| Literature DB >> 29736340 |
Fábio B Britto1, Anders J Schmidt2, Adriana M F Carvalho3, Carolina C M P Vasconcelos3, Antonia M Farias4, Paul Bentzen5, Fábio M Diniz6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The mangrove crab Ucides cordatus is considered a key species for the ecological balance of mangrove forests and a major source of employment and income for traditional crab collectors in Brazil. Several studies evidenced weak genetic variation among populations due to an efficient larval transport. However, gene flow patterns of the species is poorly understood, with no information about migration rates. The influence of the two main Brazilian currents in larval dispersion is also not clear. In order to provide baseline information for conservation, planning and management of this important fishery resource, the present study aimed to estimate and evaluate spatial distribution of genetic diversity, migration rates and gene flow directivity among populations of U. cordatus in Brazil.Entities:
Keywords: Conservation; Gene flow; Microsatellites; Migration rate; Population structure
Year: 2018 PMID: 29736340 PMCID: PMC5933341 DOI: 10.7717/peerj.4702
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PeerJ ISSN: 2167-8359 Impact factor: 2.984
Figure 1Sampling localities of U. cordatus populations surveyed along the Brazilian coast.
FLO, Florianópolis—SC (n = 11); CAN, Cananéia—SP (n = 100); CAR, Caravelas—BA (n = 80); FOR, Fortim—CE (n = 54); GOI, Goiabeiras—CE (n = 23); CAU, Caucaia—CE (n = 48); PAR, Parnaíba—PI (n = 26); CUR, Curuçá—PA (n = 50); and SOU, Soure—PA (n = 50). The directions of the North Brazil Current (NBC) and the Brazil Current (BC) are also shown.
Characterization of microsatellite loci for U. cordatus, amplified from 319 individuals of six localities.
| Locus | Repeat motif | Size range (bp) | θ | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| UcSSR-01 | CTCGn | 115–143 | 08 | 0.005 | 0.453 | 0.425 | 0.440 | 0.024 | 0.010 | 0.014 | 0.937 |
| UcSSR-02 | CTGTn | 131–167 | 10 | −0.019 | 0.757 | 0.766 | 0.743 | −0.024 | 0.020 | −0.044 | 0.946 |
| UcSSR-03 | ACAGn | 111–159 | 07 | 0.008 | 0.725 | 0.712 | 0.721 | 0.024 | 0.009 | 0.015 | 0.988 |
| UcSSR-04 | TCTAn | 156–172 | 06 | 0.201 | 0.569 | 0.349 | 0.563 | 0.330 | 0.006 | 0.327 | <0.001 |
| UcSSR-05 | TGTAn | 161–177 | 05 | 0.016 | 0.509 | 0.494 | 0.503 | 0.020 | −0.001 | 0.021 | 0.956 |
| UcSSR-06 | ATAGn(N)11GATAn | 173–277 | 27 | −0.005 | 0.939 | 0.946 | 0.930 | −0.006 | 0.012 | 0.018 | 0.981 |
| UcSSR-07 | CATAn/ACAGn | 175–215 | 11 | −0.007 | 0.671 | 0.646 | 0.656 | −0.013 | 0.006 | 0.019 | 0.100 |
| UcSSR-08 | ACTn(N)21CTAn | 260-326 | 21 | −0.036 | 0.702 | 0.722 | 0.688 | −0.039 | 0.009 | −0.049 | 0.920 |
| UcSSR-09 | CTATn | 294–358 | 17 | 0.015 | 0.899 | 0.872 | 0.869 | 0.039 | 0.048 | −0.009 | 0.243 |
| Mean/Multilocus estimate (for all 9 loci) | 12.4 | 0.691 | 0.660 | 0.679 | 0.032 | 0.015 | 0.016 | ||||
| 2.5% lower bound confidence interval | −0.011 | 0.007 | 0.013 | ||||||||
| 97.5% upper bound confidence interval | 0.104 | 0.026 | 0.050 | ||||||||
| Mean/Multilocus estimate (all loci in HWE) | 13.3 | 0.707 | 0.698 | 0.694 | 0.003 | 0.016 | −0.014 | ||||
| 2.5% lower bound confidence interval | −0.016 | 0.007 | −0.029 | ||||||||
| 97.5% upper bound confidence interval | 0.021 | 0.028 | 0.003 | ||||||||
Notes:
A, total number of alleles; NA, Null Allele occurrence probability; PIC, polymorphic information content; H, observed heterozygosity; H, “within sample” expected heterozygosity; F, estimate of Wright’s FIT; θ, estimate of Wright’s FST; f, estimate of Wright’s FIS; pHWE, significance level of departure from Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium.
