Watersipora is an invasive genus of bryozoans, easily dispersed by fouled vessels. We examined Cytochrome c oxidase subunit I haplotypes from introduced populations on the US Pacific coastline to investigate geographic segregation of species and/or haplotypes. In California, the W. subtorquata group fell into three major sub-groups: W. subtorquata clades A and B, and W. "new sp.". W. subtorquata clades A and B were common in southern California south of Point Conception, a recognized biogeographic boundary, whereas further north, W. subtorquata clade A and W. n. sp. were frequent. The southern California region also had colonies of a morphologically distinct species, W. arcuata, also found in southern Australia and Hawaii; COI variation indicates a common ancestral source(s) in these introductions. The distribution of Watersipora-complex lineages on different coastlines is shown to be temperature correlated. Accordingly, pre-exisitng temperature-based adaptations may play a key role in determining invasion patterns.
Watersipora is an invasive genus of bryozoans, easily dispersed by fouled vessels. We examined <span class="Gene">Cytochrome c oxidase subunit I haplotypes from introduced populations on the US Pacific coastline to investigate geographic segregation of species and/or haplotypes. In California, the W. subtorquata group fell into three major sub-groups: W. subtorquata clades A and B, and W. "new sp.". W. subtorquata clades A and B were common in southern California south of Point Conception, a recognized biogeographic boundary, whereas further north, W. subtorquata clade A and W. n. sp. were frequent. The southern California region also had colonies of a morphologically distinct species, W. arcuata, also found in southern Australia and Hawaii; COI variation indicates a common ancestral source(s) in these introductions. The distribution of Watersipora-complex lineages on different coastlines is shown to be temperature correlated. Accordingly, pre-exisitng temperature-based adaptations may play a key role in determining invasion patterns.
Genetic studies have widely supported the appearance of ‘cryptic’ evolutionary divergence at
multiple levels of the taxonomic hierarchy, (e.g. multiple species existing within taxa
traditionally considered to be single species123). The non-native
establishment of such diversity is typically referred to as ‘cryptic invasion’4, and these phenomena often reflect unrecognized multiple introduction events. Given the
unsettled taxonomic state and the high rate of transport by anthropogenic vectors for these
taxa, it is not surprising that processes underlying marine invasions remain poorly
understood456. For example, there are few cases in which one could
confidently determine from vector history alone, in the absence of genetic information,
whether the invasive spread of an organism is the result of propagules from one area or
multiple areas4.The existence of cryptic genetic diversity suggests the possibility that corresponding
ecological differences could be important for patterns of invasion7. Limited
examples suggest that invasion potential among such lineages can vary widely, presumably
reflecting intrinsic ecological differences. For example, mussels in the genus Mytilus
include three cryptic species with different environmental tolerances, of which the warmer
water species M. galloprovincialis has proven an aggressive invader89.
Similarly, lineages of the barnacle Balanus glandula from warmer southern areas of the
native range in North America invaded similarly warm coasts of Argentina, while lineages from
colder northern areas were found in similarly cold areas in Japan10. However,
for most marine cases where cryptic invasion has been demonstrated, little is known of the
ecological differences among the cryptic lineages.The bryozoan genus Watersipora Neviani, 1895 is a promising system to investigate the
importance of cryptic invasions. The Bryozoa are a phylum of encrusting animals that have
become common in fouling communities the world over due to a predisposition for <span class="Species">human-mediated
transport1112, either in ballast water13 or on ships'
hulls14. Species of Watersipora are among the most invasive Bryozoa.
Once released, populations of Watersipora grow explosively due to lateral growth of
established colonies and settlement of short-lived larvae that may be retained near parents
owing to short dispersal durations (generally <24 h)1516. Introduced
Watersipora have become a major space occupier on natural and anthropogenic substrata
in protected bays in many areas1718. In communities experimentally polluted
with copper ions (an active agent in antifouling paint)1920, or subjected to
heat-wave conditions21, invasive Watersipora species have settled and
occupied space more successfully than most indigenous organisms, suggesting adaptations
favoring the rapid spread of these species.
Cryptic diversity in Watersipora appears rampant and is incompletely resolved19 genetic analysis is therefore critical to resolving introduction patterns. As
currently understood, the genus consists of W.
arcuata Banta, 1969, a species with distally recurved tentacle apertures22 and supported by monophyly of mitochondrial <span class="Gene">Cytochrome c oxidase subunit I (COI)23 sequences, and a group of genetically distinct clades we refer to as the W.
subtorquata-complex that share a proximally pointed sinus in the lophophore aperture
(henceforth “sinusoidal”). This latter group has a tortured taxonomic history that has been
described as a taxonomic “can of worms”24. The taxonomic difficulty associated
with this complex is largely because the genus lacks the spines, avicularia, and external
ovicells used for taxonomic diagnosis in most other bryozoans.
