A, Pasquet E, Ericson PGP: Nuclear and mitochondrial sequence data reveal the major lineages of starlings, mynas and related taxa. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2006, 41: 333-344. 10.1016/j.ympev.2006.05.007.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Moyle RG, Fuchs J, Pasquet E, Marks BD: Feeding behavior, toe count and the phylogenetic relationships among alcedinine kingfishers. J Avian Biol. 2007, 28: 317-326.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  46. Pasquet E, Pons JM, Fuchs J, Cruaud C, Bretagnolle V: Evolutionary history and biogeography of the drongos (Dicruridae), a tropical Old World clade of corvoid passerines. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2007, 45: 158-167. 10.1016/j.ympev.2007.03.010.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Voelker G: Systematics and historical biogeography of wagtails: dispersal versus vicariance revisited. Condor. 2002, 104: 725-739. 10.1650/0010-5422(2002)104[0725:SAHBOW]2.0.CO;2.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  48. Warren BH, Bermingham E, Bowie RCK, Prys-Jones RP, Thébaud C: Molecular phylogeography reveals island colonization history and diversification of western Indian Ocean sunbirds (Nectarinia: Nectariniidae). Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2003, 29: 67-85. 10.1016/S1055-7903(03)00063-0.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Warren BH, Bermingham E, Prys-Jones RP, Thébaud C: Immigration, species radiation and extinction in a highly diverse songbird lineage: white-eyes on Indian Ocean islands. Mol Ecol. 2006, 15: 3769-3786. 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2006.03058.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Johnson KP, Sorenson MD: Phylogeny and biogeography of the dabbling ducks (Genus: Anas): A comparison of molecular and morphological evidence. Auk. 1999, 116: 792-805.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  51. Emerick CM, Duncan RA: Age progressive volcanism in the Comores Archipelago, western Indian Ocean and implications for Somali plate tectonics. Earth Planet Sci Lett. 1982, 60: 415-428. 10.1016/0012-821X(82)90077-2.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  52. Nougier J, Cantagrel JM, Karche JP: The Comores archipelago in the western Indian Ocean: Volcanology, geochronology, and geodynamic setting. J Afr Earth Sci. 1986, 5: 135-145. 10.1016/0899-5362(86)90003-5.Google Scholar
  53. Bowie RCK, Voelker G, Fjeldså J, Lens L, Hackett SJ, Crowe TM: Systematics of the Olive Thrush Turdus olivaceus species complex with reference to the taxonomic status of the endangered Taita Thrush T. helleri. J Avian Biol. 2005, 36: 391-404. 10.1111/j.0908-8857.2005.03459.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  54. Voelker G, Rohwer S, Bowie RCK, Outlaw DC: Molecular systematics of a speciose, cosmopolitan songbird genus: Defining the limits of, and relationships among, the Turdus thrushes. Mol Phylogenet Evol . 2007, 42 (2): 422-434. 10.1016/j.ympev.2006.07.016.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Louette M, Meirte D, Jocqué R: La faune terrestre de l'archipel des Comores. Studies in Afrotropical Zoology 293. 2004, Tervuren, Belgium: Musée Royale de l'Afrique CentraleGoogle Scholar
  56. Haq BU, Hardenbol J, Vail PR: Chronology of fluctuating sea levels since the Triassic. Science. 1987, 235: 1156-1167. 10.1126/science.235.4793.1156.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Colonna M, Casanova J, Dullo WC, Camoin G: Sea-level changes and ∂18O record for the past 34 000 yr from Mayotte reef, Indian Ocean. Quaternary Res. 1996, 46: 335-339. 10.1006/qres.1996.0071.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  58. Rohling EJ, Fenton M, Jorissen FJ, Bertrand P, Ganssen G, Caulet JP: Magnitudes of sealevel lowstands of the past 500 000 years. Nature. 1998, 394: 162-165. 10.1038/28134.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  59. Mourer-Chauviré C, Bour R, Moutou F, Ribes S: Mascarenotus nov. gen. (Aves, Strigiformes) genre endémique éteint des Mascareignes et M.grucheti sp. nov., espèce éteinte de la Réunion. C R Acad Sci Paris. 1994, 318: 1699-1706.Google Scholar
  60. Gaston KJ, Blackburn TM: Birds, body size and the threat of extinction. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B. 1995, 347: 205-212. 10.1098/rstb.1995.0022.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  61. Warakagoda DH, Rasmussen PC: A new species of scops-owl from Sri Lanka. Bull Br Ornithol Club. 2004, 124: 85-105.Google Scholar
