| Literature DB >> 23789084 |
Kenza Mokhtar-Jamaï1, Rafel Coma, Jinliang Wang, Frederic Zuberer, Jean-Pierre Féral, Didier Aurelle.
Abstract
Dispersal and mating features strongly influence the evolutionary dynamics and the spatial genetic structure (SGS) of marine populations. For the first time in a marine invertebrate, we examined individual reproductive success, by conducting larval paternity assignments after a natural spawning event, combined with a small-scale SGS analysis within a population of the gorgonian Paramuricea clavata. Thirty four percent of the larvae were sired by male colonies surrounding the brooding female colonies, revealing that the bulk of the mating was accomplished by males from outside the studied area. Male success increased with male height and decreased with increasing male to female distance. The parentage analyses, with a strong level of self-recruitment (25%), unveiled the occurrence of a complex family structure at a small spatial scale, consistent with the limited larval dispersal of this species. However, no evidence of small scale SGS was revealed despite this family structure. Furthermore, temporal genetic structure was not observed, which appears to be related to the rather large effective population size. The low level of inbreeding found suggests a pattern of random mating in this species, which disagrees with expectations that limited larval dispersal should lead to biparental inbreeding. Surface brooding and investment in sexual reproduction in P. clavata contribute to multiple paternity (on average 6.4 fathers were assigned per brood), which enhance genetic diversity of the brood. Several factors may have contributed to the lack of biparental inbreeding in our study such as (i) the lack of sperm limitation at a small scale, (ii) multiple paternity, and (iii) the large effective population size. Thus, our results indicate that limited larval dispersal and complex family structure do not necessarily lead to biparental inbreeding and SGS. In the framework of conservation purposes, our results suggested that colony size, proximity among colonies and the population size should be taken into consideration for restoration projects.Entities:
Keywords: Gamete and larval dispersal; mating system; microsatellites; natural spawning event; parentage analyses
Year: 2013 PMID: 23789084 PMCID: PMC3686208 DOI: 10.1002/ece3.588
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ecol Evol ISSN: 2045-7758 Impact factor: 2.912
Figure 1Surface brooding in Paramuricea clavata. Just after spawning oocytes and mucus are spread over the surface of female colonies [(A), picture from J.-G. Harmelin]. Short after spawning (min) the oocytes and the mucus form masses mainly on the upper part of the colonies [(B), picture from R. Coma].
Figure 2(A) Map of the studied site and (B) localization of the 100 colonies of Paramuricea clavata.
Number of analyzed larvae per brood and paternity assignments results with COLONY software for the 12 broods
| A3-1 | A3-2 | A7 | A10 | B4 | C5 | D1 | H3 | J4-1 | J4-2 | K1 | K9 | Total | Mean per brood ± SD | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of analyzed larvae | 29 | 32 | 30 | 30 | 31 | 30 | 31 | 34 | 36 | 38 | 33 | 31 | 385 | 32.08 ± 2.71 |
| Number of assigned larvae | 18 | 12 | 15 | 10 | 20 | 13 | 7 | 5 | 9 | 7 | 6 | 10 | 132 | 11.00 ± 4.77 |
| % of assigned larvae | 62.07 | 37.50 | 50.00 | 33.33 | 64.52 | 43.33 | 22.58 | 14.71 | 25.00 | 18.42 | 18.18 | 32.26 | / | 35.16 ± 16.89 |
| Number of assigned father | 9 | 7 | 9 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 7 | / | 6.42 ± 1.38 |
| % of full-sibling among larvae | 7.14 | 2.62 | 4.14 | 2.99 | 15.91 | 5.52 | 1.94 | 8.73 | 10.32 | 12.94 | 2.65 | 3.66 | 6.55 ± 4.55 |
Parameters of genetic diversity for the 12 broods, putative parental population (based on five microsatellite loci) and all the colonies (based on six microsatellite loci)
| Parameter | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sample | ||||
| Based on 5 loci | ||||
| Parental population | 0.69 | 0.70 | 10.29 | 0.46 |
| A3-1 brood | 0.77 | 0.68 | 7.22 | 0.19 |
| A3-2 brood | 0.77 | 0.67 | 7.17 | 0.15 |
| A7 brood | 0.71 | 0.62 | 6.65 | 0.06 |
| A10 brood | 0.71 | 0.63 | 7.92 | 0.47 |
| B4 brood | 0.66 | 0.6 | 7.39 | 0.19 |
| C5 brood | 0.71 | 0.74 | 6.82 | 0 |
| D1 brood | 0.66 | 0.60 | 7.24 | 0.07 |
| H3 brood | 0.73 | 0.61 | 6.14 | 0 |
| J4-1 brood | 0.50 | 0.48 | 6.12 | 0 |
| J4-2 brood | 0.57 | 0.51 | 7.12 | 0.30 |
| K1 brood | 0.68 | 0.67 | 7.46 | 0.27 |
| K9 brood | 0.55 | 0.49 | 6.36 | 0.13 |
| Based on 6 loci | ||||
| All colonies | 0.74 | 0.74 | 14.82 | / |
Ho, observed heterozygosity; He, unbiased expected heterozygosity; Ar and Ap, rarefied allelic and private allelic richness, respectively.
Figure 3Summary of the results of multiple regressions. Proportion of female colonies on which male height and male distance to female colonies had significant effect as a function of the mean distance classes between male and female colonies (cm).
Results of parentage assignments with COLONY software among the 100 colonies
| CO | C1 | C2 | C3 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| % of full sibship | 0.49 | 0.90 | 0.31 | 0 |
| % of colonies involved in a full sibship | 13.79 | 32.43 | 7.69 | 0 |
| % of maternal half sibship | 5.91 | 5.56 | 7.69 | 14.29 |
| % of colonies involved in a maternal half sibship | 86.21 | 89.19 | 96.15 | 62.50 |
| % of paternal half sibship | 6.40 | 5.26 | 6.77 | 14.29 |
| % of colonies involved in a paternal half sibship | 96.55 | 94.59 | 92.31 | 62.50 |
| % of half sibship | 12.31 | 10.82 | 14.46 | 28.58 |
| % of colonies involved in a half sibship | 96.55 | 100 | 100 | 87.50 |
| Number of mother–offspring dyads | 14 | |||
| Number of father–offspring dyads | 11 |
Pairwise FST: (A) among parental population and broods (based on five microsatellite loci) and (B) among the four stage classes (based on six microsatellite loci)
| (A) | Parental population | A3-1 | A3-2 | A7 | A10 | B4 | C5 | D1 | H3 | J4-1 | J4-2 | K1 | K9 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Parental population | |||||||||||||
| A3-1 | 0.006 | ||||||||||||
| A3-2 | |||||||||||||
| A7 | |||||||||||||
| A10 | |||||||||||||
| B4 | |||||||||||||
| C5 | |||||||||||||
| D1 | |||||||||||||
| H3 | |||||||||||||
| J4-1 | 0.006 | ||||||||||||
| J4-2 | |||||||||||||
| K1 | |||||||||||||
| K9 |
Significant values after false discovery rate (FDR) are in bold.
Figure 4Correlogram (—•—) of the spatial autocorrelation analysis of Moran's I relationship coefficient (MI) over 26 distance categories. The 95% confidence intervals are represented.