The nominal species Watersipora subtorquata (d'Orbigny, 1852) is a widespread invader
in cool-temperate areas globally. However, a divergent lineage (15% Kimura 2-parameter
nucleotide divergence in <span class="Chemical">COI) from the previously known W. subtorquata-complex was
found as a single colony collected in California (this clade was referred to as W. “new
sp.”23) and in subsequent sampling in California25. Thus, it
appears at present that at least two cryptic species comprise the W.
subtorquata-complex, and that genetic analysis is necessary to discover their patterns of
distribution. While the type specimen locale of W. subtorquata is Rio De Janeiro,
Brazil, native ranges of W. subtorquata-complex species are not known due to
uncertainties of taxonomy and dispersal history, which may include undocumented movement by
vessels. A third species, W. subovoidea (Ryland et al., 2009), which may be invasive in
tropical areas, was recently re-described and formally separated from the W.
subtorquata-complex following confirmation of genetic divergence in COI26. Ryland et al.26 postulate that W. subovoidea may be native to the
Mediterranean, however origin is uncertain, and the IndoPacific presents another possible
source for this species group according to suggested morphological affinity27.
Recognition of introductions of Watersipora began when it was realized that the
species now referred to as <span class="Species">W. arcuata and thought to be native to the tropical eastern
Pacific28, had invaded Australian coastline. In fact, by the mid
20th century, W. arcuata was extremely common around Australian
harbors, indicating hull-fouling in spread2329, but the arrival time can only
be approximated to within 1889–1940 due to a dearth of intervening surveys29.
An introduction of Watersipora arcuata to New Zealand occurred around 195730 from which time populations spread to become common on the north and south
islands31. It is thought W. arcuata invaded in southern California,
near Los Angeles around 196128. Colonies of a sinusoid species form, referred
to generally as W. “subtorquata”, were recognized as invading in Australia in
the 1970s and in New Zealand and California in the 1980s3132. On the three
landmasses, some regional displacement of W. arcuata was seen as colonies of sinusoid
morph entered areas occupied by W. arcuata1731. Indicating that the
rapid propagation of sinusoid Watersipora colonies occurring along California coastline
did not originate from simply one introduction, an initial study using COI sequence comparison
located a “subtorquata” haplotype occurring in Australia and elsewhere, along with an
example of COI sequence that was divergent (in Monterey Bay California), this genetic group
being referred to as the “new sp.” COI phylogroup23.
Our first objective was to determine the distribution of the cryptic species noted above in
California, and whether intensive sampling of these communities would indicate a likelihood
that the number of sources in introductions is greater still than recognized. The genetic
(COI) analysis was used secondly to investigate whether <span class="Species">Watersipora species were
non-randomly distributed with respect to sea surface temperature (SST) in the California
region and globally. By contrasting multiple invasions of multiple species, our analysis
suggests that different temperature-related physiological mechanisms may be important drivers
of the invasive distributional patterns of the Watersipora lineages.
Results
We generated 361 sequences (Table 1) with median length of 510
nucleotides and an average base content of A, 31.3%; T, 33.3%; C, 18.5%; G, 16.9%. Amino
acid translations had no stop codons. Tajima's D statistic33 was a
mean of −0.1795, ranging generally between 0 and 2 (Table 2).
Despite slight negativity (as is typical34), few populations showed
significant deviation from the simulated D null distribution, with the exception of
some southern Californian W. subtorquata population samples, as discussed below.
Table 1
Specimens analyzed, listed according to phylogroup, and sample location
along with estimated mean annual sea surface temperature (SST)
Region
Site or Area name
CoordinatesA (Lat., Long.)
mean SST (°C)
COI phylogroup
N
Source (if another
study)
w. US
Bremerton
47.5798, −122.6321
10.0
n. sp.
12
w. US
Bodega Bay
38.00 , −123.00
11.3
n. sp.
1
25
w. US
Bodega Bay Harbor
38.3295, −123.0562
11.3
n. sp.
16
w. US
Humboldt Harbor
40.8074, −124.1635
11.8
B
11
w. US
Humboldt Harbor
40.8074, −124.1635
11.8
n. sp.
33
Europe
Plymouth
50.30 , −4.14
13.0
A
1
26
Europe
Guernsey
49.50 , −2.58
13.0
A
2
26
Europe
St Jacut
48.60 , −2.15
13.0
A
4
26
w. US
Moss Landing
Harbor
36.8051, −121.7852
13.0
A
25
w. US
Moss Landing
Harbor
36.8051, −121.7852
13.0
n. sp.
12
w. US
Morro Bay
35.37, −120.86
13.3
n. sp.
1
25
w. US
Morro Bay
35.3707, −120.8585
13.3
n. sp.
14
w. US
San Francisco Bay
37.91, −122.35
13.5
n. sp.
1
25
w. US
San Francisco,
Richmond
37.9130, −122.3503
13.5
A
25
w. US
San Francisco,
Richmond
37.9130, −122.3503
13.5
B
1
w. US
San Francisco,
Richmond
37.9130, −122.3503
13.5
n. sp.
1
w. US
San Francisco,
Oakland
37.8102, −122.3230
13.5
A
1
w. US
San Francisco,
Oakland
37.7845, −122.2676
13.5
A
4
Australia
Hobart
−43.00, 147.28
14.0
A
2
23
Europe
Wellington
−41.00 , 174.78
14.2
A
4
23
w. US
Tomales Bay
38.1991, −122.9220
14.3
A
17
w. US
Ventura
34.17, −119.23
15.1
B
1
25
Australia
Melbourne
−38.00, 144.82
15.1
A
7
23
w. US
Channel Islands
Harbor
34.1666, −119.2250
15.1
A
13
w. US
Channel Islands
Harbor
34.166 , −119.2250
15.1
n. sp.
