| Literature DB >> 19040766 |
Marlene Neethling1, Conrad A Matthee, Rauri C K Bowie, Sophie von der Heyden.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Oceanography and life-history characteristics are known to influence the genetic structure of marine species, however the relative role that these factors play in shaping phylogeographic patterns remains unresolved. The population genetic structure of the endemic, rocky shore dwelling Caffrogobius caffer was investigated across a known major oceanographic barrier, Cape Agulhas, which has previously been shown to strongly influence genetic structuring of South African rocky shore and intertidal marine organisms. Given the variable and dynamic oceanographical features of the region, we further sought to test how the pattern of gene flow between C. caffer populations is affected by the dominant Agulhas and Benguela current systems of the southern oceans.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2008 PMID: 19040766 PMCID: PMC2613416 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2148-8-325
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Evol Biol ISSN: 1471-2148 Impact factor: 3.260
Figure 1Map of South Africa showing sampling localities for . The two major currents, the Benguela and Agulhas currents are shown, as well as the smaller inshore counter-current to the Agulhas. 1 = Wooley's Pool in False Bay; 2 = Rooiels; 3 = Gansbaai; 4 = Cape Agulhas; 5 = Cape Infanta; 6 = Jongensfontein; 7 = Herold's Bay; 8 = Knysna; 9 = Port Alfred; 10 = Haga Haga. The stepping stone model shows the directionality and relative intensity of gene flow between populations using arrows. The three major marine biogeographic regions in southern Africa are also delineated.
Population specific diversity indices of Caffrogobius caffer localities.
| Sampling location | No. private haps. | No. haplotypes | Θ | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wooley's Pool | 22 | 3 | 12 | 0.008 | 0.948 | 0.0073 | -7.0, p = 0.005 |
| Rooiels | 22 | 1 | 18 | 0.011 | 0.965 | 0.0186 | -8.5, p < 0.001 |
| Gansbaai | 25 | 4 | 17 | 0.010 | 0.967 | 0.0122 | -10.8, p < 0.001 |
| Cape Agulhas | 26 | 1 | 15 | 0.010 | 0.963 | 0.0141 | -7.6, p = 0.001 |
| Cape Infanta | 26 | 5 | 17 | 0.010 | 0.969 | 0.0103 | -14.4, p < 0.001 |
| Jongensfontein | 26 | 3 | 16 | 0.009 | 0.960 | 0.0116 | -7.9, p < 0.001 |
| Herold's Bay | 26 | 1 | 15 | 0.009 | 0.951 | 0.0103 | -8.0, p < 0.001 |
| Knysna Heads | 24 | 3 | 17 | 0.011 | 0.982 | 0.0104 | -12.9, p < 0.001 |
| Port Alfred | 24 | 3 | 12 | 0.009 | 0.935 | 0.0117 | -6.0, p = 0.002 |
| Haga Haga | 21 | 4 | 18 | 0.010 | 0.971 | 0.0074 | -9.5, p < 0.001 |
n = sample size, π = nucleotide diversity and h = haplotype diversity.
Figure 2Haplotype network for . Size of the circles are representative of the number of individuals with that haplotype. The smallest circles represent a haplotype frequency of one. Each connecting line represents one mutation step between haplotypes and perpendicular lines are representative of an additional mutational change.
Relative migration rate values (N) between each population pair for the stepping-stone migration model along the South African coast.
| From Population | To population | |
|---|---|---|
| 1 (Wooley's Pool) | 2 (Rooiels) | 0 (0–10) |
| 2 (Rooiels) | 1 (Wooley's Pool) | 60 (37–91) |
| 2 (Rooiels) | 3 (Gansbaai) | 1 (0.06–4.5) |
| 3 (Gansbaai) | 2 (Rooiels) | 201 (145–270) |
| 3 (Gansbaai) | 4 (Cape Agulhas) | 0 (0–4) |
| 4 (Cape Agulhas) | 3 (Gansbaai) | 47 (34–61) |
| 4 (Cape Agulhas) | 5 (Cape Infanta) | 2.5 (0.7–5.5) |
| 5 (Cape Infanta) | 4 (Cape Agulhas) | 143 (112–178) |
| 5 (Cape Infanta) | 6 (Jongensfontein) | 3.5 (2–5) |
| 6 (Jongensfontein) | 5 (Cape Infanta) | 46 (37–56) |
| 6 (Jongensfontein) | 7 (Herold's Bay) | 7 (5–8.5) |
| 7 (Herold's Bay) | 6 (Jongensfontein) | 22 (18–26) |
| 7 (Herold's Bay) | 8 (Knysna) | 21 (18–24) |
| 8 (Knysna) | 7 (Herold's Bay) | 15 (12–17) |
| 8 (Knysna) | 9 (Port Alfred) | 0 (0-0) |
| 9 (Port Alfred) | 8 (Knysna) | 1.5 (0.7–2.5) |
| 9 (Port Alfred) | 10 (Haga Haga) | 25 (14–39) |
| 10 (Haga Haga) | 9 (Port Alfred) | 39 (31–59) |
Values in brackets represent the 0.05% confidence values.