| Literature DB >> 27814382 |
Noemi Rojas-Hernandez1, David Veliz1, Marcela P Riveros2, Juan P Fuentes2, Luis M Pardo2,3.
Abstract
For marine invertebrates with a benthic adult form and a planktonic larva phase, the connectivity among populations is mainly based on larval dispersal. While an extended larval phase will promote gene flow, other factors such as an intensive fishery and geographical barriers could lead to changes in genetic variability. In this study, the population genetic structure of the commercial crab Metacarcinus edwardsii was analyzed along 700 km of the Chilean coast. The analysis, based on eight microsatellite loci genotyped from megalopae and adult crabs, considered temporal and spatial patterns of genetic variation. The results showed no evidence of spatial patterns in genetic structure, suggesting high connectivity among the sampling sites. The temporal analysis showed no evidence of changes in allele frequencies and no evidence of a recent bottleneck. The lack of spatial structure and allele variation over time could be explained by the interaction of factors such as i) low reproductive variance due to the capability of females to store sperm in the seminal receptacle, which can be used for successive broods, ii) high larval dispersal and iii) high individual reproductive output. Using our data as priors, a genetic modelling approach coincided, predicting this temporal and spatial stability. The same analysis showed that a reduction in population size leads to the loss of genetic variability in populations, as well as of the genetic cohesiveness between populations, pointing out the importance management for species under exploitation, such as M. edwardsii.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27814382 PMCID: PMC5096711 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0166029
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Metacarcinus edwardsii sampling sites.
Sample size by site and year.
| Group | Locality | Coordinates | Year | N | Code |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Adult | Los Molinos (LM) | 39°51′16.7″ S; 73°23′40.3″O | 2011 | 24 | LM 2011 |
| 2013 | 24 | LM 2013 | |||
| Dalcahue (DA) | 42°22′46.3″ S; 73°35′42.5″O | 2011 | 24 | DA 2011 | |
| 2013 | 24 | DA 2013 | |||
| Ancud (AN) | 41°50′59.8″ S; 73°51′32.5″O | 2012 | 37 | AN 2012 | |
| 2013 | 24 | AN 2013 | |||
| Calbuco (CA) | 41°45′47.1″ S; 73°05′20.1″O | 2012 | 16 | CA 2012 | |
| 2013 | 16 | CA 2013 | |||
| Quellón (QU) | 43°08′18.4″ S; 73°36′43.4″O | 2012 | 47 | QU 2012 | |
| 2013 | 29 | QU 2013 | |||
| Concepción (CO) | 36°21'6.75"S; 72°50'52.68"O | 2014 | 26 | CO 2014 | |
| Megalopae | Los Molinos (LM) | 39°51′16.7″ S; 73°23′40.3″O | 2009 | 35 | Megalopae 2009 |
| 2010 | 51 | Megalopae 2010 | |||
| 2011 | 37 | Megalopae 2011 | |||
| 2012 | 34 | Megalopae 2012 |
Fig 2Inference of the number of the genetic clusters estimated through the L(K).
(a.) adults collected from six localities. (b.) megalopae collected at Los Molinos. Each K represents the mean and standard deviation of five independent runs.
Nb and Ne estimated with ONeSAMP and NeEstimator for adults and megalopae collected from the different sampling sites and years.
| OneSamp | NeEstimator | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | Ne | Confidence interval | Ne | Confidence interval | ||
| Adult | DA 2011 | 24 | 475.17 | 264.83–1185.00 | 196.7 | 112.2–708.5 |
| DA 2013 | 19 | 205.45 | 109.81–512.36 | 49.4 | 35.4–79.2 | |
| LM 2011 | 18 | 132.37 | 76.73–280.68 | 78.2 | 56.4–124.2 | |
| LM 2013 | 23 | 16.68 | 12.88–22.55 | 44.8 | 33.5–65.9 | |
| AN 2012 | 35 | 38.23 | 30.30–49.25 | 323 | 190.5–987.3 | |
| AN 2013 | 22 | 20.43 | 15.64–27.94 | 155.2 | 94.7–400.8 | |
| QU 2012 | 32 | 196.77 | 133.64–334.86 | 359.9 | 205.5–1312.8 | |
| QU 2013 | 25 | 1574.59 | 643.27–5932.69 | 177.9 | 110.7–427.4 | |
| CA 2012 | 16 | 232.31 | 122.54–672.29 | 25.1 | 20.4–32.1 | |
| CA 2013 | 14 | 190.96 | 92.85–531.93 | 49.2 | 33.7–87.2 | |
| CO 2014 | 24 | 148.35 | 89.59–289.64 | 40.1 | 34–48.4 | |
| Megalopa larvae | Megalopae 2009 | 25 | 61.28 | 42.39–92.39 | ∞ | 226.8 - ∞ |
| Megalopae 2010 | 38 | 153.30 | 95.09–256.62 | 571.2 | 194.7 - ∞ | |
| Megalopae 2011 | 23 | 315.32 | 155.67–909.01 | 1345 | 122.1 - ∞ | |
| Megalopae 2012 | 29 | 10.85 | 9.05–13.04 | 118.2 | 65.5–488.3 | |
| All (≈Ne) | 111 | 198.58 | 167.62–239.01 | ∞ | ∞ | |
Number of migrants per generation (with 95% CI) of Metacarcinus edwardsii by sampling site.
| From/to | LM | DA | AN | CA | QU | CO |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LM | 2.964 (3.175–3.590) | 1.350 (1.490–1.638) | 2.541 (2.736–3.083) | 1.512 (1.659–1.815) | 1.528 (1.671–1.823) | |
| DA | 3.246 (3.040–3.461) | 2.549 (2.740–2.941) | 1.091 (1.180–1.316) | 2.457 (2.645–3.022) | 1.434 (1.573–1.721) | |
| AN | 1.066 (0.882–1.315) | 3.036 (3.249–3.472) | 1.867 (2.034–2.381) | 1.421 (1.564–1.716) | 2.016 (2.180–2.353) | |
| CA | 2.920 (2.723–3.125) | 1.276 (1.415–1.564) | 1.970 (2.138–2.315) | 2.279 (2.460–2.650) | 1.373 (1.508–1.738) | |
| QU | 1.339 (1.208–1.479) | 2.753 (2.956–3.169) | 1.242 (1.377–1.630) | 2.657 (2.8567–3.215) | 1.666 (1.815–1.973) | |
| CO | 1.8186 (1.665–1.981) | 1.200 (1.335–1.635) | 2.412 (2.598–2.794) | 1.704 (1.864–2.243) | 1.580 (1.822–2.065) |
Fig 3Changes in F
Fig 4Reduction in the number of alleles per locus estimated for the simulation of six populations as a function of the population size and migration rate, data after a) 100, b) 50 and c) 10 generations.