| Literature DB >> 24255814 |
Joaquín Muñoz1, Francisco Amat, Andy J Green, Jordi Figuerola, Africa Gómez.
Abstract
Since Darwin's time, waterbirds have been considered an important vector for the dispersal of continental aquatic invertebrates. Bird movements have facilitated the worldwide invasion of the American brine shrimp Artemia franciscana, transporting cysts (diapausing eggs), and favouring rapid range expansions from introduction sites. Here we address the impact of bird migratory flyways on the population genetic structure and phylogeography of A. franciscana in its native range in the Americas. We examined sequence variation for two mitochondrial gene fragments (COI and 16S for a subset of the data) in a large set of population samples representing the entire native range of A. franciscana. Furthermore, we performed Mantel tests and redundancy analyses (RDA) to test the role of flyways, geography and human introductions on the phylogeography and population genetic structure at a continental scale. A. franciscana mitochondrial DNA was very diverse, with two main clades, largely corresponding to Pacific and Atlantic populations, mirroring American bird flyways. There was a high degree of regional endemism, with populations subdivided into at least 12 divergent, geographically restricted and largely allopatric mitochondrial lineages, and high levels of population structure (Φ ST of 0.92), indicating low ongoing gene flow. We found evidence of human-mediated introductions in nine out of 39 populations analysed. Once these populations were removed, Mantel tests revealed a strong association between genetic variation and geographic distance (i.e., isolation-by-distance pattern). RDA showed that shared bird flyways explained around 20% of the variance in genetic distance between populations and this was highly significant, once geographic distance was controlled for. The variance explained increased to 30% when the factor human introduction was included in the model. Our findings suggest that bird-mediated transport of brine shrimp propagules does not result in substantial ongoing gene flow; instead, it had a significant historical role on the current species phylogeography, facilitating the colonisation of new aquatic environments as they become available along their main migratory flyways.Entities:
Keywords: 16S rDNA; Bird migration; COI; Continental colonization; Isolation-by-distance; Migratory flyways; Passive dispersal
Year: 2013 PMID: 24255814 PMCID: PMC3828609 DOI: 10.7717/peerj.200
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PeerJ ISSN: 2167-8359 Impact factor: 2.984
Artemia franciscana populations sampled.
Population code, year of sampling, COI haplotype code, number of individuals per haplotype per population (NHAP) and number of individuals sequenced per population (NTOTAL), are given for each sampling site. Hs, Standard gene diversity; π, Nucleotide diversity; N.A., Insufficient data to calculate Hs (the minimum sample size per population performed by RAREFAC was 11). The main commercialised USA populations (i.e., SFB and GSL) and haplotypes from these populations shared with other populations are shown in red. Populations considered as introduced are indicated in bold. Only populations collected as part of this study are included.
| Code | Population (year) | COI haplotypes |
|
|
| π | Refs. for introduction |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MexCe | Celestún, Yucatán, México (1984) | Af01 | 15 | 15 | 0.000 | 0.0000 | - |
| Mex99 | Real de las Salinas, | Af01 | 14 | 14 | 0.000 | 0.0000 | - |
