4.2 Article

Fine-scale genetic structure and relatedness in the eelgrass Zostera marina

期刊

MARINE ECOLOGY PROGRESS SERIES
卷 447, 期 -, 页码 127-U164

出版社

INTER-RESEARCH
DOI: 10.3354/meps09447

关键词

Population structure; Relatedness; Dispersal; Genetic diversity; Zostera marina

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [OCE-06-23641, OCE-09-09078]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The genetic composition of groups of individuals can significantly influence the productivity, resilience, and functioning of communities and ecosystems. For example, the re latedness of individuals within a group often dictates whether their interactions are competitive or cooperative. It is therefore necessary to characterize the genetic structure of populations at spatial scales relevant to these interactions and to determine the distribution of genetic diversity at those scales. Using microsatellite data, we assessed fine-scale population structure of Zostera marina, an important habitat-forming seagrass, within and between Bodega Harbor and Tomales Bay in northern California, USA. Despite the potential for long-range dispersal, we found significant population structure at all hierarchical scales (among bays, among sites, among tidal heights), corresponding to distances ranging from meters to tens of kilometers. The pattern of genetic differentiation that emerged at local scales differed between bays, with Tomales Bay being more structured even though the Euclidean distances among sites were similar in each bay. The relatedness of genets within a tidal height also differed among bays: in Bodega Harbor most genets occurred in proximity to unrelated individuals, whereas in Tomales Bay, genets were mixed with their close relatives, likely due to decreased dispersal. These contrasting kin structures, coupled with highly variable levels of clonal diversity, underscore the importance of examining variation at multiple scales, as this reveals genetic factors which might play an important role in many ecological processes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据