The association of ticks (Acarina) and seabirds provides an intriguing system for assessing the influence of long-distance dispersal on the evolution of parasitic species. Recent research has focused on host-parasite evolutionary relationships and dispersal capacity of ticks parasitising flighted seabirds. Evolutionary research on the ticks of non-flighted seabirds is, in contrast, scarce. We conducted the first phylogeographic investigation of a hard tick species (Ixodes eudyptidis) that parasitises the Little Blue Penguin (Eudyptula minor). Using one nuclear (28S) and two mitochondrial (COI and 16S) markers, we assessed genetic diversity among several populations in Australia and a single population on the South Island of New Zealand. Our results reveal two deeply divergent lineages, possibly representing different species: one comprising all New Zealand samples and some from Australia, and the other representing all other samples from Australian sites. No significant population differentiation was observed among any Australian sites from within each major clade, even those separated by hundreds of kilometres of coastline. In contrast, the New Zealand population was significantly different to all samples from Australia. Our phylogenetic results suggest that the New Zealand and Australian populations are effectively isolated from each other; although rare long-distance dispersal events must occur, these are insufficient to maintain trans-Tasman gene flow. Despite the evidence for limited dispersal of penguin ticks between Australia and New Zealand, we found no evidence to suggest that ticks are unable to disperse shorter distances at sea with their hosts, with no pattern of population differentiation found among Australian sites. Our results suggest that terrestrial seabird parasites may be quite capable of short-distance movements, but only sporadic longer-distance (trans-oceanic) dispersal.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 July 2015.
All research outputs
#14,816,612
of 22,813,792 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#123,884
of 194,695 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#145,159
of 264,344 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#3,962
of 6,769 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,813,792 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 194,695 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 264,344 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6,769 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
