Data from: Geography alone cannot explain Tetranychus truncatus (Acari: Tetranychidae) population abundance and genetic diversity in the context of the center–periphery hypothesis

The center–periphery hypothesis (CPH) states that the genetic diversity, genetic flow and population abundance of a species are highest at the center of the species'geographic distribution. However, most CPH studies have focused on geographic distance and have ignored ecological and historical effects. Studies using niche models to define the center and periphery of a distribution and the interactions among geographical, ecological and historical gradients have rarely been done in the framework of the CPH, especially in biogeographical studies of animal species. Here, we examined the CPH for a widely distributed arthropod, Tetranychus truncatus (Acari: Tetranychidae), in eastern China using three measurements: geographic distance to the center of the distribution (geography), ecological suitability based on current climate data  (ecology), and historical climate data from the last glacial maximum (history). We found that the relative abundances of different populations were more strongly related to ecology than to geography and history. Genetic diversity within populations and genetic differentiation among populations based on mitochondrial marker were only significantly related to history. However, the genetic diversity and population differentiation based on microsatellites were significantly related to all three CPH measurements. Overall, population abundance and genetic pattern cannot be explained very well by geography alone. Our results show that ecological gradients explain the variation in population abundance better than geographic gradients and historical factors, and that current and historical factors strongly influence the spatial patterns of genetic variation. This study highlights the importance of examining more than just geography when assessing the CPH.