| Literature DB >> 23372730 |
Juliana Araripe1, Péricles Sena do Rêgo, Helder Queiroz, Iracilda Sampaio, Horacio Schneider.
Abstract
Despite the ecological and economic importance of the Arapaima gigas (Cuvier 1817), few data about its dispersal capacity are available. The present study was based on the analysis of microsatellite markers in order to estimate the dispersal capacity of the species on fine, meso, and large geographic scales. For this, 561 specimens obtained from stocks separated by distances of up to 25 km (fine scale), 100 km (meso scale), and 1300-2300 km (large scale) were analyzed. The fine scale analysis indicated a marked genetic similarity between lakes, with low genetic differentiation, and significant differences between only a few pairs of sites. Low to moderate genetic differentiation was observed between pairs of sites on a meso scale (100 km), which could be explained by the distances between sites. By contrast, major genetic differentiation was recorded in the large scale analysis, that is, between stocks separated by distances of over 1300 km, with the analysis indicating that differentiation was not related solely to distance. The genetic structuring analysis indicated the presence of two stocks, one represented by the arapaimas of the Mamirauá Reserve, and the other by those of Santarém and Tucuruí. The dispersal of arapaimas over short distances indicates a process of lateral migration within the várzea floodplains, which may be the principal factor determining the considerable homogeneity observed among the várzea lakes. The populations separated by distances of approximately 100 km were characterized by reduced genetic differentiation, which was associated with the geographic distances between sites. Populations separated by distances of over 1300 km were characterized by a high degree of genetic differentiation, which may be related primarily to historical bottlenecks in population size and the sedentary behavior of the species. Evidence was found of asymmetric gene flow, resulting in increasing genetic variability in the population of the Mamirauá Reserve.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23372730 PMCID: PMC3553164 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0054470
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Samples number used in the present study and geographic scales within the natural geographic range of the species.
| Locality | Fine (∼25 km) | Meso (∼100 km) | Large (1300–2300 km) |
| Jarauá I | 223 | 223 | 223 |
| Jarauá II | − | − | 91 |
| Maraã | − | 149 | 149 |
| Santarém | − | − | 60 |
| Tucuruí | − | − | 38 |
|
| 223 | 372 | 561 |
Figure 1Map showing the localities in three geographic scales.
A: The locations of the fine scale analysis showing the Jarauá lakes in the Mamirauá Reserve (points 1 to 15). B: locations of meso scale analysis showing the Jarauá lakes and Lago Preto Complex in Maraã (point 16). C: locations of large-scale analysis showing the Mamirauá Reserve (M), Santarém (S) and Tucuruí (T). The lakes analyzed are: 1- Ressaca do Itú; 2- Ressaca do Curuçá; 3- Ressaca do Panema; 4- Lago do Apuí; 5- Lago Maciel Comprido; 6- Lago Samaumeirinha; 7- Lago Samaumeirinha do Jaraqui; 8- Lago Matá-Matá; 9- Lago Panelão; 10- Lago Jaraqui; 11- Lago Samaúma; 12- Cabeceira do Lago Baixo; 13- Lago Poção; 14- Cano do Cedrinho; 15- Lago Cedrinho; 16- Complexo Lago Preto (Maraã).
Genetic and geographic distances between the lakes analyzed at fine and meso scales.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | |
|
| 3.1 | 4.4 | 5.7 | 8.3 | 8.9 | 14.0 | 14.8 | 13.1 | 15.9 | 17.8 | 24.2 | 20.5 | 21.3 | 25.0 | 113.7 | |
|
| −0.017 | 1.8 | 4.0 | 5.8 | 6.3 | 11.3 | 12.2 | 10.9 | 14.7 | 12.4 | 22.8 | 20.0 | 20.7 | 24.3 | 112.8 | |
|
| −0.016 | −0.001 | 2.4 | 4.0 | 4.6 | 9.7 | 10.5 | 9.1 | 13.0 | 14.7 | 21.1 | 18.5 | 19.1 | 22.6 | 111.0 | |
|
| −0.012 | −0.003 | 0.025 | 3.1 | 3.7 | 8.7 | 9.4 | 7.4 | 10.7 | 12.4 | 18.8 | 16.1 | 16.7 | 20.2 | 108.7 | |
|
| −0.007 | −0.006 | −0.028 | 0.029 | 0.6 | 5.7 | 6.4 | 5.2 | 10.2 | 12.4 | 17.7 | 16.2 | 16.6 | 19.6 | 107.8 | |