| MexY | Yavaros, Sonora, | Af02; Af03 | 1; 11 | 12 | 0.167 | 0.0003 | - |
| MexH | Salinas de Hidalgo, | Af04; Af05; Af06; Af07; Af08; Af09 | 1; 1; 1; 2; 3; 3 | 11 | 0.873 | 0.0091 | - |
|
| Texcoco, Estado de | Af07; Af08; Af09; Af10; Af11 | 1; 2; 7; 1; 2 | 13 | 0.705 | 0.0099 | Introduced from SFB in 1975 ( |
| MexCB | Salinas Casa Blanca, | Af12; Af13; Af14; Af15; Af16; Af17 | 2; 6; 1; 3; 3; 1 | 16 | 0.817 | 0.0023 | - |
|
| La Colorada lagoon, | Af18; Af19; Af20; Af21 | 3; 1; 8; 2 | 14 | 0.648 | 0.0041 | - |
|
| San Quintín, Baja | Af10; Af22; Af23; | 12; 1; 1 | 14 | 0.275 | 0.0005 | - |
|
| Faro San José, Baja | Af01; Af10; Af24 | 1; 2; 1 | 4 | N.A. | 0.0226 | - |
|
| Frank País, | Af10; Af20; Af25 | 6; 1; 9 | 16 | 0.575 | 0.0019 | Introduced in the 70’s in 7 saltworks, ( |
| GSL | Great Salt Lake, | Af10; Af18; Af20; Af21; Af26; Af27 | 1; 2; 21; 2; 2; 1 | 29 | 0.475 | 0.0028 | - |
| SFB | San Francisco Bay, | Af10; Af18; Af20; Af25 | 26; 6; 4; 1 | 37 | 0.480 | 0.0033 | - |
| USSF | Salina Fraternidad, | Af28; Af29 | 12; 4 | 16 | 0.400 | 0.0007 | - |
| USSB | Laguna de las Salinas | Af28; Af30; Af31; Af32; Af33; Af34 | 6; 4; 1; 1; 1; 1 | 14 | 0.769 | 0.0017 | - |
| MANW | Little Manitou Lake, | Af35; Af36 | 8; 1 | 9 | N.A. | 0.0004 | - |
| CMUS | Muskiki Lake, | Af35; Af37; Af38 | 12; 1; 1 | 14 | 0.275 | 0.0005 | - |
| CHAP | Chaplin Lake, | Af39; Af40; Af41; Af42; Af43 | 11; 1; 1; 2; 1 | 16 | 0.533 | 0.0027 | - |
| CMEA | Meacham Lake, | Af35; Af44; Af45; Af46; Af47 | 26; 1; 1; 1; 1 | 30 | 0.253 | 0.0005 | - |
|
| Mossoro, Grossos, | Af10 | 11 | 11 | 0.000 | 0.0000 | Introduced in 1977 from SFB ( |
| CGZ | Salinas de Galerazamba, Colombia (1985) | Af48; Af49; Af50 | 1; 8; 7 | 16 | 0.592 | 0.0017 | - |
| CM | Salinas de Manaure, Colombia (1999) | Af51; Af52 | 15; 1 | 16 | 0.125 | 0.0002 | - |
| CSC | Salina Cero, | Af49; Af50; Af53; Af54; Af55 | 8; 4; 1; 1; 1 | 15 | 0.676 | 0.0015 | - |
| CT | Tayrona, | Af56; Af57; Af58 | 9; 4; 2 | 15 | 0.590 | 0.0023 | - |
| PPS | Playa Salinas, Ancash, Perú (1995) | Af59; Af60; Af61; Af62; Af63 | 6; 2; 1; 3; 1 | 13 | 0.756 | 0.0023 | - |
| PLC | Los Chimus, | Af59; Af64 | 14; 1 | 15 | 0.133 | 0.0002 | - |
| PV | Virrilla, Piura, | Af65 | 16 | 16 | 0.000 | 0.0000 | - |
| PVe | Humedales de Ventanilla, Callao, Perú (1996) | Af59; Af61; Af66; Af67 | 8; 1; 6; 1 | 16 | 0.642 | 0.0020 | - |
| PLM | La Milagrosa, Chilca, | Af68; Af69 | 14; 2 | 16 | 0.233 | 0.0004 | - |
| VEC | Salinas de Cumaraguas, Venezuela (1994) | Af51; Af70; Af71 | 10; 4; 1 | 15 | 0.514 | 0.0009 | - |
|
| Yallahs Pond, | Af18; Af19 | 15; 1 | 16 | 0.125 | 0.0002 | Known since 1992, morphology extremely similar to SFB ( |
| CHSL | Salar de Llamará, | Af72; Af73; Af74; Af75 | 5; 1; 1; 2 | 9 | N.A. | 0.0014 | |
|
| Laguna Cejas, | Af18 | 16 | 16 | 0.000 | 0.0000 | |
| CHLV | Los Vilos, Poza Palo | Af76; Af77 | 6; 10 | 16 | 0.500 | 0.0008 | |
|
| Pichilemu Cahuil | Af18; Af78 | 8; 8 | 16 | 0.533 | 0.0103 | Reportedly introduced by artisanal workers ( |
| CHP | Poza Pampilla IV Region, | Af79; Af80 | 14; 1 | 15 | 0.133 | 0.0048 | - |
| AMC | Mar Chiquita, Córdoba, | Af81 | 16 | 16 | 0.000 | 0.0000 | - |
| ASG | Salinas Grandes, | Af72; Af73; Af74; Af82; Af83; Af84; Af85 | 7; 1; 1; 1; 1; 1; 1 | 13 | 0.731 | 0.0018 | - |
| AMON | Mono Lake | Af87; Af88; Af89; Af90; Af91; Af92 | 1; 1; 1; 7; 1; 1 | 12 | 0.682 | 0.0016 | - |
| PLU | Pedra de Lume, Sal Island, | Af86; Af93 | 15; 1 | 16 | 0.125 | 0.0002 | - |
Figure 1Map of Artemia franciscana sampled sites and American bird migratory flyways.
