| Literature DB >> 28646131 |
Gaetano Catanese1,2, Romain Watteaux1, Iratxe Montes3, Marco Barra4, Paola Rumolo4, Diego Borme5, Bruno Buongiorno Nardelli4, Vincenzo Botte4, Maria Grazia Mazzocchi1, Simona Genovese4, Iole Di Capua1, Mikel Iriondo3, Andone Estonba3, Paolo Ruggeri6,7, Valentina Tirelli5, Vincenzo Caputo-Barucchi6, Gualtiero Basilone4, Angelo Bonanno8, Daniele Iudicone9, Gabriele Procaccini10.
Abstract
Anchovies represent the largest world's marine fish catches and the current threats on their populations impose a sustainable exploitment based on sound scientific information. In the European anchovy (Engraulis encrasicolus), the existence of several populations has been proposed but a global view is missing. Using a multidisciplinary approach, here we assessed the divergence among different ecotypes and its possible causes. SNPs have revealed two functionally distinct ecotypes overlapping in the Central Mediterranean, with one ecotype confined near the river estuaries. The same SNPs outliers also segregated two distinct populations in the near Atlantic, despite their large spatial distance. In addition, while most studies suggested that adaptation to low salinity is key to divergence, here we show that the offshore ecotype has higher environmental tolerance and an opportunistic feeding behaviour, as assessed by the study of environmental conditions, anchovy diet and trophic levels, and passive egg dispersal. These results provide insights into the anchovy evolutionary history, stressing the importance of behaviour in shaping ecotypes.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28646131 PMCID: PMC5482869 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-03926-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Sampling informations: locations, number of anchovy (adults and egg) analysed (N), latitude, longitude, sampling date, percentage of genotypes coastal (C), offshore (O) and putative hybrids (h) for each sampling site. GSA: Geographical Sub-Areas of the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM).
| ID | N | LATITUDE | LONGITUDE | DATE | % C/O/h | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
|
| ||||||
| Castellammare del Golfo* | GCM | 30 | 38°06′N | 13°01′E | May-13 | 0/70/30 |
| Termini Imerese* | TRM | 24 | 38°02′N | 13°36′E | May-13 | 4/88/13 |
| Paola | PAO | 30 | 39°16′N | 16°01′E | Jun-13 | 7/63/30 |
| Diamante* | DIA | 30 | 39°36′N | 15°46′E | Jun-13 | 7/67/27 |
| Capaccio* | CAP | 30 | 40°27′N | 14°52′E | Jun-13 | 27/33/40 |
| Cetara | CET | 30 | 40°37′N | 14°43′E | May-13 | 0/87/13 |
| Napoli* | NAP | 30 | 40°44′N | 14°17′E | Jun-13 | 3/63/33 |
| Castel Volturno* | CVL | 30 | 41°01′N | 13°49′E | Jun-13 | 17/37/47 |
| Sperlonga | SPL | 30 | 41°11′N | 13°26′E | Jun-13 | 7/60/33 |
| Terracina | TER | 30 | 41°14′N | 13°10′E | Mar-13 | 0/83/17 |
|
| ||||||
| Piombino | PIM | 29 | 42°58′N | 10°24′E | Dic-13 | 0/76/24 |
|
| ||||||
| Bari | BAR | 30 | 41°11′N | 17°05′E | Jul-13 | 0/73/27 |
| Pescara | PES | 30 | 42°54′N | 14°12′E | Sept-13 | 10/57/33 |
| Chioggia | CHI | 30 | 45°08′N | 12°25′E | Apr-13 | 7/63/30 |
|
| ||||||
| Cirò Marina | CIR | 30 | 39°24′N | 17°11′E | Apr-13 | 0/83/17 |
|
| ||||||
| Tarragona** | TAR | 29 | 40°53′N | 01°10′E | Mar-09 | 0/45/55 |
|
| ||||||
| Cadiz** (1) | CAD1 | 26 | 36°54′N | 06°16′W | Jun-12 | 60/0/40 |
| Cadiz** (2) | CAD2 | 30 | 36°48′N | 06°21′W | Oct-12 | 50/0/50 |
| Canary** | CAN | 23 | 27°43′N | 15°39′W | May-07 | 39/0/61 |
| Bay of Biscay** | BISC1 | 29 | 47°20′N | 03°23′W | Sept-11 | 0/76/24 |
| Bay of Biscay** (C) | BISC2 | 27 | 46°33′N | 01°58′W | May-08 | 44/0/56 |
| Bay of Biscay** (C) | BISC3 | 28 | 46°07′N | 01°46′W | Apr-10 | 89/4/7 |
| Bay of Biscay** | BISC4 | 30 | 45°52′N | 01°52′W | May-08 | 0/90/10 |
| Bay of Biscay** (C) | BISC5 | 28 | 45°30′N | 00°56′W | Sept-11 | 79/14/7 |
| Bay of Biscay** (C) | BISC6 | 22 | 45°27′N | 01°12′W | Sept-09 | 86/0/14 |
| Bay of Biscay** | BISC7 | 30 | 45°30′N | 01°26′W | May-12 | 0/77/23 |
| Bay of Biscay** | BISC8 | 28 | 44°53′N | 01°27′W | May-12 | 0/79/21 |
| Bay of Biscay** | BISC9 | 29 | 44°38′N | 01°36′W | May-10 | 0/79/21 |
| Bay of Biscay** | BISC10 | 28 | 43°22′N | 02°28′W | May-08 | 0/82/18 |
| Bay of Biscay** (C) | BISC11 | 30 | 43°21′N | 03°03′W | Sept-10 | 43/7/43 |
| Bay of Biscay** | BISC12 | 30 | 43°49′N | 03°13′W | Sept-10 | 0/70/30 |
| Bay of Biscay** | BISC13 | 29 | 45°38′N | 02°06′W | May-12 | 0/90/10 |
| Bay of Biscay** | BISC14 | 30 | 43°40′N | 03°39′W | Sept-99 | 0/83/17 |
| Bay of Biscay** | BISC15 | 30 | 43°38′N | 05°14′W | Apr-12 | 0/93/7 |
| Bay of Biscay** | BISC16 | 29 | 43°42′N | 07°35′W | Sept-11 | 0/85/15 |
|
| ||||||
|
| ||||||
| Pisciotta/Capo Palinuro | E-PISC | 5 | 40°06′N | 15°12′E | Jun-13 | 0/20/80 |
| Sele | E-SELE | 16 | 40°25′N | 14°53′E | Jul-13 | 0/69/31 |
| Amalfi | E-AMAL | 16 | 40°35′N | 14°36′E | Jul-13 | 0/60/40 |
| Capri | E-CAPR | 4 | 40°33′N | 14°17′E | Jun-13 | 50/25/25 |
| Torre del Greco/Sarno | E-TGR | 9 | 40°46′N | 14°21′E | Jun-13 | 29/14/57 |
| Napoli | E-NAP | 19 | 40°47′N | 14°13′E | Jun-13 | 13/25/63 |
| Ischia | E-ISCH | 16 | 40°45′N | 13°51′E | Jun-13 | 0/78/22 |
| Volturno | E-VOL | 29 | 40°58′N | 13°52′E | Jun-13 | 10/52/38 |
| Formia | E-FORM | 4 | 41°15′N | 13°15′E | Jun-13 | 0/100/0 |
*Sites sampled for zooplankton analysis; **Montes et al.[20], (C) Considered as coastal in Montes et al. [20] .
Figure 1Position of the sampling sites utilized in the present analysis. Proportion of offshore (green) and the coastal (red) ecotypes is shown for each site. Sites sampled for anchovy eggs are shown in the lower right panel. Detail of populations sampled in the Bay of Biscay by Montes et al.[20] is shown in the upper-left panel. Assignment to the coastal and offshore ecotypes by Montes et al.[20] is given in Table 1. The map was generated using QGis software v.2 (Quantum GIS Development Team, 2013) and modified by authors using Powerpoint software (2013) www.microsoft.com.
List of common outlier loci detected in the Mediterranean Sea by Bayescan and Lositan softwares. The first 6 loci overlap with outlier loci detected by Montes et al. [20].
| Outlier markers |
| Gene/blast hit | Biologicalprocess | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bayescan | Lositan | |||
|
| 0.09 | 0.14 | RPL5A (ribosomalprotein L5) | Embryodevelopment (GO:0009790) |
| Translation (GO:0006412) | ||||
|
| 0.08 | 0.14 | TIMM10 (translocase of innermitochondrial membrane 10) | Chaperone-mediatedproteintransport (GO:0072321) |
| Cellular proteinmetabolicprocess (GO:0044267) | ||||
| Mitochondrialinner membrane protein import (GO:0045039) | ||||
| Sensoryperception of sound (GO:0007605) | ||||
|
| 0.10 | 0.15 | coiled-coil domain-containingprotein 113-like | Cell projectionorganization (GO:0030030) |
| Ciliumassembly (GO:0042384) | ||||
|
| 0.08 | 0.15 | BSG (basigin) | Pyruvatemetabolicprocess (GO:0006090) |
|
| 0.08 | 0.12 | CHAF1A (chromatinassemblyfactor1subunit A-like) | Transcription DNA-dependent (GO:0006351) |
| Response to DNA damagestimulus (GO:0006974) | ||||
|
| 0.07 | 0.08 | N/A | N/A |
| ss748771005 | 0.07 | 0.10 | N/A | N/A |
Marker names are expressed as NCBI accession numbers. F ST: overall locus-specific genetic divergence.
Figure 2PCoA based on genetic data of coastal and offshore adult anchovies from Mediterranean and Atlantic. Putative hybrids were excluded from the analysis. (a) Only putative neutral markers (variance of Axis 1: 12.5%; variance of Axis 2: 4.1%); (b) Only putative outlier markers (variance of Axis 1: 82.7%; variance of Axis 2: 3.6%).
Pairwise F ST values calculated among Atlantic and Mediterranean (MED) offshore and coastal populations as identified by STRUCTURE, using only neutral SNPs (top triangle) and putatively outlier SNPs (bottom triangle).
| BISCAY-offshore | BISCAY-Coastal | CADIZ | CANARY | MED-Coastal | MED-offshore | TARRAGONA | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 0.00167 |
|
|
|
| 0.00155 | |
|
| −0.01507 |
|
|
|
| −0.00779 |
Values in italics are significant at P < 0.05 and values in bold font are significant at P < 0.001.
Figure 3PCoA of Mediterranean anchovy samples, based on SNPs data using: (a) Only putative neutral markers (variance of Axis 1: 21%; variance of Axis 2: 12%); (b) Only putative outlier markers (variance of Axis 1: 81%; variance of Axis 2: 10%).
Pairwise F ST values calculated among Mediterranean sampling sites of adults and eggs, using putatively neutral (top triangle) and putatively outlier SNPs (bottom triangle).
| BAR | CAP | CET | CHI | CIR | CVL | DIA | GCM | NAP | PAO | PES | PIM | SPL | TER | TRM | E-AMAL | E-ISCH | E-NAP | E-SELE | E-VOLT | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BAR | 0.02191 | 0.01317 | 0.00713 | 0.00365 |
| 0.00244 | −0.00343 | −0.00216 |
| −0.00269 | 0.00175 | −0.00138 | 0.00361 | −0.00542 | 0.0005 | 0.00233 | 0.04301 | 0.01051 | 0.01955 | |
| CAP | 0.39433 | 0.03561 | 0.02902 | 0.03191 | −0.00682 |
|
|
|
|
| 0.03221 | 0.00869 | 0.02772 | 0.02376 | 0.01761 | 0.01118 | −0.01064 | 0.00581 | −0.00853 | |