|
| −0.010 | −0.002 | −0.001 | 0.010 | 0.003 | 5.2 | 5.9 | 4.8 | 10.1 | 11.2 | 17.5 | 16.2 | 16.5 | 19.4 | 107.5 | |
|
| −0.016 | −0.001 | −0.006 | −0.002 | −0.005 | −0.003 | 0.9 | 3.2 | 9.5 | 9.4 | 14.8 | 15.8 | 15.6 | 17.4 | 104.3 | |
|
| −0.013 | 0.001 | 0.015 | 0.001 | 0.019 | 0.000 | −0.014 | 3.2 | 9.1 | 8.9 | 14.0 | 15.3 | 15.1 | 16.7 | 103.4 | |
|
| −0.026 | −0.014 | −0.011 | −0.007 | −0.002 | −0.015 | −0.030 | −0.017 | 6.4 | 6.8 | 12.8 | 12.7 | 12.7 | 15.0 | 102.8 | |
|
| 0.006 | −0.010 | 0.030* | 0.009 | 0.039 | 0.017 | 0.049* | 0.029 | 0.024 | 2.4 | 8.4 | 6.3 | 6.4 | 9.5 | 98.0 | |
|
| −0.014 | −0.014 | −0.021 | 0.005 | −0.007 | −0.007 | 0.005 | 0.011 | −0.008 | −0.013 | 6.4 | 6.7 | 6.3 | 8.3 | 96.4 | |
|
| −0.012 | −0.024 | −0.005 | −0.010 | −0.016 | −0.022 | −0.027 | −0.012 | −0.037 | 0.008 | −0.016 | 7.2 | 5.9 | 3.5 | 90.1 | |
|
| −0.001 | −0.017 | 0.013 | 0.027 | 0.030 | 0.020 | 0.032 | 0.030 | 0.010 | −0.022 | −0.006 | 0.013 | 1.4 | 5.8 | 93.2 | |
|
| 0.019 | 0.000 | 0.038* | 0.040 | 0.028 | 0.029 | 0.043 | 0.017 | 0.012 | 0.009 | 0.024 | 0.004 | 0.020 | 4.4 | 92.4 | |
|
| 0.004 | 0.015 | 0.023* | 0.029 * | 0.015 | 0.027* | 0.006 | 0.008 | −0.004 | 0.084* | 0.040* | 0.008 | 0.058* | 0.024 | 88.5 | |
|
| 0.023* | 0.064* | 0.070* | 0.033* | 0.091* | 0.050* | 0.021* | 0.041* | 0.020* | 0.114* | 0.081* | 0.045* | 0.089* | 0.136* | 0.064* |
1- Ressaca do Itú; 2- Ressaca do Curuçá; 3- Ressaca do Panema; 4- Lago do Apuí; 5- Lago Maciel Comprido; 6- Lago Samaumeirinha; 7- Lago Samaumeirinha do Jaraqui; 8- Lago Matá-Matá; 9- Lago Panelão; 10- Lago Jaraqui; 11- Lago Samaúma; 12- Cabeceira do Lago Baixo; 13- Lago Poção; 14- Cano do Cedrinho; 15- Lago Cedrinho; 16- Complexo Lago Preto (Maraã).
The pairwise Fst values are shown below the diagonal, and the distances between sites (in km) above the diagonal.
Asterisk (*) indicates as significant value at the 0.05 level after sequential Bonferroni adjustment for multiple comparisons.
Genetic and geographic distances between sites analyzed within the geographic range of the species (large scale.).
| Fst/geographic distance (in km) | |||||
| Population | Sample Size | Jarauá | Maraã | Santarém | Tucuruí |
| Jarauá | 314 | − | 105 | 1300 | 2150 |
| Maraã | 149 | 0.056* | − | 1450 | 2300 |
| Santarém | 60 | 0.146* | 0.138* | − | 850 |
| Tucuruí | 38 | 0.200* | 0.207* | 0.068* | − |
The pairwise Fst values are shown below the diagonal, and the distances between sites (in km) above the diagonal.
Asterisk (*) indicates as significant value at the 0.05 level.
Indices of genetic diversity for microsatellite markers.
| Locus | JARAUÁ (N = 314) | MARAA (N = 149) | SANTARÉM (N = 60) | TUCURUÍ (N = 38) | ||||||||||||
| Na | Â | Ho | He | Na | Â | Ho | He | Na | Â | Ho | He | Na | Â | Ho | He | |
| AgCTm4 | 3 | 2,997 | 0.308 | 0.313 | 3 | 2,952 | 0.486 | 0.425 | 4 | 3,785 | 0.308 | 0.313 | 2 | 2,000 | 0.500 | 0.520 |
| AgCTm7 | 10 | 7,258 | 0.752 | 0.771 | 8 | 7,240 | 0.817* | 0.780 | 6 | 5,770 | 0.752 | 0.771 | 5 | 4,996 | 0.622 | 0.652 |
| AgCAm2 | 12 | 8,535 | 0.718* | 0.769 | 7 | 5,173 | 0.739 | 0.700 | 9 | 8,604 | 0.718 | 0.769 | 3 | 3,000 | 0.324 | 0.482 |
| AgCAm15 | 8 | 6,404 | 0.653 | 0.654 | 8 | 5, 960 | 0.524 | 0.505 | 4 | 3,636 | 0.653 | 0.654 | 5 | 4,842 | 0.763 | 0.684 |
| AgCAm16 | 5 | 4,764 | 0.548 | 0.616 | 5 | 4,918 | 0.550* | 0.631 | 5 | 4,978 | 0.548 | 0.616 | 2 | 2,000 | 0.057 | 0.084 |
| AgCAm20 | 4 | 3,261 | 0.472 | 0.538 | 3 | 2,418 | 0.527 | 0.458 | 4 | 3,623 | 0.471* | 0.538 | 3 | 3,000 | 0.447* | 0.650 |
| AgCAm26 | 3 | 2,996 | 0.500 | 0.503 | 5 | 3,135 | 0.480* | 0.441 | 2 | 2,000 | 0.500 | 0.503 | 2 | 2,000 | 0.657 | 0.466 |
Na (number of alleles) ¸ Â (allelic richness), Ho (observed heterozygosis) and He (expected heterozygosis).
Asterisk * means significant values (p<0.01).
Figure 2Structure diagram showing the genetic contribution of each stock (ΔK = 2).
Each bar represents one individual and the colors green and red represent each stock identified in the present study.