Locus UcSSR-04 was not used in the population structure analysis.
General sample information and mean diversity indexes per locus for each locality.
| Locality | Sample size | Longitude/Latitude | Collection date | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CAN | 91 | 47°59′03″W 25°04′31″S | 2008/Jan. | 11.3 (5.6) | 10.1 (5.0) | 0.73 (0.05) | 0.70 (0.05) |
| CAR | 51 | 39°26′55″W 18°01′57″S | 2008/Mar. | 10.0 (6.4) | 09.5 (6.1) | 0.71 (0.07) | 0.69 (0.05) |
| FOR | 49 | 37°46′16″W 04°31′52″S | 2006/Nov. | 08.0 (4.6) | 07.8 (4.5) | 0.64 (0.07) | 0.64 (0.06) |
| CAU | 44 | 38°46′30″W 03°35′11″S | 2006/Nov. | 09.0 (5.5) | 08.9 (5.5) | 0.64 (0.08) | 0.67 (0.06) |
| CUR | 42 | 47°50′36″W 00°39′23″S | 2007/Dec. | 09.5 (5.9) | 09.5 (5.9) | 0.63 (0.07) | 0.68 (0.06) |
| SOU | 42 | 48°33′11″W 00°42′30″S | 2007/Dec. | 09.4 (5.9) | 09.4 (5.9) | 0.61 (0.07) | 0.65 (0.05) |
| Mean/locality | 53.2 (s.d. = 18.9) | — | — | 9.5 | 9.2 | 0.66 | 0.67 |
Notes:
All estimates are followed by their respective standard deviations within parenthesis.
A, mean number of allele per locus; A, mean allelic richness per locus; H, mean observed heterozigosity per locus; H, mean expected heterozigosity per locus.
Triangular distance matrices (used for computation of Mantel test with 1,000 permutations) among U. cordatus sample localities.
| CAN | CAR | FOR | CAU | CUR | SOU | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CAN | — | |||||
| CAR | — | 0.011 | 0.009 | |||
| FOR | — | 0.010 | ||||
| CAU | 0.026 | 0.019 | — | 0.010 | 0.011 | |
| CUR | 0.018 | 0.019 | — | 0.005 | ||
| SOU | 0.021 | −0.004 | — |
Note:
Above the diagonal are linearized pairwise FST. Below the diagonal are linearized pairwise Jost’s D. Values in bold represent significant differences (P < 0.05) between localities.
Figure 2(A) Optimal number of clusters (= 6) defined by the lowest value of BIC (Bayesian Information Content). (B) Matrix of actual groups and inferred clusters. (C) Sample distribution according to discriminant analysis of principal components (red lines connecting numbers 1–6 represent a minimum spanning tree).
Comparison of different migration models for U. cordatus sample localities grouped according to FCT results.
| Tested models | T.I. | St. dev. | LBF | Model probability | Migrate notation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | North to South | −7539.2 | 38.7 | −1060.5 | 0.56 × 10−230 | {**** 0*** 00** 000*} |
| 2 | South to North | −7550.8 | 18.4 | −1083.6 | 0.49 × 10−235 | {*000 **00 ***0 ****} |
| 3 | Following BC or NBC | −14702.7 | 789.9 | −15387.5 | 0.00 | {**00 0**0 0**0 00**} |
| 4 | Stepping stone | −7566.7 | 8.7 | −1115.5 | 0.59 × 10−243 | {*s00 s*s0 0s*s 00s*} |
| 5 | Island | −7009.0 | 33.9 | 0.0 | ≈1.00 | {mmmm mmmm mmmm mmmm} |
| 6 | Panmixia | −15717.8 | 32.4 | −17417.7 | 0.00 | {*} |
Note:
Thermodynamic integration (TI) and log Bayes factor (LBF) were used to estimate the model probabilities. Migrate notation was established according to localities arranged as BC-1, BC-2, NBC-1 and NBC-2, except for the Panmixia model, where all population were pulled together as a single group.