4.7 Article

Cultural traditions across a migratory network shape the genetic structure of southern right whales around Australia and New Zealand

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 5, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/srep16182

关键词

-

资金

  1. Australian Marine Mammal Centre (AMMC)
  2. AMMC
  3. Royal Society
  4. Sitka Sound Science Centre Scientist in Residency Fellowship
  5. MASTS pooling initiative (The Marine Alliance for Science and Technology for Scotland)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Fidelity to migratory destinations is an important driver of connectivity in marine and avian species. Here we assess the role of maternally directed learning of migratory habitats, or migratory culture, on the population structure of the endangered Australian and New Zealand southern right whale. Using DNA profiles, comprising mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) haplotypes (500 bp), microsatellite genotypes (17 loci) and sex from 128 individually-identified whales, we find significant differentiation among winter calving grounds based on both mtDNA haplotype (F-ST = 0.048, Phi(ST) = 0.109, p < 0.01) and microsatellite allele frequencies (F-ST = 0.008, p < 0.01), consistent with long-term fidelity to calving areas. However, most genetic comparisons of calving grounds and migratory corridors were not significant, supporting the idea that whales from different calving grounds mix in migratory corridors. Furthermore, we find a significant relationship between delta C-13 stable isotope profiles of 66 Australian southern right whales, a proxy for feeding ground location, and both mtDNA haplotypes and kinship inferred from microsatellite-based estimators of relatedness. This indicates migratory culture may influence genetic structure on feeding grounds. This fidelity to migratory destinations is likely to influence population recovery, as long-term estimates of historical abundance derived from estimates of genetic diversity indicate the South Pacific calving grounds remain at <10% of prewhaling abundance.

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