1
w. US
Channel Islands
Harbor
34.1666, −119.2250
15.1
B
3
w. US
Port Hueneme
34.1532, −119.2095
15.1
arcuata
3
w. US
Port Hueneme
34.1532, −119.2095
15.1
A
2
w. US
Port Hueneme
34.1532, −119.2095
15.1
n. sp.
14
w. US
Marina Del Rey
33.9702, −118.4496
15.1
arcuata
8
w. US
Marina Del Rey
33.9702, −118.4496
15.1
A
3
w. US
Santa Barbara
34.4067, −119.6890
16.0
arcuata
19
w. US
Santa Barbara
34.4067, −119.6890
16.0
n. sp.
1
Australia
Adelaide
−34.50, 138.53
16.3
arcuata
12
23
Australia
Adelaide
−34.50 , 138.53
16.3
A
1
23
w. US
Oceanside
33.21, −117.40
17.1
arcuata
2
25
w. US
San Diego, Shelter
Island
32.71, −117.23
17.1
A
1
25
w. US
Oceanside
33.2121, −117.3954
17.1
arcuata
1
w. US
Oceanside
33.2121, −117.3954
17.1
A
12
w. US
Oceanside
33.2121, −117.3954
17.1
B
3
w. US
Mission Bay
32.7671, −117.2362
17.1
A
18
w. US
Mission Bay
32.7671, −117.2362
17.1
B
1
w. US
Long Beach Harbor
33.7655, −118.2528
17.3
A
17
w. US
Long Beach Harbor
33.7655, −118.2528
17.3
B
4
w. US
Huntington Harbor
33.7175, −118.0658
17.3
A
17
w. US
Dana Point Harbor
33.4591, −117.6992
17.4
A
8
w. US
Dana Point Harbor
33.4591, −117.6992
17.4
B
5
w. US
Dana Point, Tijuana
Est.
33.4614, −117.7146
17.5
A
3
w. US
Newport
33.6199, −117.8943
18.2
A
14
w. US
Newport
33.6199,−117.8943
18.2
B
1
n. Asia
Korea, Namhae
Sangju
34.71, 127.99
20.0
A
1
37
n. Asia
Korea, Namhae
Sangju
34.71, 127.99
20.0
n. sp.
1
37
Australia
Sydney
−33.87 , 151.21
20.3
arcuata
17
23
Australia
Sydney
−33.87 , 151.21
20.3
A
6
23
Australia
Perth
−31.93 , 115.83
20.5
arcuata
10
23
Australia
Perth
−31.93 , 115.83
20.5
A
3
23
n. Asia
Qingdao
36.054 , 120.38
23.0
B
1
36
e. US
Florida
27.20, −80.22
25.0
subovoidea
4
23
Europe
O'ahu
21.00, −157.87
25.7
arcuata
12
23
Australia
Dampier
−20.66 , 116.71
26.0
subovoidea
4
23
Brazil
Rio De Janeiro
−23.81, −45.43
26.0
subovoidea
14
Australia
Cairns
−16.88, 145.80
26.5
subovoidea
1
23
A Coordinates given to four decimal places refer to sampling
site from present study. Coordinates to two places refer to regional-level
locality information derived from other sources.
Table 2
Summary of population diversity and pairwise ΦST measures for
Watersipora arcuata, subtorquata, and ‘new sp’. COI sequences (length: 489
base pairs)
Diversity indices ΦST
A. Watersipora arcuata
n
K
S
S/n
π
D
Santa Barbara
Santa Barbara
19
8
18
0.9474
0.0168±0.0094
0.5843
Santa Barb.
−
Marina Del Rae
7
4
14
2.0000
0.0123±0.0079
−1.3759
Msr. Del R.
0.8557***
Permutation tests of D and ΦST were conducted with 5,000
replicates.
*:P < 0.05.
**: P < 0.001.
***: P < 0.0001.
Unless indicated, samples were collected in California Department of Fish and
Game (Introduced Species Surveys), 2006.
AData were reported in Ref.23.
BColonies were collected in Smithsonian (Environmental Research
Center) surveys.
CColonies were collected by Greg Jensen, University of
Washington, 2010.
In California we found divergent COI clades that correspond to previously recognized
<span class="Species">Watersipora arcuata, W. n. sp. and W. subtorquata phylogroups.
Sequences were also included in the Bayesian tree (Figure 1) from
colonies identified as W. edmondsoni (on coral, n = 2, Kane'ohe Bay, Hawaii) and
W. subovoidea colonies from southern Florida, Brazil, and tropical Australia
(Table 1). Monophyletic groups differed by average net divergence
of 18.5% (Kimura-2 parameter model); the lowest divergence was observed between W.
subtorquata and W. edmondsoni, 12.3%; greatest divergence was observed between
W. arcuata and W. n. sp. 24.0%). Watersipora subtorquata
sequences differing by a net divergence of 2.8% formed clades we refer to as W.
subtorquata clades A and B (Figure 1).
Figure 1
Bayesian tree of COI sequences.
Posterior probabilities (> 0.5) are shown at nodes. Squares at branch tips, within
four phylogroups – Watersipora arcuata, W. subtorquata clades A and B, and
W. n. sp. – indicate an introduced haplotype on the Californian coast.
Haplotypes found in other areas are indicated: Washington state (Pacific US); AU,
Australia; Fl, Florida (Atlantic, US); BR, Brazil; Ha, Hawaii (O'ahu); NZ, New Zealand
(Wellington); UK (southern England and Channel Islands); FR, France. Watersipora
colonies have uniform zooids. Typical dimensions were determined from multiple colonies
in different COI groups, providing a stereotyped zooid appearance (see Figure 4).
W. subtorquata clade A was abundant in southern California and in central California
–Moss Landing, San Francisco and Tomales Bay (Figure 2). Clade B was
common in southern California and was established at Humboldt Bay, northern California,
where it was found i<span class="Species">n specimens collected in 2002 along with specimens of n. sp.
clade. To increase our understanding of clade composition of Humboldt Bay, California we
then determined COI phylogroup using a multiplex assay, in which five PCR primers each
mismatched at its 3′ end to one or two A, B, or new sp sequence populations,
generating phylogroup-specific fragment lengths viewed on agarose gels35.
W. n. sp. was dominant at Humboldt Bay (92.67%), with clade A (3.84%) and
clade B (3.49%) being both present at lower frequency (Figure 2).
Figure 2
Distribution of Watersipora COI phylogroups in the California region,
(regional mean annual sea surface temperature indicated).
Colonies were collected from 2002–2011. Circles to the left of corresponding site
numbers are previously reported COI samples25. Circles are sized in
proportion to the number of colonies collected at each site, except as indicated for
Humboldt Bay where phylogoups of a larger number of colonies were determined using
multiplex PCR35. Each circle represents a different sample location or
year of sampling. Number-only labels: Port Hueneme (8), Channel Island Dock, Oxnard (9),
Marina del Rey (10), Long Beach Harbor (11), Huntington Harbor (12), Dana Point (13),
Newport Harbor (14), Oceanside (15), Mission Bay (16).
W. subtorquata clade A has been the most common group sampled at a global scale to
date (Figure 3). The most common clade A sequence in California
(referred to as haplotype WS123) is also common in southern Australia,
New Zealand, and Europe (Figure 3B). The second most frequent
haplotype of clade A (WS3) occurs also in southern Australia and South Korea (Figure 1). Clade B variation consisted of one haplotype characterized
previously25 (GenBank accession: AY647167) and a second haplotype
represented by two colonies collected at Long Beach (near Los Angeles), and a third unique
sequence represented by a single colony sampled previously in China34
(collected on seaweed at Qingdao Huiquan Beach, Qingdao, GenBank accession: EU365892) (Figure 3B).
Figure 3
Parsimony networks describing relationships of COI haplotypes of Watersipora,
introduced to California and other areas.
Continuous straight lines represent connections with >95% confidence68 and dashed lines represent connections with confidence below this limit. Circles
indicating sampled haplotypes are scaled according to haplotype frequency. The frequency
of the most common haplotype in each set is shown. W. arcuata haplotypes, h1–h8,
were defined previously23.
The W. n. sp. haplotypes, consisting of one common sequence and several less
frequent, related haplotypes (Figure 3C) were common at many
California sites. The southernmost finding of W. <span class="Species">n. sp. was Oxnard, central
California, which is within the region defined by the 16°C long term mean SST isotherm
(Figure 2). W. n. sp. was the one group found at
Bodega Bay, Morro Bay, and Bremerton. Clade A and n. sp. occurred at similar
frequencies in the area of San Francisco and Monterey Bay.
The five COI phylogroups that we recognized occur in statistically distinguishable SST
regimes according to a partial Mantel test that included all five groups (P <
0.0001). From lower to higher SST, these were W. <span class="Species">n. sp. (median = 11.8°C, 95%
confidence interval 10.9−15.1°C, n = 111), W. subtorquata clade A (15.1°C,
14.0−17.3°C, n = 212), W. arcuata (16.3°C, 15.1−25.7°C, n = 82), W.
subtorquata clade B (17.1°C, 11.8−18.2°C, n = 29), and W. subovoidea (26.0°C,
25.0−26.3°C, n = 23). Partial Mantel test comparisons of SST for pairs of phylogroups
produced significant r coefficients at P-values between 0.020 and 0.001
(statistically significant at an unadjusted α value of 0.05); the weakest correlation (r =
0.1008) occurred in comparison of W. arcuata and W. subtorquata clade A
distributions (P = 0.0127).
Population pairwise ΦST measures were generally higher in the W.
subtorquata clade A, B and arcuata samples than among n. sp. populations
(Table 2). Given the fact that the W. <span class="Species">n. sp. had
relatively low nucleotide diversity, COI is likely insufficiently sensitive for detecting
post-introduction genetic isolation if present. However, there was significant
differentiation (ΦST) occurring between the Morro Bay sample and other
populations (pairwise comparisons of P < 0.05), but no other significant
differentiation.
Ten Watersipora arcuata haplotypes were found in California (Figure
3A). Two (previously designated h1 and h8, Mackie et al. 2006) were
identical to haplotypes previously found in Australia, and three (h5, h6, and
h7) identical to haplotypes known from both Australia and O'ahu, Hawaii. The <span class="Chemical">COI
variation of W. arcuata showed structuring at the scale of collection sites
(ΦST, = 0.4459, P < 0.0001) and collection areas (i.e., within O'ahu,
California, Perth or Adelaide; ΦSC = 0.6285, P <0.0001). There was,
however, no differentiation observed in comparing the regional sampling areas of O'ahu,
California, Perth or Adelaide. In fact, the inter-area variance component was negative
(ΦCT = −0.4912), indicating a spatially-dispersed but locally-structured
pattern.
Spatial differentiation was evident within the W. subtorquata <span class="Chemical">COI clade complex
found on the California coastline. An AMOVA supported differentiation of northern and
southern populations (from Santa Barbara southward) (ΦCT = 0.1068, P =
0.0215); these populations were also structured in COI nucleotide variation at local scale
(ΦST = 0.1625, P < 0.0001, ΦSC = 0.06229, P =
0.0401). It is noted that southern Californian populations have D statistic
deviations that may be due to the sampling of relatively long branches (clade A and B).
Newport and Mission Bay (sites 14 and 16, Figure 2) had D
statistic33 values of < 2.0, which were statistically significant
(P obs > < 0.05); this appears to
reflect unbalanced frequencies of haplotypes separated on divergent branches. In contrast,
Dana Point (D = +2.388, P obs > =
0.9989), and Oceanside (D = 0.5516, ns) had positive D measures,
reflecting the more even spread of clades A and B in these samples.
The zooid area-to-operculum area ratio (Figure 4A) distinguished
Watersipora subovoidea colonies as a homogeneous grouping from other sinusoidal
colonies consisting of subtorquata and <span class="Species">n. sp. COI clade colonies (ANCOVA:
F1,97 = 59.83, P < 0.0001). An ANCOVA, comparing
morphometric ratio slopes did not support a difference between W. subtorquata (clade
A or B) and W. n. sp. populations (F1,70 = 0.18,
P = 0.6727). In considering the invasive subtorquata–n sp. complex in
California, there was no relationship between the COI-clade identity and zooid length (data
not shown), however, zooid length scaled with the mean SST temperature in the invaded area
(Figure 4B). Deviating from the general trend, zooid lengths of
n. sp. colonies collected from Bremerton, Washington (mean SST ~ 10°C, collected in
2010), and W. subtorquata clade A colonies from Humboldt Bay (mean SST ~ 10°C,
collected in 2003) were short, for reasons unknown. Analysis of the general sample of
sinusoidal Watersipora colony populations in California supported a negative
relationship between temperature and zooid length (R2 = 0.245,
P < 0.001) (Figure 4B).
Figure 4
(A) Averaged orifice area versus zooid area (log10 versus log10)
for populations distinguishable as four COI clades. As shown previously26
the plotted relationship discriminates the recognized species W. subtorquata and
W. subovoidea, however as evident here, it does not discriminate the
subtorquata (A or B) and n. sp. phylogroups. Inset: cartoon of zooids of
averaged proportions, by COI phylogroup. (B) Plot showing means and SE (vertical bars)
of zooid length at different sites on US west Coast, indicating a decrease in length
toward warmer localities. Trend lines were calculated by least-squares regression.
Discussion
On the basis of phylogenetic inference using the COI locus, the previously described
<span class="Species">Watersipora subtorquata-complex represents two cryptic species, W.
subtorquata and W. n. sp., consistent with previous reports23. According to the present sampling, W. subtorquata can be further
divided into two genetically shallow groups − clade A, which has haplotypes recognized in
Europe and Australasia, and clade B, found to be common in southern California and present
at much lower frequency in northern California. Other investigations show that these three
known COI clades of the W. subtorquata-complex also occur in the Asian western
Pacific3637. The absence of reports of sinusoidal Watersipora in
Californian waters prior to the 1980s probably indicates the true absence of such forms
given the intensity of study there32. Since then, according to COI data,
there have been multiple introductions from separate sources. The introduced
Watersipora of the Californian region is more diverse than that of Australasia, and
COI variation apparent in California reflects either different thermal tolerances of the
W. n. sp. and W. subtorquata complex source populations, different
sets of introductions to these areas, or both.
Watersiporaspecies as a whole were absent from the US Pacific coastline until the
1960s and absent from the fossil record in that region28. <span class="Species">Watersipora
arcuata was the first watersiporid to be recognized on the coastline, appearing in
southern California around 196328. Soule and Soule32 then
reported a sinusoid species as invading in Los Angeles Harbors and marinas in 1982–3, a
period of unusually warm water due to El Niño. We have no reason to suspect that these
specimens were not the sinusoidal Watersipora
subtorquata-complex described here. Examination of collections of the late Dorothy
and John Soule at the Santa Barbara Natural History Museum unfortunately did not locate the
material referred to in their report (Mackie, pers. obs., July, 2011). Banta22 suggested W. arcuata was native to the tropics or subtropics of the eastern
Pacific. Evidence of the native source of Watersipora
subtorquata clade A and clade B or W. n. sp. is lacking, as is a
precise timing of arrival in California.