| CET | 0.01124 | 0.40778 | 0.02569 | 0.023 |
| 0.0242 |
|
| 0.02214 | 0.01095 | 0.0054 |
| 0.019 |
|
| 0.01223 | 0.04327 | 0.02528 | 0.031 | |
| CHI |
|
| 0.09135 | 0.02028 |
| 0.02401 | 0.01766 | 0.00813 | 0.02578 | −0.00031 |
|
| 0.02494 |
|
|
| 0.04698 |
| 0.03151 | |
| CIR | 0.00385 | 0.42534 | 0.01961 | 0.11409 | 0.02953 | 0.01646 |
|
|
| 0.00473 | 0.01436 |
| 0.01804 |
|
| 0.00919 | 0.05842 | 0.02028 | 0.03176 | |
| CVL | 0.36136 | −0.02071 | 0.37286 | 0.10676 | 0.39611 | 0.00949 | 0.01148 | 0.00128 | 0.00671 | 0.01262 |
| 0.00403 |
| 0.00751 | 0.00328 | 0.00889 | −0.01178 | −0.001 | −0.00998 | |
| DIA | 0.07799 |
| 0.07953 | −0.01819 |
|
| 0.00356 | 0.00144 | −0.00031 | 0.00098 | 0.00398 | 0.00042 | 0.00134 | 0.00108 | 0.00069 | 0.00225 | 0.04217 | 0.00754 |
| |
| GCM | 0.00179 | 0.34579 | −0.00618 | 0.05187 |
|
| 0.03683 | −0.00458 | −0.00146 | 0.00801 | 0.00208 | 0.0028 | −0.00007 | −0.00353 | 0.00452 | 0.00369 | 0.04026 |
|
| |
| NAP |
|
| 0.03969 | −0.0087 |
|
| −0.01699 | 0.00553 | 0.00162 | 0.00172 | −0.00416 | −0.00157 | 0.00448 | 0.00097 | 0.00601 | −0.00468 |
| 0.0049 | 0.01192 | |
| PAO | 0.01967 | 0.28937 | 0.0183 | 0.01839 | 0.03201 | 0.24344 | 0.00176 | −0.00454 | −0.0155 | 0.00864 |
| 0.00706 | 0.0026 | 0.00344 | 0.00547 |
| 0.04775 |
| 0.017 | |
| PES | 0.13582 | 0.10329 | 0.13594 | −0.01636 |
| 0.05631 | −0.01191 | 0.08942 | 0.01435 | 0.04511 | 0.00516 | −0.00135 |
| 0.00175 | 0.0033 | 0.00085 | 0.04476 | 0.00523 |
| |
| PIM | 0.00000 | 0.39401 | −0.01726 |
|
| 0.36036 |
| 0.00179 |
| 0.02295 | 0.13481 | 0.00206 | 0.00494 | −0.00156 | 0.00771 | 0.00028 | 0.04715 | 0.01299 | 0.029 | |
| SPL | 0.07808 |
| 0.07464 | −0.01666 | 0.09419 |
| −0.0227 | 0.03639 | −0.0135 | 0.00317 | −0.0117 | 0.07808 | 0.00686 | −0.00053 | 0.00051 | −0.00684 | 0.0145 | 0.00259 | 0.00627 | |
| TER | 0.01982 | 0.30057 | 0.01563 | 0.01469 | 0.0298 |
| 0.00142 | −0.00639 | −0.01683 | −0.0193 | 0.04297 | 0.01982 | 0.00035 | −0.0006 | −0.00095 | 0.00727 | 0.04403 |
| 0.01796 | |
| TRM | 0.02366 | 0.28314 | 0.02331 | 0.01167 | 0.03536 |
| −0.00387 | −0.00298 | −0.01806 | −0.0205 | 0.03564 | 0.02645 | −0.00448 | −0.02108 | −0.0002 | 0.00096 | 0.04251 | 0.01077 |
| |
| E-AMAL | 0.23664 | 0.04855 |
| −0.00837 |
| 0.009 | 0.00091 | 0.16192 | 0.04391 | 0.09415 | −0.03168 |
| 0.00236 | 0.09148 | 0.07843 | −0.00638 |
| 0.00199 | 0.01114 | |
| E-ISCH |
| 0.1024 |
| −0.03267 |
| 0.05732 | −0.0331 | 0.09013 | −0.00926 | 0.03011 | −0.03565 |
| −0.026 | 0.0283 | 0.0201 | −0.03685 |
| −0.00559 | 0.00732 | |
| E-NAP | 0.49561 | −0.02953 | 0.51098 |
| 0.53029 | −0.00972 |
| 0.43889 | 0.31428 | 0.37486 |
| 0.49529 |
| 0.38514 | 0.36564 | 0.08537 |
| 0.00899 | −0.00764 | |
| E-SELE |
| 0.02053 | 0.27143 | 0.02716 |
| −0.00881 | 0.04008 |
| 0.08941 |
| −0.0094 |
| 0.0406 |
| 0.12414 | −0.03924 | −0.00871 | 0.04648 | −0.00082 | |
| E-VOLT | 0.2326 | 0.01348 | 0.24014 | 0.04118 | 0.25559 | −0.01186 | 0.0548 |
| 0.09789 |
| 0.00521 | 0.2326 | 0.05598 | 0.14166 |
| −0.02513 | 0.00519 | 0.03791 | −0.02954 |
Values in italics are significant at P < 0.05 and values in bold font are significant at P < 0.001.
