| Literature DB >> 25568058 |
Jessica L Ward1, Mike J Blum2, David M Walters3, Brady A Porter4, Noel Burkhead5, Byron Freeman6.
Abstract
The erosion of species boundaries can involve rapid evolutionary change. Consequently, many aspects of the process remain poorly understood, including the formation, expansion, and evolution of hybrid swarms. Biological invasions involving hybridization present exceptional opportunities to study the erosion of species boundaries because timelines of interactions and outcomes are frequently well known. Here, we examined clinal variation across codominant and maternally inherited genetic markers as well as phenotypic traits to characterize the expansion and evolution of a hybrid swarm between native Cyprinella venusta and invasive Cyprinella lutrensis minnows. Discordant introgression of phenotype, microsatellite multilocus genotype, and mtDNA haplotype indicates that the observable expansion of the C. venusta × C. lutrensis hybrid swarm is a false invasion front. Both parental and hybrid individuals closely resembling C. lutrensis are numerically dominant in the expansion wake, indicating that the non-native parental phenotype may be selectively favored. These findings show that cryptic introgression can extend beyond the phenotypic boundaries of hybrid swarms and that hybrid swarms likely expand more rapidly than can be documented from phenotypic variation alone. Similarly, dominance of a single parental phenotype following an introduction event may lead to instances of species erosion being mistaken for species displacement without hybridization.Entities:
Keywords: Cyprinella; competition; hybrid zone; introgression; invasive species; selection
Year: 2012 PMID: 25568058 PMCID: PMC3353357 DOI: 10.1111/j.1752-4571.2012.00249.x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evol Appl ISSN: 1752-4571 Impact factor: 5.183
Figure 1Sampling locations along a 320-km transect of the Coosa River, Oostanaula River, and Conasauga River including the introduction point of invasive Cyprinella lutrensis (Lake Weiss) and upstream spread.
Summary data for 29 populations of Cyprinella in the Upper Coosa River Basin. Population numbers correspond with the numbers on Fig. 1
| Population | Latitude (N) | Longitude (W) | Phenotype | mtDNA | Microsatellite |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 33.997 | −85.881 | 15 | 35 | 35 |
| 2 | 34.113 | −85.853 | 36 | 176 | 177 |
| 3 | 34.091 | −85.744 | 17 | 26 | 26 |
| 4 | 34.165 | −85.396 | 10 | 11 | 11 |
| 5 | 34.251 | −85.381 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| 6 | 34.200 | −85.256 | 19 | 20 | 20 |
| 7 | 34.255 | −85.178 | 7 | 106 | 106 |
| 8 | 34.315 | −85.118 | 123 | 129 | 128 |
| 9 | 34.371 | −85.125 | 23 | 26 | 26 |
| 10 | 34.411 | −85.107 | 51 | 64 | 64 |
| 11 | 34.450 | −85.027 | 12 | 19 | 19 |
| 12 | 34.468 | −85.033 | 22 | 26 | 26 |
| 13 | 34.494 | −85.011 | 26 | 26 | 26 |
| 14 | 34.510 | −84.958 | 34 | 39 | 39 |
| 15 | 34.529 | −84.966 | 25 | 28 | 28 |
| 16 | 34.573 | −84.945 | 36 | 45 | 44 |
| 17 | 34.538 | −84.898 | 14 | 14 | 14 |
| 18 | 34.595 | −84.928 | 21 | 24 | 24 |
| 19 | 34.667 | −84.931 | 37 | 43 | 43 |
| 20 | 34.667 | −84.933 | 8 | 12 | 12 |
| 21 | 34.709 | −84.868 | 0 | 22 | 22 |
| 22 | 34.736 | −84.857 | 25 | 25 | 25 |
| 23 | 34.783 | −84.872 | 23 | 39 | 39 |
| 24 | 34.807 | −84.859 | 26 | 26 | 26 |
| 25 | 34.818 | −84.856 | 6 | 17 | 17 |
| 26 | 34.853 | −84.838 | 18 | 22 | 22 |
| 27 | 34.895 | −84.829 | 8 | 11 | 11 |
| 28 | 34.904 | −84.828 | 14 | 14 | 14 |
| 29 | 34.920 | −84.842 | 9 | 10 | 10 |
| Total | 670 | 1060 | 1059 | ||
Figure 2Proportion of parental Cyprinella venusta (BS), Cyprinella lutrensis (BS), and hybrid (F1, F2, BCR, and BCB) individuals at 29 sites along a 320-km region of the Coosa River and in two allopatric reference populations (C. venusta and C. lutrensis). For all individuals, admixture categories were determined based on Structure assignment values averaged over multiple runs.
Figure 4Integrative characterization of genetic and phenotypic data for Cyprinella individuals sampled from a 320-km transect of the Coosa River. Phenotype values represent individual principal components analysis (PCA) scores, and distance is shown as the cumulative distance away from the southern terminus of the transect. (A) Hybrids are phenotypically variable and are distributed across the ranges of parental phenotypic variation. (B) Dominant phenotype is strongly associated with mtDNA haplotype, irrespective of hybrid status.
Figure 3Clinal changes in frequencies of Cyprinella venusta phenotype, C. venusta mtDNA haplotypes, and C. venusta microsatellite multilocus genotype along a 320-km transect of the Coosa River. The vertical line represents the consensus cline center. Clinal parameters were estimated using Cfit and visualized using Analyse (Barton and Baird 1998). For graphical purposes, mean population phenotypic values have been scaled between 0 and 1.
Comparison of five models of the distribution of phenotypic traits in the zone of hybridization between Cyprinella lutrensis and Cyprinella venusta in the Coosa River
| Deviance | AIC | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Unimodal | 7 | 1699.54 | 1713.54 |
| Bimodal | 6 | 1378.84 | 1390.84 |
| Bimodal (with introgression) | 8 | 1411.90 | 1427.90 |
| Trimodal | |||
| Trimodal (with introgression | 14 | 1684.12 | 1712.12 |
AIC, Akaike’s Information Criterion.
The number of parameters estimated by each model is given as n. The best model (corresponding with the lowest AIC value) is highlighted in bold.
Comparison of genetic and phenotypic clines across the Cyprinella hybrid zone between unconstrained models (parameters are allowed to vary freely), and models wherein the cline center (c) or the cline width (w) have been constrained. All measures are expressed in kilometers. Cline centers are expressed as the fluvial distance from the southern terminus of the transect, corresponding to the area of Cyprinella lutrensis introduction
| Unconstrained | Center constrained | Width constrained | Both constrained | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Center | Width | Deviance | Deviance | Deviance | Deviance | ||||
| Phenotype | 105 | 250 | 1328.00 | 1329.68 | 0.19 | 1335.78 | 0.01 | 1336.14 | <0.01 |
| mtDNA | 103 | 323 | 1104.26 | 1106.28 | 0.16 | 1104.28 | 0.89 | 1106.84 | 0.11 |
| Multilocus genotype | 83 | 355 | 1945.42 | 1948.74 | 0.06 | 1947.94 | 0.11 | 1949.28 | 0.05 |
| 16 | 14 | 14 | 12 | ||||||
| AIC | 4412.70 | 4416.00 | 4416.26 | ||||||
AIC, Akaike’s Information Criterion.
The number of parameters is given by the number n. The best model is given in bold.