| Literature DB >> 27911911 |
Xiaoyan Li1, Yuanping Deng1, Kun Yang1, Weixiong Gan2, Rukui Zeng2, Longjun Deng2, Zhaobin Song1,3.
Abstract
Percocypris pingi is a near threatened cyprinid species, which has suffered a dramatic decline due to anthropogenic factors. As one response to this decline, hatchery release for P. pingi has been conducted in the lower reaches of the Yalong River since 2012. To understand the conservation status of this species and the potential impact of the release of hatchery-reared fish, we studied the genetic diversity and population structure of wild and hatchery populations of P. pingi. Two hatchery populations (Jinping [JPH] and Ya'an [YAH]) and two wild populations (Muli [MLW] and Woluo [WLW]) of P. pingi were analyzed based on microsatellite markers and the mitochondrial DNA control region. The results showed that P. pingi possesses moderate levels of genetic diversity, with observed heterozygosities ranging from 0.657 to 0.770 and nucleotide diversities ranging from 0.00212 to 0.00491. Our results also suggested WLW harbors considerable proportions of genetic diversity in this species and serves as a refuge for P. pingi during anthropogenic disturbance, thus playing an important role for the conservation of P. pingi populations. Microsatellite and mitochondrial markers both indicated close genetic relationships between YAH and MLW, JPH and WLW, respectively. The results to some extent reflected the geographical provenances for original broodstocks of the two hatchery populations, which provide some practical guidance for hatchery release of P. pingi. The existence of remarkable genetic divergence distributed along limited geographical range (approximately 10 kilometers) suggests the two wild populations should be regarded at least as two distinct evolutionary significant units (ESUs) and management units (MUs). Considering reduced intra-population genetic variation in hatchery population for release and significant genetic compositions of the two hatchery populations, some appropriate breeding strategies were proposed to benefit conservation of P. pingi.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27911911 PMCID: PMC5135059 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0166769
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1The sampling locations of wild P. pingi in this study.
Curved arrows, flow direction of the rivers; solid circles, sample sites; rectangles, hydropower dams (1 = the Jinping I dam, located approximately 17.5 km downstream from the Yalong River and Muli River confluence; 2 = the Jinping II dam, located 7.5 km downstream from the Jinping I dam); hollow circles, release sites for hatchery-reared P. pingi; dotted lines, boundaries between different river flows. Base maps are available from NFGIS (national fundamental geographic information system http://nfgis.nsdi.gov.cn/).
Genetic diversity of four P. pingi populations inferred as from two kinds of markers.
| Populations | Microsatellite | mtDNA | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YAH | 33 | 9.25 | 2.763 | 0.740 | 0.751 | 0.701 | 0.724 | 0.225 | 6 | 0.67992 | 0.00491 | 0.96642 | 3.30335 |
| JPH | 41 | 10.50 | 2.821 | 0.770 | 0.815 | 0.760 | 0.793 | 0.103 | 6 | 0.27317 | 0.00324 | - 1.76785 | 2.26913 |
| MLW | 40 | 9.167 | 2.496 | 0.657 | 0.726 | 0.678 | 0.698 | 0.262 | 13 | 0.69231 | 0.00212 | - 0.83499 | - 6.79958 |
| WLW | 65 | 11.75 | 2.734 | 0.740 | 0.820 | 0.765 | 0.801 | 0.275 | 15 | 0.59712 | 0.00306 | - 1.00333 | - 1.80300 |
N number of individuals analyzed, A mean number of alleles per population, A allelic richness, H observed heterozygosity, H expected heterozygosity under random chromosomal segregation, H expected heterozygosity under random chromatid segregation, PIC polymorphic information content, F inbreeding coefficients per population, h number of haplotypes, H haplotype diversity, π nucleotide diversity, F Fu’s (Fs) values, D Tajima’s (D) values
* P < 0.05
** P < 0.01.
Analysis of molecular variance (AMOVA) among four populations of P. pingi.
| Source of variation | Microsatellite | mtDNA control region | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| d | Sum of squares | Variance components | Variation(%) | Findex | d | Sum of squares | Variance components | Variation(%) | Findex | |||
| Among group (%) | 1 | 85.250 | -0.34452 Va | -3.54 | >0.05 | 1 | 15.532 | 0.6138Va | -24.27 | >0.05 | ||
| Among population (%) | 2 | 278.911 | 1.52055 Vb | 15.64 | <0.05 | 2 | 132.121 | 1.4964 Vb | 59.16 | <0.05 | ||
| Within population (%) | 354 | 3026.395 | 8.54914 Vc | 87.91 | <0.05 | 175 | 288.196 | 1.6468 Vc | 65.11 | <0.05 | ||
Pairwise genetic differentiation among the four populations of P. pingi, ɸ from control region (below diagonal) and F from microsatellites (above diagonal).
| YAH | JPH | MLW | WLW | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| YAH | 0.196 | 0.170 | 0.161 | |
| J PH | 0.20978 | 0.183 | 0.026 | |
| MLW | 0.30063 | 0.65377 | 0.116 | |
| WLW | 0.09524 | 0.02975 | 0.55210 |
* P < 0.05
** P < 0.01.
Fig 2The neighbor-joining dendrogram of four populations of P. pingi based on microsatellite (a) and mtDNA control region (b).
Fig 3Results of Bayesian analysis (STRUCTURE) of P. pingi populations based on K = 2.
Each column represents one individual and the colors represent the probability membership coefficient of that individual for each genetic cluster.
Fig 4Haplotype network for 29 haplotypes of P. pingi, based on the median-joining algorithm.
Circle sizes are proportional to haplotype frequency.