| Literature DB >> 26136823 |
Josephine R Paris1, R Andrew King1, Jamie R Stevens1.
Abstract
Humans have exploited the earth's metal resources for thousands of years leaving behind a legacy of toxic metal contamination and poor water quality. The southwest of England provides a well-defined example, with a rich history of metal mining dating to the Bronze Age. Mine water washout continues to negatively impact water quality across the region where brown trout (Salmo trutta L.) populations exist in both metal-impacted and relatively clean rivers. We used microsatellites to assess the genetic impact of mining practices on trout populations in this region. Our analyses demonstrated that metal-impacted trout populations have low genetic diversity and have experienced severe population declines. Metal-river trout populations are genetically distinct from clean-river populations, and also from one another, despite being geographically proximate. Using approximate Bayesian computation (ABC), we dated the origins of these genetic patterns to periods of intensive mining activity. The historical split of contemporary metal-impacted populations from clean-river fish dated to the Medieval period. Moreover, we observed two distinct genetic populations of trout within a single catchment and dated their divergence to the Industrial Revolution. Our investigation thus provides an evaluation of contemporary population genetics in showing how human-altered landscapes can change the genetic makeup of a species.Entities:
Keywords: DIYABC; anthropogenic; genetic diversity; metal contamination; microsatellite; mining activity; population structure
Year: 2015 PMID: 26136823 PMCID: PMC4479513 DOI: 10.1111/eva.12266
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evol Appl ISSN: 1752-4571 Impact factor: 5.183
Figure 1Geographic location of the populations sampled. Site codes correspond to those given in Table S1. Black squares represent clean sites, and black circles represent metal-contaminated sites. The enlarged map shows the sites on the Red River and the River Hayle.
Measures of population genetic parameters for each population using 23 microsatellite loci
| Population |
|
|
|
|
| Wilcoxon TPM | M-ratio |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CAM1 | 49 | 47 | 9.89 | 0.77 | 0.75 | ns | 0.59 |
| CAM2 | 44 | 44 | 11.15 | 0.78 | 0.79 | 0.003 | 0.61 |
| GAN1 | 50 | 49 | 9.51 | 0.75 | 0.76 | ns | 0.56 |
| GAN2 | 50 | 45 | 8.92 | 0.74 | 0.73 | 0.052 | 0.58 |
| FAL | 47 | 42 | 10.25 | 0.78 | 0.77 | ns | 0.61 |
| TRES | 48 | 46 | 10.01 | 0.76 | 0.75 | ns | 0.60 |
| RR1 | 45 | 41 | 6.87 | 0.70 | 0.70 | 0.000 | 0.50 |
| RR2 | 41 | 40 | 7.79 | 0.70 | 0.69 | 0.008 | 0.57 |
| HAY1 | 44 | 43 | 6.20 | 0.62 | 0.62 | 0.015 | 0.47 |
| HAY2 | 48 | 39 | 6.23 | 0.61 | 0.61 | 0.006 | 0.49 |
| HAY3 | 48 | 42 | 6.68 | 0.65 | 0.65 | 0.019 | 0.50 |
| HAY4 | 37 | 27 | 6.34 | 0.63 | 0.64 | ns | 0.50 |
| CRO | 49 | 46 | 6.96 | 0.65 | 0.68 | 0.011 | 0.51 |
| TREV1 | 50 | 45 | 9.36 | 0.74 | 0.74 | ns | 0.58 |
| TREV2 | 50 | 45 | 7.30 | 0.70 | 0.70 | ns | 0.52 |
N1—number of sampled individuals, N2—number of individuals after full-sib removal, AR —allelic richness, HE—expected heterozygosity, HO—observed heterozygosity, (i) Wilcoxon one-tail test results from BOTTLENECK, (ii) average M from M-ratio.
Figure 2(A and B) Hierarchical STRUCTURE analyses showing estimated proportions of the coefficient of admixture of each individual's genome that originated from population K. (A) Primary STRUCTURE plot of all populations (K = 3). (B) From left to right; in green: hierarchical plot, where K = 4; in red: hierarchical plot, where K = 2; in blue: hierarchical plot, where K = 3. (C) Neighbor-joining phenogram, based on Cavalli-Sforza and Edwards chord distance (DCE) showing the relationships between 15 populations of brown trout. Bootstrap values (% based on 1000 replicates) are show next to relevant branches; only bootstraps >90% are shown in the figure. Colors for each population match those presented in A and B.
Median values and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for DIYABC parameters for Scenario 1, Group 2 (See Fig. S1 for scenario topography).Values are in generations
| Parameter | Median | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Nclean | 9220 | 7670–9930 |
| NRed river | 3270 | 1430–6870 |
| NCrowlas,Trevaylor | 5640 | 2960–8680 |
| NHayle Downstream | 1400 | 605–3590 |
| NHayle Upstream | 2900 | 1100–6900 |
| t1Hayle split | 38.9 | 15.3–156 |
| t2Clean-metal split | 240 | 96.5–730 |
| DBRed river | 165 | 27.2–288 |
| N2Red river | 4950 | 588–9480 |
| DBCrowlas,Trevaylor | 159 | 24.9–286 |
| N2Crowlas,Trevaylor | 5430 | 748–9570 |
| DBHayle | 180 | 29.6–290 |
| N2Hayle | 4570 | 485–9430 |
| 5.34 × 10−4 | 3.23 × 10−4 to 8.71 × 10−4 |
N = effective population size after bottleneck, N2 = effective population size before bottleneck, DB = duration of bottleneck. μmic = mean mutation rate.