Early collections of colonies that best fit the morphological description of W.
arcuata were made in the Galapagos Islands and the Pacific Mexican coast, including
Baja California and Gulf of California, prior to the 1930s2838. By 1940,
W. arcuata was a common fouling species in the Gulf of California3940 but was not yet known on the US Pacific coastline. Two hypotheses have
been proposed to explain the appearance of W. arcuata in California in the 1960s.
Soule and Soule32 proposed that larval dispersal or dispersal of colonies on
drift material from warmer Pacific areas into California could occur during El Niño events
(such as 1956–57), when currents from southern areas extend further north than usual. Banta
and Carlton each, however, favored a scenario of introduction of W. arcuata to
California from Australasia through ship fouling, in part based on negative evidence,
specifically the lack of W. arcuata in extant fouling community records or the fossil
record of California32. Positive circumstantial evidence includes the
observation that Australasia has been a donor of a number of marine invasive species to the
US Pacific region41.Given the lack of segregation of COI genetic variation among widespread areas – Australia,
California, and Hawaii – the arrival of <span class="Species">W. arcuata colonizers through shipping from
common sources is supported, as opposed to regionally independent introductions. Defining
the routes of introductions around the globe based on COI is not possible though given the
observed distribution of genetic variation at that locus. Inferring direction and chronology
of these invasions genetically will likely rely on the use of multiple loci providing finer
spatial resolution to the distribution of genetic variation.
Watersiporaspecies ranges have undergone remarkable shifts with <span class="Species">human assistance.
Given such widespread global introductions and realizing that ranges are rapidly dynamic,
source populations are perhaps traceable now only by searching for remnant phylogeographic
patterns.
Collection records of W. arcuata and <span class="Species">W. subtorquata indicate that species
range boundaries have changed rapidly. In the 1980s W. subtorquata replaced W.
arcuata in southeastern Australia and New Zealand, specifically in cooler areas of
these landmasses1731. In the areas of subtorquata introduction,
W. arcuata had been present since its introduction sometime between the late 1800s
and 1940 in Australia29 and around 1957 in New Zealand30.
These taxonomic records indicate that species of Watersipora may compete with one another
for resources (with space presumably being one of the most important) in the human-modified
fouling niche. Further population separation on the basis of COI supports widespread
species-replacement interactions.
In the present study we confirmed that W. subovoidea (matching northern Australian
and Brazilian populations morphologically) also occurs in Florida, US. <span class="Chemical">COI sequences show
≤1% divergence among W. subovoidea in Brazil, Florida and Australian populations,
supporting recent and widespread introductions of a species suited to tropical conditions.
While genetic analysis of the type specimens or neotypes has not been conducted, a W.
subtorquata-W. subovoidea delineation is supported on the basis of both morphometric
and COI comparison26. The W. subtorquata holotype (Gunabara Bay,
Brazil) was described by d'Orbigny from material collected in 1837. Given this historical
record, it was surprising that recent collections in the Rio De Janeiro and Sao Paulo
regions have revealed only W. subovoidea. Similarly Ramalho et al.26
reported collections of Watersipora matching W. subovoidea morphologically at
multiple localities spanning a wide range of surfaces and pollutant levels. Thus, there is
reason to suspect W. subovoidea has displaced W. subtorquata in its native
locale or at least an area where it was common in the 1800s, and there is clearly a need to
relate collections from different points to the diversity patterns now suggested by
genetics.
Prior studies of Bryozoa have suggested genetically divergent species are recognizable by
morphological divergence4344, but our analysis suggests that this
conclusion is not universal. Measurements of subsamples of W. subtorquata
clades A and B and W. <span class="Species">n. sp. in California showed these to be homogeneous in
their zooid geometry (Figure 4A) and they were not definitively sorted
by color (unpublished data). Colonies of W. n. sp. varied from flat,
encrusting forms to large (30 cm) multi-colony ball-shaped forms. Although diagnostic
morphological criteria may yet be discovered, currently none seem present that would be
practical for rapid identification, and genetic analysis will be necessary for continued
work on Watersipora.
The lack of morphological distinctiveness of W. subtorquata and W. n.
sp. <span class="Chemical">COI clades reflects an absence of obvious skeletal characters (a situation that is
exacerbated by the relatively featureless zooid morphology of the genus), or wholesale
hybridization leading to a continuous range of morphologies. Hybridization is a factor
affecting identification and ecological responses in introductions of the Mytilus
species complex, for example9. No introgression of mitochondrial DNA has been
found in colonies of the W. arcuata and W.
subtorquata morphologies (arcuate and sinusoidal orifice form respectively), which
supports the standpoint that WatersiporaCOI clade groups are not randomly
interbreeding. Assessment of genetic variation at microsatellite and other nuclear DNA loci
is being used to test for admixture among COI clade populations.
