| Literature DB >> 28944037 |
Agathe Pirog1, Pauline Gélin1,2, Alexandre Bédier1, Grégoire Bianchetti1, Stéphane Georget1, Patrick Frouin1,2, Hélène Magalon1,2.
Abstract
Sea cucumbers are increasingly exploited for human consumption and for their curative properties, and many wild populations are now depleted or in danger of extinction. While aquaculture is seen as an alternative to fisheries and as a mean to restore wild populations, more knowledge is needed on their reproductive strategies to render this practice efficient, notably for fissiparous holothurians, which are some of the mobile animals able of asexual reproduction by transverse fission. Little information is available on their population genetic diversity and structure. Here, the clonal structure of populations of the fissiparous sea cucumber Stichopus chloronotus has been investigated using nine microsatellite loci and a random sampling, at different spatial (intra-reef and inter-reef) and temporal (inter-season and inter-year) scales. Our findings highlight the importance of asexual reproduction in maintaining these populations, and the prevalence of the "initial seedling recruitment" strategy (ISR), leading to a high stability of clonal composition over seasons and years. It also seemed that clonal propagation was limited to the reef scale (<10 km) while reefs were connected by sexual dispersal. This is the first time that clonal structure in sea cucumbers has been studied at such a fine scale, with a specific sampling strategy. It provides key findings on the genetic diversity and structure of fissiparous sea cucumbers, which will be useful for the management of wild populations and aquaculture.Entities:
Keywords: Stichopus chloronotus; microsatellite; multilocus genotype; network; sea cucumber
Year: 2017 PMID: 28944037 PMCID: PMC5606904 DOI: 10.1002/ece3.3285
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ecol Evol ISSN: 2045-7758 Impact factor: 2.912
Figure 1Map of the sampling sites of Stichopus chloronotus in Reunion Island. Circles represent high‐density sites while diamonds low‐density sites. In black, sites sampled during T0; in gray, sites sampled during T2
Sampling of Stichopus chloronotus populations in Reunion Island for both sampling periods and for both seasons (cold + warm)
| Reef | Locality | Sites |
|
| Latitude (S) | Longitude (E) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| La Saline‐Ermitage reef | Passe de l'Ermitage | HIGH1 | 128 + 128 | 64 + 64 | 21°05′5.58″ | 55°13′32.39″ |
| La Saline‐Ermitage reef | Trou d'Eau | HIGH2 | 128 + 128 | 64 + 64 | 21°06′11.52″ | 55°14′44.61″ |
| Étang Salé | Étang Salé | HIGH3 | 128 + 128 | 64 + 64 | 21°16′5.89″ | 55°19′57.29″ |
| La Saline‐Ermitage reef | Planch'Alizé | LOW1 | 32 + 32 | 21°05′41.70″ | 55°14′1.65″ | |
| Saint Leu | Saint Leu | LOW2 | 32 + 32 | 48 + 48 | 21°10′41.76″ | 55°17′10.58″ |
| Saint Pierre | Saint Pierre | LOW3 | 48 + 48 | 21°20′32.85″ | 55°27′41.44″ | |
| Total | 896 | 576 |
Indices of genetic diversity and clonal structure for Stichopus chloronotus populations from Reunion Island, at six different sites, at two seasons per year and two years apart: (a) T0: 2013/2014 and (b) T2: 2015/2016
| (a) | T0 | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Season | Reef | Site | Station |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Cold | La Saline‐Ermitage | HIGH1 | S1 | 63 | 7 | 0.1 | 0.68 | 0.19 | 0.01 | −0.17 | 2.00 (0.15) | 0.00 (0.00) | 0.49 (0.03) | 0.28 (0.03) | −0.18 |
| S2 | 64 | 7 | 0.1 | 0.61 | 0.14 | −0.2 | 0.64 | 2.22 (0.20) | 0.11 (0.04) | 0.65 (0.02) | 0.33 (0.03) | −0.32 | |||
| La Saline‐Ermitage | HIGH2 | S1 | 63 | 3 | 0.03 | 0.15 | 0.01 | −0.01 | 0.39 | 1.56 (0.09) | 0.00 (0.00) | 0.75 (0.06) | 0.17 (0.03) | −0.97 | |
| S2 | 64 | 6 | 0.08 | 0.22 | 0.02 | 0.17 | 0.22 | 2.11 (0.10) | 0.44 (0.09) | 0.44 (0.06) | 0.18 (0.03) | −0.89 | |||
| Etang Salé | HIGH3 | S1 | 64 | 7 | 0.1 | 0.56 | 0.12 | 0.13 | 0.19 | 2.22 (0.10) | 0.00 (0.00) | 0.43 (0.05) | 0.30 (0.03) | −0.29 | |
| S2 | 64 | 14 | 0.21 | 0.65 | 0.18 | −0.13 | 0.1 | 2.33 (0.14) | 0.00 (0.00) | 0.35 (0.05) | 0.27 (0.03) | −0.17 | |||
| La Saline‐Ermitage | LOW1 | 31 | 5 | 0.13 | 0.78 | 0.24 | ‐ | ‐ | 1.89 (0.17) | 0.00 (0.00) | 0.61 (0.02) | 0.31 (0.05) | −0.31 | ||
| Saint Leu | LOW2 | 32 | 3 | 0.06 | 0.6 | 0.08 | ‐ | ‐ | 2.00 (0.18) | 0.00 (0.00) | 0.57 (0.07) | 0.25 (0.04) | −0.54 | ||