The sampled populations are shown, with indication of the main American migratory flyways following Birdlife International (see text for details). Green shading: Pacific flyway, red shading: Central flyway, blue shading, Atlantic flyway.
Figure 2Phylogenetic relationships of native Artemia franciscana COI haplotypes.
The tree topology is the one obtained in the NJ analysis, with bootstrap values shown for NJ (below branches) and ML (above branches). Haplotypes found in the commercialised populations SFB and GSL are marked in red. Haplotype numbers and populations where these were found are noted at the tips. Each lineage label indicates which countries it is found in and its overlap with the Pacific, Atlantic or Central migratory flyways (P, A or C respectively).
Figure 3Geographic distribution of Artemia franciscana mtDNA lineages.
The distribution of each COI lineage is shown as areas with the same colour coding as in Fig. 2. Disjunct areas are linked by lines. Introduced populations are denoted by a grey bucket. Only populations sampled for this study are included. Empty circles denote unsampled A. franciscana populations.
Genetic divergence between Artemia franciscana mtDNA lineages using COI data.
Genetic Distance K2P + G estimated with MEGA between lineages. Genetic distances higher than (or equal to) 4% (0.04) are marked in bold.
| Lineage (distribution) | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 (USA + introduced) | - | ||||||||||
| 2 (NE Mexico) | 0.024 | - | |||||||||
| 3 (Perú) | 0.020 | 0.029 | - | ||||||||
| 4 (C Mexico) | 0.018 | 0.031 | 0.027 | - | |||||||
| 5 (C Chile) | 0.023 | 0.033 | 0.031 | 0.023 | - | ||||||
| 6 (NE Mexico) | 0.026 | 0.038 | 0.038 | 0.028 | 0.028 | - | |||||
| 7 (C Chile) | 0.032 |
| 0.032 | 0.032 | 0.032 | 0.039 | - | ||||
| 8 (Canada) | 0.020 | 0.034 | 0.029 | 0.019 | 0.025 | 0.029 | 0.031 | - | |||
| 9 (Puerto Rico) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| - | ||
| 10 (Cape Verde) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 0.032 | 0.023 | - | |
| 11 (Yucatán, Colombia…) | 0.035 |
|
| 0.033 |
|
|
| 0.023 | 0.038 | 0.034 | - |
| 12 (Argentina, Chile) | 0.037 |
|
| 0.037 |
|
|
| 0.025 |
| 0.036 | 0.020 |
Figure 4Phylogenetic relationships for native Artemia franciscana 16S haplotypes.
The topology obtained in the NJ analysis is shown, with bootstrap values for NJ (below branches) and ML (above branches). Haplotypes found in the commercialised populations SFB and GSL are marked in red. Bold sequences are those produced in this study and italics those from GenBank. The number of individuals sequenced in each location (unless one) is in parenthesis.
Figure 5Isolation by distance in native Artemia franciscana populations.
Genetic distance (Φ, using Kimura 2-Parameter as evolutionary model, see Table S2) vs. geographical distance (Log geographical distance in km), showing the RMA regression line.
Redundancy analyses (RDA) assessing the contribution of spatial (geographical coordinates of populations) and environmental factors to the genetic distance between Artemia franciscana populations.
Explained variance (%) for three RDAs with different environmental variables is given in separate columns. The first RDA included flyway and human introduction as environmental variables, while the others considered only flyway or introduction. Results are given for flyway assignments made according to Boere & Stroud (2006) and Birdlife International (http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/userfiles/file/sowb/flyways/) (see Table S2 for matrix details).
| Source of variation | Flyway + introduction | Flyway | Introduction |
|---|---|---|---|
| Space | 8.2/8.7 | 8.3/10.2 | 10.8 |
| Environment | 31.2/30.6 | 21.2/18.7 | 15.6 |
| Environment/Space interaction | 2.4/1.8 | 2.3/0.4 | 0.0 |