Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Multiple lines of evidence for an Australasian geographic boundary in the Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin (Sousa chinensis): population or species divergence?

  • Short Communication
  • Published:
Conservation Genetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The taxonomic status of humpback dolphins (genus Sousa, sub-family Delphininae) is unresolved. While the classification of this genus ranges from a single to three nominal species, the International Union for Conservation of Nature and the International Whaling Commission only recognise a ‘two-species’ taxonomy (S. teuszii in west Africa, and S. chinensis in the Indo-Pacific). Under the IUCN (2008), S. chinensis is listed as ‘near threatened’, but is only considered as a ‘migratory’ species in Australia. Taxonomic resolution of the genus Sousa is needed to define particular conservation status and develop appropriate management actions. Using phylogenetic analyses of 1,082 bp of mitochondrial and 1,916 bp of nuclear DNA, we provide multiple lines of genetic evidence for the genetic distinction of S. chinensis in China and Indonesia from S. chinensis in Australia. The separation of Australian Sousa from Sousa of Southeast Asia requires a review of their current conservation status and respective management actions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  • Amaral AR, Sequeira M, Martinez-Cedeira J, Coelho MM (2007) New insights on population genetic structure of Delphinus delphis from the northeast Atlantic and phylogenetic relationships within the genus inferred from two mitochondrial markers. Mar Biol 151:1967–1976

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Avise JC (2000) Phylogeography: the history and formation of species. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker CS, Perry A, Bannister JL et al (1993) Abundant mitochondrial-DNA variation and worldwide population-structure in humpback whales. Proc Natl Acad Am 90:8239–8243

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Beasley I, Robertson KM, Arnold P (2005) Description of a new dolphin, the Australian snubfin Orcaella heinsohni sp. n. (Cetacea, Delphinidae). Mar Mamm Sci 21:365–400

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloomquist EW, Lemey P, Suchard AM (2010) Three roads diverged? Routes to phylogeographic inference. Trends Ecol Evol 25(11):626–632

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cagnazzi DDD, Harrison PL, Ross GJB et al (2009) Abundance and site fidelity of Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins in the Great Sandy Strait, Queensland, Australia. Mar Mamm Sci 27(2):255–281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caballero S, Trujillo F, Vianna JA, Barrios-Garrido H, Montiel MG, et al (2007) Taxonomic status of the genus Sotalia: species level ranking for tucuxi (Sotalia fluviatilis) and costero (Sotalia guianensis) dolphins. Mar Mamm Sci 23:358–386

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalebout ML, Steel D, Baker S (2008) Phylogeny of the beaked whale genus Mesoplodon (Ziphiidae: Cetacea) Revealed by Nuclear Introns: implications for the evolution of male tusks. Syst Biol 57:857–875

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Davis JI, Nixon KC (1992) Populations, genetic variation and the delimitation of phylogenetic species. Syst Biol 41:421–435

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis LG, Dibner MD, Battey JF (1986) Basic methods in molecular biology, 1st edn. Elsevier, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawbin WH (1972) Dolphins and whales. In: Ryan P (ed) Encyclopaedia of Papua. Melbourne University Pres, New Guinea, pp 270–276

    Google Scholar 

  • Frère CH, Hale PT, Porter L, Cockcroft VG, Dalebout ML (2008) Phylogenetic analysis of mtDNA sequences suggests revision of humpback dolphin (Sousa spp.) taxonomy is needed. Mar Freshw Res 59:259–268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hickerson MJ, Carstens BC, Cavender-Bares J et al (2010) Phylogeography’s past, present, and future: 10 years after Avise, 2000. Mol Phylogenet Evol 54:291–301

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Huelsenbeck JP, Ronquist F (2001) MRBAYES: Bayesian inference of phylogenetic trees. Bioinformatics 17:754–755

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Jefferson TA, Van Waerebeek K (2004) Geographic variation in skull morphology of humpback dolphins (Sousa spp.). Aquat Mamm 30:3–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Knowles LL (2009) Statistical phylogeography. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 40:593–612

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krützen M, Sherwin WB, Berggren P, Gales NJ (2004) Population structure in an inshore cetacean revealed by microsatellite and mtDNA analysis: bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops spp.) in Shark Bay, Western Australia. Mar Mamm Sci 20:28–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LeDuc RG, Perrin WF, Dizon AE (1999) Phylogenetic relationships among the delphinid cetaceans based on full cytochrome B sequences. Mar Mamm Sci 13:619–648

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyons LA, Laughlin TF, Copeland NG et al (1997) Comparative anchor tagged sequences (CATS) for integrative mapping of mammalian genomes. Nat Genet 15:47–56

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mace GM (2004) The role of taxonomy in species conservation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series B-Biological Sciences 359:711–719

    Google Scholar 

  • Milinkovitch MC, Le Duc R, Tiedemann R, Dizon A (2002) Applications of molecular data in cetacean taxonomy and population genetics with special emphasis on defining species boundaries. In: Evans PGH, Raga JA (eds) Marine mammals: biology and conservation. Kluwer Academic-Plenum Publishers, Dordrecht, NY, pp 325–359

