| Literature DB >> 23271936 |
Josiane Ribolli1, Cláudio Manoel Rodrigues de Melo, Evoy Zaniboni-Filho.
Abstract
Freshwater fish present unique challenges when one attempts to understand the factors that determine the structure of their populations. Habitat fragmentation is a leading cause of population decline that threatens ecosystems worldwide. In this study, we investigated the conservation status of genetic variability in the Neotropical catfish (Pimelodus maculatus). Specifically, we examined the structure and genetic diversity of this species in a region of the Upper Uruguay River fragmented by natural barriers and dams. There was no genetic structure among the four sites analyzed, indicating the existence of only one population group. A combination of environmental management and genetic monitoring should be used to minimize the impact of impoundment on panmitic populations of migratory fish species.Entities:
Keywords: conservation genetics; dams; habitat fragmentation; microsatellite
Year: 2012 PMID: 23271936 PMCID: PMC3526083 DOI: 10.1590/S1415-47572012005000060
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Genet Mol Biol ISSN: 1415-4757 Impact factor: 1.771
Figure 1Samples were obtained from four regions in Upper Uruguay River Basin: BG – upstream of the Barra Grande dam (sites 1–3; n = 52), MA –downstream of the Barra Grande dam and upstream of the Machadinho dam (sites 4–5; n = 60), IT – downstream of the Machadinho dam and upstream of the Itá dam (sites 7–9; n = 48) and DI – downstream of the Itá dam (sites 10 and 11; n = 50).
Sampling sites for Pimelodus maculatus, including sample sizes per site (N) and localization.
| Study site | ID | Specific collecting location | N | Localization | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BG | 1 | Pelotas River | 23 | 28°16′05.25″ S | 50°41′47.34″ W |
| 2 | Downstream Vacas Gordas River | 6 | 28°02′28.54″ S | 50°28.71″ W | |
| 3 | Immediately upstream of Barra Grande dam | 22 | 27°57′58.54″ S | 51°01′59.14″ W | |
|
| |||||
| MA | 4 | Downstream of Barra Grande dam | 20 | 27°32′16″ S | 51°51′24″ W |
| 5 | Downstream Canoas River | 23 | 27°35′59,7″ S | 51°23′28,9″ W | |
| 6 | Immediately upstream of Machadinho dam | 17 | 27°31′25″ S | 51°47′05″ W | |
|
| |||||
| IT | 7 | Downstream Machadinho dam | 21 | 27°31′37″ S | 51°47′06″ W |
| 8 | Itá reservoir | 13 | 27°22′43″ S | 51°59′18″ W | |
| 9 | Immediately upstream of Itá dam | 14 | 27°17′10″ S | 52°20′27″ W | |
|
| |||||
| DI | 10 | Immediately downstream of Itá dam | 12 | 27°05′54″ S | 53°01′02″ W |
| 11 | Downstream Chapecó River | 39 | 27°06′10″ S | 53°24′07′ W | |
Genetic variation in populations of Pimelodus maculatus.
| Allele | Parameter | Collection site
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BG | MA | IT | DI | ||
| N | 51 | 60 | 47 | 50 | |
| A | 14 | 15 | 15 | 16 | |
| 0.653 | 0.766 | 0.680 | 0.659 | ||
| 0.877 | 0.849 | 0.8572 | 0.881 | ||
| 13.142 | 13.721 | 14.414 | 14.433 | ||
| 0.264 | 0.106 | 0.216 | 0.245 | ||
| HWE | 0.0000 | 0.1206 | 0.0154 | 0.0003 | |
|
| |||||
| N | 48 | 58 | 37 | 41 | |
| A | 21 | 17 | 25 | 23 | |
| 0.787 | 0.948 | 0.902 | 0.837 | ||
| 0.937 | 0.920 | 0.934 | 0.945 | ||
| 20.138 | 15.844 | 22.211 | 24.000 | ||
| 0.171 | −0.021 | 0.047 | 0.101 | ||
| HWE | 0.0000 | 0.7254 | 0.051 | 0.0083 | |
|
| |||||
| N | 51 | 59 | 46 | 50 | |
| A | 17 | 15 | 17 | 17 | |