Figure 4Results of the Lagrangian analysis. (a–d) Lagrangian Probability Density Functions of particles presence after an advection time of 30 days for four different released sites selected along the Tyrrhenian coast. LPDFs for CVL/CAP (or SPL/NAP) are inferred from the combined data when particles are released both in CVL and CAP (of SPL and NAP respectively). (e) Connectivity matrix between Tyrrhenian sites, where adult anchovies were collected. Each box gives the probability that a particle released in a region in X-axis reaches a region in Y-axis. Thus, a value of 10^4 means that over 10^4 released particles, one particle reached the site of interest. Results show that even though the Gulf of Naples exhibit a strong retention power, no preferential areas exist along the Tyrrhenian coast. The small probability of connectivity for long distanced sites is to be mitigated by the fact that billions of larvae are advected in the sea. Thus, dispersal can not explain the genetic separation between the two ecotypes. Maps in Fig. 4 were generated using MATLAB software Version 7.7.0.471 (R2008b); www.mathworks.com.
Values of significant (P < 0.05) correlations among considered environmental variables and 1st and 2nd PCs axes.
| Northern area | Southern Area | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PC 1 (47%) | PC 2 (25.9%) | PC 1 (35.5%) | PC 2 (23.6%) | |
| Chl-a (mg/m3) | −0.801 | 0.093 | −0.454 | −0.614 |
| River distance (Km) | 0.798 | 0.271 | 0.468 | 0.263 |
| Depth (m) | 0.692 | 0.482 | 0.109 | 0.743 |
| Temperature (°C) | −0.166 | 0.884 | −0.823 | 0.318 |
| Salinity (PSU) | 0.747 | −0.44 | 0.81 | −0.274 |
Figure 5Environmental correlation of anchovy abundance. Top panels: spatial representation of PC1 scores in the Northern (a) and Southern (b) areas of the Central-Southern Tyrrhenian Sea. Colours represent PC1 scores, according to the ranges identified in QI analysis (bottom panels; c and d). In the northern sector the red and orange sectors represent the most “favourable” areas for anchovy, while the light blue and blue ones represent avoided sectors. Black lines represent the acoustic survey design. Bottom panels: QI analysis results, highlighting the response (selection, avoidance, tolerance) of anchovy population to the identified environmental processes (PCA) in the Northern (c) and Southern (d) areas. Dashed lines identify the upper and lower confidence intervals of the QI curve (solid line). QI values higher than 1 and above the upper confidence interval identify a “selective” behaviour, while QI values lower than 1 and below the lower confidence interval indicate “avoidance” behaviour. “Tolerance” behaviour is in between. Maps in Fig. 5 were generated using QGis software v.2 (Quantum GIS Development Team, 2013).
Figure 6The oceanography data and anchovy biomass distribution on the days July 5-7 2013 (EVATYR13), when sampling in the area was performed. (a) anchovy biomasses on July 6–7 2013; (b) Surface Chl from satellite (July 6). (c) surface salinity from CTDs; (d) water transparency from CTDs; (e) modelled surface salinity from ROMS for July 7th; (f) Surface salinity from ROMS for the July 5th. Maps in Fig. 6 were generated using MATLAB software Version 7.7.0.471 (R2008b); www.mathworks.com.