  • Moritz C (1994) Defining evolutionary significant units for conservation. Tree 9:373–375

    Google Scholar 

  • Moritz C (2002) Strategies to protect biological diversity and the evolutionary processes that sustain it. Syst Biol 51:238–254

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Palumbi SR, Baker CS (1994) Contrasting population structure from nuclear intron sequences and mtDNA of humpback whales. Mol Biol Evol 11:426–435

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Parra G, Ross GJB (2009) Humpback dolphins. In: Perrin WF, Wursig B, Thewissen JGM (eds) Encyclopedia of marine mammals. Academic Press, San Diego

    Google Scholar 

  • Parra GJ, Corkeron PJ, Marsh H (2004) The Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin, Sousa chinensis (Osbeck, 1765), in Australian waters: a summary of current knowledge. Aquat Mamm 30:197–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parra GJ, Corkeron PJ, Marsh E (2006a) Population sizes, site fidelity and residence patterns of Australian snubfin and Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins: implications for conservation. Biol Conserv 129:167–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parra GJ, Schick R, Corkeron PJ (2006b) Spatial distribution and environmental correlates of Australian snubfin and Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins. Ecography 29:396–406

    Google Scholar 

  • Penny D, Hendy MD (1985) The use of tree comparison metrics. Syst Zool 34:75–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perrin WF, Reeves RR, Dolar MLL, Jefferson TA, Marsh H, Wang JY, et al (eds) (2005) Report on the second workshop on the biology and conservation of small Cetaceans and Dugongs of Southeast Asia. Convention on Migratory Species (CMS) Technical Series publication no. 9, UNEP/CMS Secretariat, Bonn, Germany

  • Posada D (2008) jModelTest: phylogenetic model averaging. Mol Biol Evol 25:1253–1256

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Posada D, Buckley TR (2004) Model selection and model averaging in phylogenetics: advantages of Akaike information criterion and Bayesian approaches over likelihood ratio tests. Syst Biol 53:793–808

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rannala B, Yang Z (1996) Probability distribution of molecular evolutionary trees: a new method of phylogenetic inference. Mol Evol 43:304–311

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Roca AL, Georgiadis N, Pecon-Slattery J, O’Brien SJ (2001) Genetic evidence for two species of elephant in Africa. Science 293:1473–1477

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rodrigues MT, Pavan D, Curcio FF (2007) Two new species of lizards of the genus Bachia (Squamata, Gymnophthalmidae) from Central Brazil. J Herpetol 41:545–553

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schluter D (2009) Evidence for ecological speciation and its alternative. Science 323:737–741

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sulaiman ZH, Ovenden JR (2010) Population genetic evidence for the east–west division of the narrow-barred Spanish mackerel (Scomberomorus commerson, Perciformes: Teleostei) along Wallace’s line. Biodivers Conserv 19:563–574

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swofford DL (2003) PAUP*: phylogenetic analysis using parsimony (*and other methods), version 4. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson JN (2009) Which ecologically important traits are most likely to evolve rapidly? Oikos 118:1281–1283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolf JBW, Lindell J, Backström N (2009) Speciation genetics: current status and evolving approaches. Phil Trans Royal Soc B 365:1717–1733

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zwickl DJ (2006) Genetic algorithm approaches for the phylogenetic analysis of large biological sequence datasets under the maximum likelihood criterion. The University of Texas, Austin

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The research was carried out under permit no. 33838 issued by Northern Territories Parks and Wildlife. Ethics approval was given from The University of Charles Darwin (no. A06016). The study was funded with grants to GJP from Flinders University. The samples from Hong Kong were collected as part of a strandings program funded by the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department of the Hong Kong SAR Government. We thank Daniel Kreb and the National Marine Fisheries Service, USA for the Indonesian Sousa DNA sample.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Veterinary Sciences, University of Queensland, Gatton, QLD, 4343, Australia

    C. H. Frère & J. Seddon

  2. Biodiversity Division, Department of Natural Resources, Environment, The Arts and Sport, Palmerston, NT, 0831, Australia

    C. Palmer

  3. School of Environmental and Life Sciences, Charles Darwin University, Northern Territory, 0909, Australia

    C. Palmer

  4. SMRU Ltd., St Andrews University, North Haugh, St Andrews, Scotland, UK

    L. Porter

  5. School of Biological Sciences, Flinders University, GPO Box 2100, Adelaide, SA, 5001, Australia

    G. J. Parra

  6. Aquatic Sciences, South Australian Research and Development Institute (SARDI), 2 Hamra Avenue, West Beach, SA, 5024, Australia

    G. J. Parra

Authors
  1. C. H. Frère
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. Seddon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. C. Palmer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. L. Porter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. G. J. Parra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to C. H. Frère.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Frère, C.H., Seddon, J., Palmer, C. et al. Multiple lines of evidence for an Australasian geographic boundary in the Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin (Sousa chinensis): population or species divergence?. Conserv Genet 12, 1633–1638 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10592-011-0242-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10592-011-0242-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation