4.4 Article

Genetic population structure of grey mackerel Scomberomorus semifasciatus in northern Australia

期刊

JOURNAL OF FISH BIOLOGY
卷 79, 期 3, 页码 633-661

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1095-8649.2011.03055.x

关键词

commercial; exploitation; fisheries stocks; microsatellites; mitochondrial DNA; tropical

资金

  1. Australian Fisheries Research and Development Corporation [2005/010]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study used mtDNA sequence and microsatellite markers to elucidate the population structure of Scomberomorus semifasciatus collected from 12 widespread sampling locations in Australia. Samples (n = 544) were genotyped with nine microsatellite loci, and 353 were sequenced for the control (384 bp) and ATPase (800 bp) mtDNA gene regions. Combined interpretation of microsatellite and mtDNA data identified four genetic stocks of S. semifasciatus: Western Australia, north-west coast of the Northern Territory, Gulf of Carpentaria and the eastern coast of Queensland. Connectivity among stocks across northern Australia from the Northern Territory to the eastern coast of Queensland was high (mean F-ST = 0.003 for the microsatellite data and Phi(ST) = 0.033 and 0.009 for control region and ATPase, respectively) leading to some uncertainty about stock boundaries. In contrast, there was a clear genetic break between the stock in Western Australia compared to the rest of northern Australia (mean F-ST = 0.132 for the microsatellite data and Phi(ST) = 0.135 and 0.188 for control region and ATPase, respectively). This indicates a restriction to gene flow possibly associated with suboptimal habitat along the Kimberley coast (north Western Australia). The appropriate scale of management for this species corresponds to the jurisdictions of the three Australian states, except that authorities in Queensland and Northern Territory should co-ordinate the management of the Gulf of Carpentaria stock. (C) 2011 State of Queensland Journal of Fish Biology (C) 2011 The Fisheries Society of the British Isles

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