4.7 Review

Gene flow by larval dispersal in the Antarctic notothenioid fish Gobionotothen gibberifrons

期刊

MOLECULAR ECOLOGY
卷 18, 期 12, 页码 2574-2587

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2009.04220.x

关键词

adaptive radiation; population genetics; isolation-with-migration model; drifters

资金

  1. PhD scholarship of the VolkswagenStiftung priority program
  2. German Research Foundation (DFG)
  3. European Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The diversification of the teleost suborder Notothenioidei (Perciformes) in Antarctic waters provides one of the most striking examples of a marine adaptive radiation. Along with a number of adaptations to the cold environment, such as the evolution of antifreeze glycoproteins, notothenioids diversified into eight families and at least 130 species. Here, we investigate the genetic population structure of the humped rockcod (Gobionotothen gibberifrons), a benthic notothenioid fish. Six populations were sampled at different locations around the Scotia Sea, comprising a large part of the species' distribution range (N = 165). Our analyses based on mitochondrial DNA sequence data (352 bp) and eight microsatellite markers reveal a lack of genetic structuring over large geographic distances (Phi(ST) <= 0.058, F-ST <= 0.005, P values nonsignificant). In order to test whether this was due to passive larval dispersal, we used GPS-tracked drifter trajectories, which approximate movement of passive surface particles with ocean currents. The drifter data indicate that the Antarctic Circumpolar Current (ACC) connects the sampling locations in one direction only (west-east), and that passive transport is possible within the 4-month larval period of G. gibberifrons. Indeed, when applying the isolation-with-migration model in IMA, strong unidirectional west-east migration rates are detected in the humped rockcod. This leads us to conclude that, in G. gibberifrons, genetic differentiation is prevented by gene flow via larval dispersal with the ACC.

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

4.7
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