4.4 Article

Population genetic structure of the threatened tropical seagrass Enhalus acoroides in Hainan Island, China

期刊

AQUATIC BOTANY
卷 150, 期 -, 页码 64-70

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.aquabot.2018.07.005

关键词

Seagrass; Enhalus acoroides; Microsatellites; Genetic differentiation; Isolation; Dispersal

资金

  1. National Specialized Project of Science and Technology [2015FY110600]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41606182, 41730529]
  3. National Basic Research Program of China [2015CB452905]
  4. Strategic Priority Research Program of the Chinese Academy of Science [XDA13020204]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Knowledge of the genetic structure of ecologically important species provides insight into population dynamics and persistence, which is important for decisions concerning ecosystem conservation and management. Seagrass ecosystems are being degraded in China due to coastal anthropogenic disturbances like eutrophication and pollution, but their genetic ecology is still poorly understood. In this study, we collected Enhalus acoroides samples from three lagoons and five offshore open-water sites along the east coast of Hainan Island to investigate its genetic diversity and structure using ten microsatellite loci. A total of 66 alleles were found, and the genetic diversity indices (i.e. mean number of alleles per locus, allelic richness and heterozygosity) varied among the eight populations. Assignment tests showed that the E. acoroides populations consists of three genetic clusters. Impeded gene flow among lagoonal populations was found, while connectivity existed among the open-water populations. This pattern seemed to be shaped by geographic isolation and ocean currents. Based on the genetic contribution analysis, we recommended that the E. acoroides populations at Tielugang and Gangdong need protection priority given they contribute higher genetic diversity, but are currently high risk populations under threats of pollution and physical disturbance.

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

4.4
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