4.4 Article

A genomic assessment of movement and gene flow around the South Florida vicariance zone in the migratory coastal blacknose shark, Carcharhinus acronotus

期刊

MARINE BIOLOGY
卷 166, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00227-019-3533-1

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Marine Fisheries Service under Saltonstall-Kennedy Grant [NA10NMF4540080]
  2. NOAA Fisheries-Gulf of Mexico Shark Pupping and Nursery program
  3. NOAA Office of Protected Resources, Section-6
  4. Guy Harvey Ocean Foundation
  5. Texas Sea Grant College Program
  6. College of Science and Engineering at Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi

向作者/读者索取更多资源

South Florida has been identified as a genetic break for multiple mobile marine taxa but the mechanisms that impede gene flow largely remain unknown. To understand how South Florida functions as a barrier for blacknose shark, a highly migratory species that has genetically diverged Atlantic and Gulf populations, patterns of genetic variation were assessed in 212 individuals sampled from the Atlantic, eastern Gulf, and Florida Keys at 2213 nuclear-encoded SNP-containing loci. Results support divergence between the Gulf and Atlantic (F-ST similar to 0.002, P<0.05), and 51 individuals caught in the Keys were assigned to the Gulf, as compared to only two individuals that assigned to the Atlantic, indicating that Florida Keys is largely composed of Gulf individuals. Further, two to three migrants were identified, all of which were Gulf individuals captured in the Atlantic. The results indicate that South Florida does not prevent individual movement between the Gulf and Atlantic and that the Keys may be a seasonal mixing zone. However, the Gulf and Atlantic remain genetically independent, suggesting that region-specific reproductive behavior/compatibility, or aspects of movement ecology, such as swimming energetics or temperature-driven interannual variability in migratory range, may maintain divergence rather than a physical barrier in South Florida.

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