2010
DOI: 10.1016/j.fishres.2009.10.002
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Strong genetic but not spatial subdivision of two reef fish species targeted by fishers on the Great Barrier Reef

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

6
33
0
1

Year Published

2011
2011
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 28 publications
(41 citation statements)
references
References 61 publications
(90 reference statements)
6
33
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…A recent genetic study using the mitochondrial HVR I control region from the GBR L. carponotatus, demonstrated that there was significant gene flow within and among four inshore island groups (Evans et al, 2010). Although phylogenetic and population genetic analyses showed no geographic partitioning, two distinct lineages were identified and were represented across all sampling locations.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 96%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…A recent genetic study using the mitochondrial HVR I control region from the GBR L. carponotatus, demonstrated that there was significant gene flow within and among four inshore island groups (Evans et al, 2010). Although phylogenetic and population genetic analyses showed no geographic partitioning, two distinct lineages were identified and were represented across all sampling locations.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…Genetic data obtained for GBR L. carponotatus by Evans et al (2010) is used for direct comparison of the L. carponotatus population across Australia. Given the long pelagic larval duration for L. capronotatus (34 days [Evans unpublished data]), we test two hypotheses: firstly, that the population occupying three regions within WA will lack spatial genetic structuring, as seen in the GBR population (Evans et al, 2010) and, secondly, that the WA and GBR populations are genetically differentiated. We also evaluate and compare the genetic variability of the WA population(s) to that of the GBR.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Moreover, the results indicate that the gene flow in the study region may not be related to geographical distances; certain locations showed limited connectivity with their surroundings, whereas other locations showed long distance genetic exchange, as suggested for other fish species (Evans et al, 2010;Villegas Sánchez et al, 2014). In this context, reduced levels of genetic differentiation may be promoted in marine organisms with large effective population sizes complemented with high levels of population admixture of distinct genotypes among locations; however, both conditions could contribute favouring subtle but complex genetic structures, depending on the balance between current-mediated larval dispersal and adult active homing behaviour over small and large geographic scales (Baeza and Fuentes, 2013;Lemer and Planes, 2014;VergaraChen et al, 2014).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 65%
“…The apparent discrepancy between mtDNA and msatDNA likely results from few recruits per generation maintaining mtDNA genetic homogeneity over historical timescales, whereas populations at isolated locations require substantial amounts of self-recruitment on contemporary timescales to maintain viable populations. This discrepancy between mtDNA and msatDNA is increasingly being documented in other coral reef fishes (e.g., Evans et al 2010;Harrison et al 2012) and within the LHI region (van der Meer et al 2012a(van der Meer et al , b, 2013a. Interestingly, some individuals at the peripheral location (NI) show phenotypic differences (stripes and patterns around the eye, authors pers obs) suggesting that NI is at the very least, a genetically distinct and unique subpopulation (Drew et al 2008) or at an early stage of peripheral speciation (sensu Rocha 2004;Bowen et al 2013).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%