| Literature DB >> 30183774 |
Alexandra L Bijak1, Kor-Jent van Dijk2, Michelle Waycott2,3.
Abstract
Evaluating genetic diversity of seagrasses provides insight into reproductive mode and adaptation potential, and is therefore integral to broader conservation strategies for coastal ecosystems. In this study, we assessed genetic diversity, population structure and gene flow in an opportunistic seagrass, Syringodium filiforme, in the Florida Keys and subtropical Atlantic region. We used microsatellite markers to analyze 20 populations throughout the Florida Keys, South Florida, Bermuda and the Bahamas primarily to understand how genetic diversity of S. filiforme partitions across the Florida Keys archipelago. We found low allelic diversity within populations, detecting 35-106 alleles across all populations, and in some instances moderately high clonal diversity (R = 0.04-0.62). There was significant genetic differentiation between Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) populations (FST = 0.109 ± 0.027, p-value = 0.001) and evidence of population structure based on cluster assignment, dividing the region into two major genetic demes. We observed asymmetric patterns in gene flow, with a few instances in which there was higher than expected gene flow from Atlantic to Gulf populations. In South Florida, clustering into Gulf and Atlantic groups indicate dispersal in S. filiforme may be limited by historical or contemporary geographic and hydrologic barriers, though genetic admixture between populations suggests exchange may occur between narrow channels in the Florida Keys, or has occurred through other mechanisms in recent evolutionary history, maintaining regional connectivity. The variable genotypic diversity, low genetic diversity and evidence of population structure observed in populations of S. filiforme resemble the population genetics expected for a colonizer species.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30183774 PMCID: PMC6124813 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0203644
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Map of study area and sampling locations.
The inset map shows the relative positions of the Florida Keys, Tampa Bay, the Bahamas and Bermuda. The main map shows the positions of the Florida Keys sampling locations. Site numbers are displayed to minimize text in the figure (corresponding site names are available in Table 1). Sampling methodology is represented by shape in both the main and inset maps (sampling area of ~ 2,500 m2: circle; sampling area of ~ 500 m2: square; Florida Bay and Bermuda–composite sampling areas of ~ 70 m2: triangle).
Summary genetic statistics for all populations.
| Population | N | G | R | A | NA | AR | Ho | He | FIS | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Carysfort | 48 | 19 | 0.38 | 98 | 5.76 | 2.53 | 0.51 ± 0.08 | 0.43 ± 0.07 | ||
| Elbow | 45 | 28 | 0.61 | 106 | 6.24 | 2.53 | 0.47 ± 0.08 | 0.43 ± 0.07 | ||
| Dixie | 50 | 20 | 0.39 | 88 | 5.18 | 2.48 | 0.44 ± 0.08 | 0.39 ± 0.07 | ||
| Conch | 47 | 18 | 0.37 | 85 | 5.00 | 2.47 | 0.51 ± 0.09 | 0.40 ± 0.06 | ||
| Davis | 47 | 22 | 0.46 | 102 | 6.00 | 2.56 | 0.48 ± 0.07 | 0.44 ± 0.07 | -0.09 ± 0.02 | |
| Molasses | 48 | 22 | 0.45 | 93 | 5.47 | 2.55 | 0.49 ± 0.07 | 0.43 ± 0.07 | ||
| Alligator | 45 | 19 | 0.41 | 90 | 5.29 | 2.55 | 0.45 ± 0.07 | 0.42 ± 0.06 | -0.08 ± 0.05 | |
| Tennessee | 46 | 29 | 0.62 | 102 | 6.00 | 2.51 | 0.41 ± 0.07 | 0.40 ± 0.07 | -0.04 ± 0.04 | |
| Sprigger | 32 | 18 | 0.55 | 73 | 4.29 | 2.49 | 0.44 ± 0.07 | 0.38 ± 0.06 | ||
| Sluiceway | 48 | 22 | 0.45 | 66 | 3.88 | 2.43 | 0.42 ± 0.07 | 0.34 ± 0.06 | ||
| Marathon | 22 | 10 | 0.43 | 67 | 3.94 | 2.45 | 0.44 ± 0.09 | 0.42 ± 0.05 | 0.08 ± 0.14 | |
| Pigeon | 43 | 17 | 0.38 | 75 | 4.41 | 2.44 | 0.38 ± 0.06 | 0.33 ± 0.05 | ||
| Bahia Honda | 47 | 15 | 0.30 | 67 | 3.94 | 2.43 | 0.39 ± 0.08 | 0.35 ± 0.06 | -0.09 ± 0.07 | |
| Water | 39 | 12 | 0.29 | 67 | 3.94 | 2.47 | 0.42 ± 0.07 | 0.38 ± 0.05 | -0.10 ± 0.08 | |
| Crane | 31 | 12 | 0.37 | 59 | 3.47 | 2.37 | 0.29 ± 0.06 | 0.28 ± 0.05 | -0.05 ± 0.08 | |
| Key West | 23 | 2 | 0.05 | 35 | 2.06 | 2.03 | 0.41 ± 0.12 | 0.21 ± 0.06 | -0.94 ± 0.04 | |
| Tampa Bay | 33 | 6 | 0.16 | 47 | 2.76 | 2.24 | 0.21 ± 0.07 | 0.18 ± 0.05 | -0.09 ± 0.08 | |
| Florida Bay | 123 | 6 | 0.04 | 54 | 3.18 | 2.36 | 0.41 ± 0.08 | 0.34 ± 0.05 | -0.19 ± 0.10 | |
| Bahamas | 44 | 19 | 0.42 | 69 | 4.06 | 2.37 | 0.32 ± 0.08 | 0.29 ± 0.07 | -0.08 ± 0.05 | |
| Bermuda | 107 | 20 | 0.18 | 67 | 3.94 | 2.39 | 0.26 ± 0.06 | 0.29 ± 0.06 | ||
Numeric codes are provided alongside location name for each population. Sample size (N), number of unique multilocus genotypes (G), genotypic richness (R), total number of alleles (A), average number of alleles per locus (N), allelic richness per locus (A), observed heterozygosity (H), expected heterozygosity (H) and inbreeding coefficient (F) are reported for each population. Standard error is included for H, H and F. Values in bold indicate significant deviation from Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium at -value < 0.05.
Fig 2Diagrams of STRUCTURE cluster assignment.
(A) K = 2 cluster assignment and (B) K = 4 cluster assignment. Population names are on the x-axis, separated by black vertical bands. Individual genotypes are represented as vertical bars and cluster assignment is depicted by color.
Fig 3Diagram of relative magnitude and direction of gene flow.
Nodes represent populations (refer to Table 1 to match numeric codes with location names). Arrows are weighted according to Alcala's Nm values (S3 Table), which range from 0.004 to 1.000, and arrowheads show the estimated direction of gene flow.