Back

How Robust are Multispecies Coalescent Species Delimitations in Taxonomically Complex Systems? A Genomic Assessment Using Mediterranean Tethya Sponges

van der Sprong, J.; Cardone, F.; Hoehna, S.; Schaetzle, S.; Deister, F.; Erpenbeck, D.; Woerheide, G.; Vargas, S.

2026-07-05 evolutionary biology
10.64898/2026.07.04.735074 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Reliable species delimitation underpins biodiversity assessment but remains difficult for organisms with plastic morphology and few diagnostic characters. Multispecies coalescent (MSC) methods can delimit species from genomic data, yet they are rarely tested in taxonomically complex, marine invertebrate groups where they are arguably most needed. We used the three Mediterranean species of the genus Tethya, a rare, well-characterised system within the otherwise taxonomically difficult phylum Porifera-distinguished by multiple independent morphological and ecological characters-to evaluate how robust MSC-based delimitation is in such groups. Analysing 64 single-copy nuclear loci in BEAST2 and BPP, we compared constrained, hypothesis-testing approaches (BFD*, BFdriver, A10) with freer, heuristic ones (SPEEDEMON, A11), and examined their sensitivity to data type, clock model, priors, and the species-collapse threshold. All methods recovered the three recognised Mediterranean species, but the resolution of within-lineage structure was method-dependent. The hypothesis-testing approaches consistently supported six lineages, robustly across data types and model assumptions, whereas the heuristic approaches proved less stable. Configurations without a priori species hypotheses often failed to converge or were computationally intractable, a problem compounded by the relaxed clock. In SPEEDEMON the outcome changed with the collapse threshold. Because our system lacks an independent reference point to calibrate this threshold, any delimitation based on it is poorly constrained. We conclude that constrained, hypothesis-testing delimitation is the most robust and reproducible MSC approach, yielding a quantitative, model-based hypothesis that can be weighed against other lines of evidence to inform taxonomic decisions. By clarifying how these methods behave and how their outcomes should be interpreted, our study offers a practical guide for researchers working on comparably complex systems.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Systematic Biology
144 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
12.4%
2
Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution
69 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.7%
3
Molecular Ecology Resources
171 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
8.7%
4
PeerJ
308 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
6.6%
5
Methods in Ecology and Evolution
176 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
6.1%
6
Peer Community Journal
281 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
5.3%
7
Ecology and Evolution
267 papers in training set
Top 2%
4.3%
50% of probability mass above
8
Biological Journal of the Linnean Society
24 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.9%
9
Journal of Biogeography
46 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.1%
10
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 40%
2.7%
11
Global Ecology and Biogeography
47 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.7%
12
Molecular Ecology
336 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.1%
13
Evolution
225 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.1%
14
Journal of Heredity
42 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.1%
15
Journal of Evolutionary Biology
110 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.7%
16
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
72 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.7%
17
Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution
69 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.6%
18
Genome Biology and Evolution
338 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.5%
19
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 62%
1.3%
20
Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society
18 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.3%
21
Ecological Informatics
33 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.1%
22
Royal Society Open Science
214 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.1%
23
Applications in Plant Sciences
23 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.1%
24
Ecography
54 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.0%
25
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
393 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.0%
26
BMC Ecology and Evolution
51 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
27
New Phytologist
346 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
28
Evolutionary Applications
108 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%
29
Molecular Biology and Evolution
542 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.6%