  62. Ericson PGP, Anderson CL, Britton T, Elzanowski A, Johansson US, Källersjö M, Ohlson JI, Parsons TJ, Zuccon D, Mayr G: Diversification of Neoaves: integration of molecular sequence data and fossils. Biol Lett. 2006, 2: 543-547. 10.1098/rsbl.2006.0523.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Livezey BC, Zusi RL: Higher-order phylogeny of modern birds (Theropoda, Aves: Neornithes) based on comparative anatomy. II. Analysis and discussion. Zool J Linn Soc. 2007, 149: 1-95. 10.1111/j.1096-3642.2006.00293.x.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Winnepenninckx B, Backeljau T, De Wachter R: Extraction of high molecular weight DNA from mollusks. Trends Genet. 1993, 9: 407-10.1016/0168-9525(93)90102-N.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Sorenson MD, Ast JC, Dimcheff DE, Yuri T, Mindell DP: Primers for a PCR-based approach to mitochondrial genome sequencing in birds and other vertebrates. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 1999, 12: 105-114. 10.1006/mpev.1998.0602.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Eberhard JR, Bermingham E: Phylogeny and biogeography of the Amazona ochrocephala (Aves: Psittacidae) complex. Auk. 2004, 121: 318-332. 10.1642/0004-8038(2004)121[0318:PABOTA]2.0.CO;2.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  67. Chesser RT: Molecular systematics of the rhinocryptid genus Pteroptochos. Condor. 1999, 101: 439-446. 10.2307/1370012.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  68. Slade RW, Moritz C, Heideman A, Hale PT: Rapid assessment of single-copy nuclear DNA variation in diverse species. Mol Ecol. 1993, 2: 359-373. 10.1111/j.1365-294X.1993.tb00029.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Heslewood MM, Elphinstone MS, Tidemann SC, Baverstock PR: Myoglobin intron variation in the Gouldian Finch Erythrura gouldiae assessed by temperature gradient gel electrophoresis. Electrophoresis. 1998, 19: 142-151. 10.1002/elps.1150190203.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Bures S, Dvornik P, Saetre G-P: Hybridization and apparent hybridization between meadow pipit (Anthus pratensis) and water pipit (A. spinoletta). Hereditas. 2002, 136: 254-256. 10.1034/j.1601-5223.2002.1360313.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. Guindon S, Gascuel O: A simple, fast and accurate algorithm to estimate large phylogenies by maximum likelihood. Syst Biol. 2003, 52: 696-704. 10.1080/10635150390235520.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. Huelsenbeck JP, Ronquist F: MrBayes: Bayesian inference of phylogenetic trees. Bioinformatics. 2001, 17: 754-755. 10.1093/bioinformatics/17.8.754.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. Huelsenbeck JP, Ronquist F: MrBayes: A program for the Bayesian inference of phylogeny. Version 3.0b4. [http://mrbayes.csit.fsu.edu/]
  74. Ronquist F, Huelsenbeck JP: MrBayes 3: Bayesian phylogenetic inference under mixed models. Bioinformatics. 2003, 19: 1572-1574. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btg180.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. Swofford DP: PAUP*. Phylogenetic analysis using parsimony (* and other methods), version 4.0b10. 2003, Sinauer AssociatesGoogle Scholar
  76. Nylander JAA: MrModeltest2.2. [http://www.ebc.uu.se/systzoo/staff/nylander.html]
  77. Akaike H: Information theory as an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. Second international symposium on information theory. Edited by: Petrov BN, Csaki F. 1973, Budapest, Akademiai KiadoGoogle Scholar
  78. Felsenstein J: Confidence limits on phylogenies: An approach using bootstrap. Evolution. 1985, 39: 783-791. 10.2307/2408678.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  79. Kass RE, Raferty AE: Bayes factors. J Am Stat Assoc. 1995, 90: 773-795. 10.2307/2291091.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  80. Brown JM, Lemmon AR: The importance of data partitioning and the utility of Bayes Factors in Bayesian phylogenetics. Syst Biol. 2007, 56: 643-665. 10.1080/10635150701546249.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. Hillis DM, Bull JJ: An empirical test of bootstrapping as a method for assessing confidence in phylogenetic analysis. Syst Biol. 1993, 42: 182-192. 10.2307/2992540.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  82. Mlíkovský J: Cenozoic birds of the World. Part 1: Europe. 2002, Ninox Press, PragueGoogle Scholar
  83. Ford NL: A systematic study of the owls based on comparative osteology. PhD thesis. 1967, University of MichiganGoogle Scholar
  84. Mlíkovský J: Two new owls (Aves: Strigidae) from the Early Miocene of the Czech Republic, with comments on the fossil history of the Subfamily Striginae. Buteo. 1998, 10: 5-22.Google Scholar
  85. Drummond AJ, Nicholls GK, Rodrigo AG, Solomon W: Estimating mutation parameters, population history and genealogy simultaneously from temporally spaced sequence data. Genetics. 2002, 161: 1307-1320.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. Drummond AJ, Ho SYW, Phillips MJ, Rambaut A: Relaxed phylogenetics and dating with confidence. PLoS Biology. 2006, 4: e88-10.1371/journal.pbio.0040088.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. Drummond AJ, Rambaut A: BEAST v1.4.6. Last accessed 4 October 2007., [http://beast.bio.ed.ac.uk/]
  88. Ho SYW: Calibrating molecular estimates of substitution rates and divergence times in birds. J Avian Biol. 2007, 38: 409-414.View ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Fuchs et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2008

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Advertisement