Zooids were as much as 25% longer in northern California as compared to southern
Californian colonies. The phylogroup itself showed no consistent relationship to zooid
length, with rather, colony populations of multiple groups exhibiting latitude related zooid
length (Figure 4). Size-latitude trends arguably still require
extended documentation in invertebrates generally; in mollusks a recent meta-study has
however indicated size trends to be common, with the direction of the relationship being
variable45. The direction of the zooid size to temperature relationship
seen across these recently introduced Watersipora populations is consistent
with studies of other Watersipora spanning the Galapagos archipelago45
and in other bryozoans where there is an inverse relationship between zooid size and
temperature464748. Phenotypic plasticity is a possible explanation (as
seen in one study of a limpet in which shell variation - larger size in cold - was
explainable by water temperature rather than genetic variance49).
Drosophila wing-traits50 on the other hand provide an example of
post-introduction variation responding in a clinal selective gradient. There are sharp
differences in mean size are recognized following introductions in a number of marine
metazoans51. Perhaps promisingly, Wateripora provide a useful system
in which to assess the heritable/plastic components of zooid size, along with net overall
growth, and reproductive characteristics, determining whether these variously influence or
respond to observed range expansions.The boundary presented in part by the cold California and warmer Davis current systems
allows the California coast to be used as a sensitive test of the role of temperature in
differentiating introduction processes. Examination of COI variation occurring in
<span class="Species">Watersipora revealed significant north-south separation of haplotype frequencies in
California. This separation coincides with Point Conception, an area with a high turnover of
ranges and phylogeographic breaks in native taxa52. All W. arcuata
occurrence was to the south of Point Conception (and n. sp., conversely, has not been
found far south of Point Conception). The range of W. arcuata however did expand
briefly in a northward direction in 1982 and 1983, an El Niño period, such that the species
was found in Monterey Bay, northern California32 where it has not been
reported subsequently. This particular observation is notable for indicating the likely
sensitivity of the ranges to temperature. Our study, and others examining genotypic variance
(e.g10535455), suggest genetically related invading propagules have
temperature related fitness which determines organismal or genotype-level range limits at
least in early stages of introduction. Average sea-surface temperatures of 14°C–20°C unite
the southern Californian and some Australian localities, where W. arcuata and W.
subtorquata were found together. The situation is analogous to invasions of two
monophyletic Caulerpa (Chlorophyceae) groups5657, which also appear
to be established in southern Australia, Mediterranean areas and southern Californian
regions, but not northern California.
While the COI phylogroup-SST correlation is derived from relatively few global locales, it
is possible to define widespread introductions of the five <span class="Species">WatersiporaCOI groups by
different temperature-zone envelopes, an indication that intrinsic differences in
temperature-related fitness structure patterns of spread. With this background information,
direct hypothesis testing can be used to determine whether phenotypic differences as opposed
to vector transport patterns alone dictate introduction success or local densities of
Watersipora species. The COI variation of California (which is greater than that
observed in Australia) and haplotype distribution pattern provides a useful framework for
common-environment experiments to test for physiological restrictions to ranges. The
association of different species and COI clades of Watersipora with particular
temperature zones suggests a global assortment of lineages into similar temperature zones,
in other words, natural selection acting on existing variation in parallel in different
areas.
While the invasion success of Watersipora populations is geographically limited by
evolved ecological tolerances, the species in the genus as a whole have cumulatively
extremely broad potential for global spread, with a collection of traits (including a high
tolerance of <span class="Chemical">copper-based antifouling paint that is apparent in larvae and colonies) which
assists in colonization of painted hulls on ships that may further transport colonies.
Perhaps because growth rate and reproductive potential are intrinsically connected in
modular organisms, temperature modulated growth rate (temperature-related fitness) may prove
more useful than other general hypotheses commonly put forward to explain the high invasive
capacity of certain introduced species, such as the ability to escape specialist predators
and pathogens585960 or propagule pressure6162. Clearly,
modular fouling organisms warrant attention as a group of organisms sensitively indicating
community changes in response to environmental change.
Methods
Collections
Colonies were collected between 2005 and 2010 from docks and floats, predominantly,
throughout California, and additional specimens were obtained from fouling panels in San
Francisco Bay, and Humboldt Harbor (collections made in the period of 2002–2005), and
field collections from Washington State (Bremerton), Florida, and Brazil (Tables 1 and 2). We generated COI sequence for 361
colonies. Sequences and collection information were lodged in GenBank (accession numbers:
JQ715456–JQ715577). We included previously reported sequences2325263637 in analyses.
PCR and sequencing
Colonies were preserved in 85–95% ethanol. Fragments (which were generally <2 cm
across) were sorted into individual colonies with independent ancestrula. DNA was
extracted by Qiagen DNeasy Tissue protocol. DNA for sequencing was obtained by
amplification of 710 base pairs using LCO1490 and HCO2198 primers63,
followed by re-amplification of this product in a second PCR with LCO1490 and a
bryozoan-specific primer BRY-H<span class="Chemical">COI-2161, effectively increasing product yield23. PCR was carried out using GoTAQ® DNA polymerase and 2x Buffer, with 3.0 mM
Mg2+ ion, at an annealing temperature of 40°C. Products were isolated
using Qiagen Quickspin® columns and sequenced in both directions by BigDye® di-deoxy
terminators.