| 0.820 | 0.877 | 0.911 | 0.755 | ||
| 0.9178 | 0.891 | 0.916 | 0.933 | ||
| 16.056 | 13.732 | 17.145 | 18.529 | ||
| 0.117 | 0.025 | 0.017 | 0.201 | ||
| HWE | 0.0073 | 0.3877 | 0.432 | 0.0000 | |
|
| |||||
| N | 51 | 59 | 42 | 49 | |
| A | 19 | 17 | 18 | 19 | |
| 0.787 | 0.903 | 0.857 | 0.846 | ||
| 0.925 | 0.907 | 0.926 | 0.919 | ||
| 18.161 | 15.215 | 18.215 | 17.538 | ||
| 0.160 | 0.014 | 0.085 | 0.092 | ||
| HWE | 0.0011 | 0.0982 | 0.0213 | 0.0009 | |
|
| |||||
| N | 51 | 60 | 48 | 48 | |
| A | 18 | 20 | 20 | 19 | |
| 0.961 | 0.775 | 0.88 | 0.977 | ||
| 0.914 | 0.896 | 0.924 | 0.928 | ||
| 16.988 | 16.202 | 17.893 | 19.290 | ||
| −0.042 | 0.147 | 0.058 | −0.068 | ||
| HWE | 0.8721 | 0.0156 | 0.1373 | 1.000 | |
|
| |||||
| N | 51 | 60 | 48 | 48 | |
| A | 6 | 5 | 6 | 6 | |
| 0.384 | 0.650 | 0.617 | 0.500 | ||
| 0.6280 | 0.678 | 0.693 | 0.636 | ||
| 5.692 | 4.976 | 5.977 | 5.995 | ||
| 0.396 | 0.05 | 0.122 | 0.192 | ||
| HWE | 0.000 | 0.2129 | 0.1007 | 0.0007 | |
|
| |||||
| N | 51 | 60 | 47 | 50 | |
| A | 20 | 19 | 21 | 21 | |
| 0.862 | 0.758 | 0.729 | 0.829 | ||
| 0.924 | 0.898 | 0.912 | 0.932 | ||
| 16.459 | 15.947 | 18.583 | 19.865 | ||
| 0.077 | 0.164 | 0.211 | 0.121 | ||
| HWE | 0.0971 | 0.0008 | 0.000 | 0.000 | |
|
| |||||
| N | 51 | 60 | 48 | 50 | |
| A | 10 | 10 | 12 | 12 | |
| 0.826 | 0.666 | 0.760 | 0.702 | ||
| 0.834 | 0.833 | 0.854 | 0.867 | ||
| 9.565 | 9.590 | 11.764 | 11.456 | ||
| 0.019 | 0.208 | 0.12 | 0.201 | ||
| HWE | 0.6216 | 0.007 | 0.0025 | 0.0075 | |
A, mean number of alleles per locus; FIS, coefficient of inbreeding shown for individual loci and null allele (+); HO and HE, observed and expected heterozygosities, respectively; HWE, Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium; RA, allelic richness.
Significant deviations from Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium (Bonferroni correction: 0.0055 < α < 0.05).
Values of FST (below diagonal) and D (above diagonal) for pairwise comparisons of the four sites sampled.
| BG | MA | IT | DI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BG | - | 0.2723 | 0.2686 | 0.1293 |
| MA | 0.0300 | - | 0.3307 | 0.2611 |
| IT | 0.0294 | 0.0352 | - | 0.2383 |
| DI | 0.0040 | 0.0231 | 0.0150 | - |
Significance level: 0.05.
Uruguay River AMOVA summaries under the standard model followed by the microsatellite model (SMM), as implemented in Arlequin 3.1.0.2 (Excoffier ). The data show the degrees of freedom (df), sum of squared deviation (SSD), variance component estimates, the percentage of total variance that each component contributed, the fixation index and the probability of obtaining by chance alone a more extreme variance component than the observed values (p-value). The p-values were derived from significance tests (1023 permutations) calculated with the distance method (FST) in Arlequin 3.11.
| Source of variation | df | SSD | Variance component | Percentage variation | Fixation index | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Among groups | 3 | 37.657 | 0.0521 | 1.44 | 0.0144 | 0.030 |
| Among populations within groups | 4 | 26.724 | 0.0539 | 1.49 | 0.0151 | 0.000 |
| Within individuals | 210 | 620.000 | 2.9523 | 97.07 | 0.1777 | 0.000 |
| Total | 419 | 1.504.44 | 361.213 |
Figure 2STRUCTURE results for maximum likelihood ln K (•) and ΔK (–), for one to six populations (K). Maximum peaks in K were at K = 1.