| Warm | La Saline‐Ermitage | HIGH1 | S1 | 62 | 8 | 0.11 | 0.62 | 0.16 | −0.17 | −0.16 | 2.00 (0.16) | 0.00 (0.00) | 0.43 (0.03) | 0.25 (0.03) | −0.15 |
| S2 | 64 | 7 | 0.1 | 0.72 | 0.2 | 0.09 | 0.24 | 2.00 (0.15) | 0.00 (0.00) | 0.48 (0.03) | 0.26 (0.03) | −0.21 | |||
| La Saline‐Ermitage | HIGH2 | S1 | 64 | 4 | 0.05 | 0.17 | 0.01 | 0.15 | −0.23 | 1.89 (0.12) | 0.00 (0.00) | 0.49 (0.07) | 0.18 (0.03) | −0.87 | |
| S2 | 63 | 6 | 0.08 | 0.26 | 0.02 | −0.22 | 0.38 | 1.89 (0.10) | 0.00 (0.00) | 0.51 (0.07) | 0.18 (0.03) | −0.88 | |||
| Etang Salé | HIGH3 | S1 | 64 | 6 | 0.08 | 0.74 | 0.2 | 0.15 | −0.78 | 1.89 (0.08) | 0.00 (0.00) | 0.44 (0.05) | 0.26 (0.03) | −0.30 | |
| S2 | 64 | 7 | 0.1 | 0.57 | 0.11 | −0.1 | 0.14 | 2.11 (0.10) | 0.00 (0.00) | 0.41 (0.05) | 0.28 (0.03) | −0.29 | |||
| La Saline‐Ermitage | LOW1 | 32 | 6 | 0.16 | 0.76 | 0.24 | ‐ | ‐ | 1.89 (0.16) | 0.00 (0.00) | 0.64 (0.02) | 0.32 (0.05) | −0.33 | ||
| Saint Leu | LOW2 | 31 | 5 | 0.13 | 0.62 | 0.13 | ‐ | ‐ | 1.78 (0.12) | 0.00 (0.00) | 0.56 (0.07) | 0.26 (0.04) | −0.47 | ||
N: number of individuals presenting no missing data; N : number of distinct multilocus genotypes; R: clonal richness; J′: Pielou's index; β: parameter of the Pareto distribution (−1 * regression slope); A : aggregation index; E : edge effect. For A and E indices, none value was significantly different from 0, except one (*p < 0.05). N : mean allelic number per site, N : mean number of private alleles per site, H and H : observed and expected heterozygosities, respectively. In parentheses: standard errors. F : inbreeding coefficient and significant deviations from Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium are indicated as follows: *P < .05; **P < .01; ***P < .001.
Figure 2Clonal distribution within each station and each site for each sampling year and season. Each sector represents a multi‐locus genotype (MLG) and is proportional to the number of individuals presenting this MLG. A specific color was assigned to each MLG shared by at least two individuals, while MLGs presented by only one individual were left blank. Numbers in each cell indicate the number of individuals whose MLGs present no missing data. Numbers in parentheses in the legend indicate the number of individuals presenting the MLG
Genetic differentiation between stations sampled at T0cold estimated with Weir and Cockerham's F (lower‐left matrix) and Jost's D (upper‐right matrix) estimates
| HIGH1 S1 | HIGH1 S2 | HIGH2 S1 | HIGH2 S2 | HIGH3 S1 | HIGH3 S2 | LOW1 | LOW2 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HIGH1 S1 | ‐ | 0.02 | 0.07 | 0.06 | 0.06 | 0.07 | 0.00 | 0.13 |
| HIGH1 S2 | 0.03 | ‐ | 0.13 | 0.12 | 0.10 | 0.11 | 0.00 | 0.14 |
| HIGH2 S1 | 0.13 | 0.22 | ‐ | 0 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.09 | 0.20 |
| HIGH2 S2 | 0.13 | 0.21 | 0.00 | ‐ | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.09 | 0.20 |
| HIGH3 S1 | 0.09 | 0.13 | 0.08 | 0.08 | ‐ | 0.01 | 0.08 | 0.21 |
| HIGH3 S2 | 0.11 | 0.16 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.04 | ‐ | 0.09 | 0.19 |
| LOW1 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.19 | 0.18 | 0.10 | 0.13 | ‐ | 0.13 |
| LOW2 | 0.19 | 0.19 | 0.36 | 0.35 | 0.29 | 0.27 | 0.18 | ‐ |
white: P > .05; light gray: P < .01; gray: P < .001.
Figure 3Network topology of multi‐locus genotypes (MLGs) identified in Stichopus chloronotus whole sampling based on the Rozenfeld's distance. Only links with distances smaller or equal to the percolation threshold (Dpe = 0.89) are presented. Nodes, representing MLGs, are arranged according to their geographic coordinates. Node size is proportional to the number of individuals harboring each MLG. Node colors correspond to reefs
Genetic differentiation between both seasons of a given sampling period (T0 or T2), and between sampling periods, estimated with Weir and Cockerham's F (upper value) and Jost's D (lower value)
| T0 cold/warm | T2 cold/warm | T0/T2 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| HIGH1 | 0.012 | 0.009 | 0.000 |
| 0.007 | 0.006 | 0.000 | |
| HIGH2 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | |
| HIGH3 | 0.004 | 0.020 | 0.047 |
| 0.002 | 0.011 | 0.027 | |
| LOW1 | 0.000 | ‐ | ‐ |
| 0.000 | ‐ | ‐ | |
| LOW2 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.013 |
| 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.006 | |
| LOW3 | ‐ | 0.000 | ‐ |
| ‐ | 0.000 | ‐ |
*P < 0.05; **P < 0.01; ***P < 0.001.