| Literature DB >> 21625388 |
Melinda A Coleman1, Justine Chambers, Nathan A Knott, Hamish A Malcolm, David Harasti, Alan Jordan, Brendan P Kelaher.
Abstract
Networks of marine reserves are increasingly being promoted as a means of conserving marine biodiversity. One consideration in designing systems of marine reserves is the maintenance of connectivity to ensure the long-term persistence and resilience of populations. Knowledge of connectivity, however, is frequently lacking during marine reserve design and establishment. We characterise patterns of genetic connectivity of 3 key species of habitat-forming macroalgae across an established network of temperate marine reserves on the east coast of Australia and the implications for adaptive management and marine reserve design. Connectivity varied greatly among species. Connectivity was high for the subtidal macroalgae Ecklonia radiata and Phyllospora comosa and neither species showed any clear patterns of genetic structuring with geographic distance within or among marine parks. In contrast, connectivity was low for the intertidal, Hormosira banksii, and there was a strong pattern of isolation by distance. Coastal topography and latitude influenced small scale patterns of genetic structure. These results suggest that some species are well served by the current system of marine reserves in place along this temperate coast but it may be warranted to revisit protection of intertidal habitats to ensure the long-term persistence of important habitat-forming macroalgae. Adaptively managing marine reserve design to maintain connectivity may ensure the long-term persistence and resilience of marine habitats and the biodiversity they support.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21625388 PMCID: PMC3100320 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0020168
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Figure 1Map of New South Wales Marine Parks.
Map showing marine parks and position of sanctuary zones that were sampled within each marine park. Small sanctuary zones are marked with an X.
Descriptive genetic measures for each sanctuary zone and species.
| Total alleles | He | Ho |
| ||||||||||
| Park | Sanctuary Zone | E | P | H | E | P | H | E | P | H | E | P | H |
|
|
| 16 |
| 10 | 0.262 |
| 0.284 | 0.263 |
| 0.278 | 0.013 |
| 0.039 |
|
| 15 |
| 13 | 0.251 |
| 0.347 | 0.244 |
| 0.257 | 0.045 |
|
| |
|
| 16 |
| 12 | 0.215 |
| 0.117 | 0.232 |
| 0.081 | −0.063 |
|
| |
|
| 17 |
| 11 | 0.354 |
| - | 0.438 |
| - |
|
|
| |
|
| 15 |
| 11 | 0.3221 |
| 0.287 | 0.438 |
| 0.290 |
|
| 0.005 | |
|
| 18 |
| - | 0.365 |
| - | 0.456 |
| - |
|
|
| |
|
| - |
| 11 | - |
| 0.267 | - |
| 0.269 | - |
| 0.006 | |
|
|
| 19 | - | 12 | 0.273 |
| 0.350 | 0.269 | - | 0.420 | 0.030 |
| −0.183 |
|
| 15 |
| 11 | 0.220 |
| 0.324 | 0.190 |
| 0.250 | 0.152 |
|
| |
|
| 17 |
| 12 | 0.228 |
| 0.325 | 0.169 |
| 0.348 |
|
| −0.052 | |
|
| 15 |
| 11 | 0.210 |
| 0.313 | 0.219 |
| 0.325 | −0.023 |
| −0.022 | |
|
| - |
| 10 | - |
| 0.265 | - |
| 0.175 | - |
|
| |
|
| - | - | 10 | - | - | 0.329 | - | - | 0.240 | - | - |
| |
|
|
| 18 | 31 | 15 | 0.332 | 0.502 | 0.377 | 0.373 | 0.558 | 0.368 | −0.109 | −0.096 | 0.045 |
|
| 17 | 20 | 17 | 0.337 | 0.296 | 0.485 | 0.425 | 0.326 | 0.389 |
| −0.087 |
| |
|
| 19 | 26 | 14 | 0.343 | 0.402 | 0.421 | 0.431 | 0.411 | 0.413 |
| −0.007 | 0.076 | |
|
| 15 | 20 | 14 | 0.290 | 0.419 | 0.360 | 0.381 | 0.613 | 0.390 |
|
| −0.065 | |
|
| 16 | 18 | 14 | 0.300 | 0.314 | 0.333 | 0.363 | 0.299 | 0.368 | −0.194 | 0.062 | −0.087 | |
|
| 17 | 29 | 15 | 0.331 | 0.485 | 0.383 | 0.369 | 0.512 | 0.401 | −0.099 | −0.039 | −0.042 | |
