4.7 Article

Seascape analysis reveals regional gene flow patterns among populations of a marine planktonic diatom

出版社

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2013.1599

关键词

oceanographic connectivity; Bacillariophyceae; microsatellites; Skeletonema marinoi

资金

  1. Formas [2009-1185]
  2. European Community-RI Action ASSEMBLE grant [22779]
  3. Linnaeus CeMEB at the University of Gothenburg, Formas [2008-115]
  4. Swedish Research Council [2011-3600]
  5. Oscar and Lilli Lamms Minne, Wilhelm and Martina Lundgrens Vetenskapsfond

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We investigated the gene flow of the common marine diatom, Skeletonema marinoi, in Scandinavian waters and tested the null hypothesis of panmixia. Sediment samples were collected from the Danish Straits, Kattegat and Skagerrak. Individual strains were established from germinated resting stages. A total of 350 individuals were genotyped by eight microsatellite markers. Conventional F-statistics showed significant differentiation between the samples. We therefore investigated whether the genetic structure could be explained using genetic models based on isolation by distance (IBD) or by oceanographic connectivity. Patterns of oceanographic circulation are seasonally dependent and therefore we estimated how well local oceanographic connectivity explains gene flow month by month. We found no significant relationship between genetic differentiation and geographical distance. Instead, the genetic structure of this dominant marine primary producer is best explained by local oceanographic connectivity promoting gene flow in a primarily south to north direction throughout the year. Oceanographic data were consistent with the significant FST values between several pairs of samples. Because even a small amount of genetic exchange prevents the accumulation of genetic differences in F-statistics, we hypothesize that local retention at each sample site, possibly as resting stages, is an important component in explaining the observed genetic structure.

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