Sequence analysis
Sequence chromatograms were read using Codon Code Aligner ® software, aligned using
MEGA464, and collated to haplotypes using DNA Collapser V. 1 (http://www.birc.au.dk/fabox). A Bayesian
analysis (using a flat prior distribution and a General Time Reversible model of
nucleotide substitution including a Gamma-distribution substitution rate parameter) was
used to construct a tree. Nucleotide substitution model parameters were determined using
ModelTest65, and the tree constructed using MyBayes66.
Posterior probabilities at nodes were calculated using three parallel Metropolis Coupled
Markov Chains, searching for 2 million generations. The Bayesian analysis produced a
robust topology with posterior support for major clades of 0.94 or higher, at which level
there was topological agreement with a parsimony tree found by heuristic search in
PAUP*67 (data not shown).Haplotype relationships within Watersipora arcuata, <span class="Species">W. subtorquata and the
W. n. sp. clades were evaluated using median joining parsimony
networks68. Sequence lengths used in comparisons were determined by the
minimum lengths of sequence data available in GenBank: a 388-nucleotide segment of W.
arcuata COI sequences was compared, including samples from southern Australia
(Perth, Adelaide, Sydney areas) and O'ahu, Hawaii23
Watersipora subtorquata and W. n. sp. clade networks were constructed
using a 489-nucleotide segment. AMOVA (Analysis of Molecular Variance69)
was used to quantify COI sequence variation partitioned among broad geographic regions for
both W. arcuata (regions included Hawaii, California, and Australia) and W.
subtorquata (including the Australasian region of southern Australian and New
Zealand and two California regions north and south of Point Conception). Permutation tests
(5000 replicates) were used to evaluate AMOVA coefficient significance70.
Mean sea surface temperature (SST) approximation
Local average SST was approximated using year-long measurements spanning 2002–2011. For
most US sites, SST was obtained from a monitoring buoy located within 50-km of the
sampling location, via NOAA National Oceanographic Data Center Coastal temperature tables
(http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/dsdt/cwtg/cpac.html). Measurements were also
obtained using the NASA satellite (Aqua) Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer
(MODIS) thermal map data archive71. Temperatures were resolved to 1°C unit
of accuracy using the dominant pixel-record within 50×50 km squares positioned offshore to
sampling areas. We verified, as elsewhere72, that MODIS and buoy-recorded
mean SSTs were generally within 1°C.
Analysis of SST data
The 95% confidence interval of the median sea surface temperature experienced by major
COI clades was estimated by bootstrapping (resampling populations of 20 individuals for
1000 replicates). To test the null expectation of no correlation between temperature and
clade, Mantel tests were conducted correcting for spatial distance using a partial
matrix73. Pairwise SSTs and decimal grid coordinates were converted to
Euclidean distances. Clades were encoded as presence or absence, and separate tests were
run for all five clade groups and pairs of clades separately. Partial Mantel tests were
conducted using the R Software Project package, ecodist74. Data were
ranked, which assists in linearizing relationships between dissimilarity matrices75. The significance of the partial coefficient was determined using 10,000
matrix permutations.
Zooid-dimension comparisons for COI clades of sinusoidal
Watersipora
The recognized species Watersipora subovoidea and the W.
subtorquata-complex can be distinguished by zooid proportions: for a given frontal
shield area, the tentacular orifice is smaller in <span class="Species">W. subovoidea26.
In the current study, a subset of the sinusoid colonies analyzed by COI were photographed
at 20X magnification using a dissecting scope, and analyzed using Image J imaging
software76. We recorded five zooid dimensions: zooid length
(Lz), zooid width at maximum (Wz), orifice width
(Wor), orifice length (Lor). We tested for a
difference between W. n. sp. and other W. subtorquata-complex COI
phylogroups, using zooid area and tentacular orifice area (as in26) as
covariates via ANCOVA. Log10 transformations of areas were used, and
regressions met the assumption of homogeneity of variances.
Author Contributions
All authors contributed to experiment design, experiments, manuscript text, and reviewed
the manuscript. Mackie prepared figures.
Authors: O Jousson; J Pawlowski; L Zaninetti; F W Zechman; F Dini; G Di Guiseppe; R Woodfield; A Millar; A Meinesz Journal: Nature Date: 2000-11-09 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: David Bickford; David J Lohman; Navjot S Sodhi; Peter K L Ng; Rudolf Meier; Kevin Winker; Krista K Ingram; Indraneil Das Journal: Trends Ecol Evol Date: 2006-11-28 Impact factor: 17.712
Authors: Tahani El Ayari; Najoua Trigui El Menif; Carlos Saavedra; David Cordero; Frédérique Viard; Nicolas Bierne Journal: Ecol Evol Date: 2017-09-25 Impact factor: 2.912
Authors: Christophe Lejeusne; Alice Saunier; Nicolas Petit; Mélanie Béguer; Michio Otani; James T Carlton; Ciro Rico; Andy J Green Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2014-07-24 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Rachel D Simons; Henry M Page; Susan Zaleski; Robert Miller; Jenifer E Dugan; Donna M Schroeder; Brandon Doheny Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-03-31 Impact factor: 3.240