|
|
| - | 33 | 14 | - | 0.511 | 0.426 | - | 0.455 | 0.389 | - |
| 0.105 |
|
| 18 | 37 | - | 0.331 | 0.547 | - | 0.363 | 0.509 | - | −0.080 | 0.085 | - | |
|
| 17 | 32 | 14 | 0.329 | 0.518 | 0.378 | 0.338 | 0.491 | 0.416 | −0.011 | 0.068 | −0.082 | |
|
| 17 | 23 | 15 | 0.303 | 0.515 | 0.489 | 0.370 | 0.513 | 0.490 |
| 0.018 | 0.014 | |
|
| - | 32 | 14 | - | 0.529 | 0.399 | - | 0.536 | 0.425 | - | 0.003 | −0.035 | |
|
| 19 | 28 | 14 | 0.316 | 0.486 | 0.299 | 0.307 | 0.478 | 0.316 | 0.043 | 0.032 | −0.040 | |
|
| 19 | 29 | - | 0.311 | 0.517 | - | 0.276 | 0.509 | - | 0.132 | 0.031 | - | |
|
| - | 39 | 18 | - | 0.570 | 0.523 | - | 0.570 | 0.617 | - | 0.016 | −0.162 | |
|
| 15 | 30 | 15 | 0.380 | 0.527 | 0.268 | 0.399 | 0.549 | 0.212 | −0.025 | −0.007 |
| |
Total number alleles, expected (He) and observed (Ho) heterozygosity and F IS (a measure if inbreeding within populations) for each sanctuary zone within Marine Parks. Numbers in italics are significant at P<0.01. E = E. radiata, H = H. banskii and P = P. comosa. Park abbreviations are as in materials and methods. Dashes indicate samples not collected. (B) indicates sanctuary zone located inside a bay.
Summary of within park population structure for each species.
|
|
|
| |||||||
|
| % SZ | IBD |
| % SZ | IBD |
| % SZ | IBD | |
|
| 0.058 | 60 | ns |
| 90 | ns | - | - | − |
|
| 0.016 | 17 | + |
| 73 | + | - | - | − |
|
| 0.010 | 30 | ns |
| 27 | ns |
| 100 | ns |
|
| 0.012 | 0 | ns |
| 86 | ns |
| 12 | ns |
|
| 0.049 | - | ns |
| - | + |
| - | − |
F ST estimates in italics are significant. % SZ refers to the percentage of pairwise tests between sanctuary zones within each park that were genetically different. IBD refers to patterns of isolation by distance (correlations between genetic differentiation and geographic distances) which could be either non-significant (ns) or positive correlations (+). Park abbreviations are as in materials and methods. IBD was not calculated over all marine parks for Phyllospora because only 2 marine parks were sampled.
Figure 2Relationship between geographic distance and genetic differentiation.
Relationship between geographic distance and genetic differentiation. F ST among sanctuary zones within each park and over all parks for each species.
Pairwise F ST estimates and percentage of significant pairwise tests between all marine parks for Hormosira and Ecklonia.
| SIMP | PSGLMP | JBMP | BMP | |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Pairwise F ST estimates between all parks and percentage of significant pairwise tests between sanctuary zones from different parks (in parentheses) for E. radiata (bottom left of matrix) and H. banksii (top right). Significant values after the Bonferroni sequential correction are shown in italics. Park abbreviations are as in materials and methods.
Analysis of Molecular Variance (AMOVA) among all parks and among sanctuary zones within parks.
| Source of variation | d.f. | SS | Variance component | Percentage of variation | |
|
| |||||
| Among Parks | 3 | 29.95 | 0.024 | 3.07 |
|
| Among sanctuary zones | 18 | 31.60 | 0.016 | 2.08 |
|
| Within sanctuary zones | 1370 | 1008.99 | 0.735 | 94.86 |
|
| Total | 1391 | ||||
|
| |||||
| Among Parks | 3 | 197.45 | 0.146 | 11.83 |
|
| Among sanctuary zones | 20 | 258.70 | 0.217 | 17.55 |
|
| Within sanctuary zones | 1510 | 1235.75 | 0.872 | 70.63 |
|
| Total | 1533 | ||||
|
| |||||
| Among Parks | 1 | 35.63 | 0.048 | 2.86 |
|
| Among sanctuary zones | 13 | 176.30 | 0.189 | 11.31 |
|
| Within sanctuary zones | 945 | 1358.59 | 1.438 | 85.83 |
|
| Total | 959 |
*** = P<0.00001,
** = P<0.001,
* = P<0.05.