Marine Biology

, Volume 148, Issue 5, pp 1143–1155 | Cite as

Genetic evidence of cryptic speciation within hammerhead sharks (Genus Sphyrna)

  • J. M. Quattro
  • D. S. Stoner
  • W. B. Driggers
  • C. A. Anderson
  • K. A. Priede
  • E. C. Hoppmann
  • N. H. Campbell
  • K. M. Duncan
  • J. M. Grady
Research Article

Abstract

Surveys of genetic variation within cosmopolitan marine species often uncover deep divergences, indicating historical separation and potentially cryptic speciation. Based on broad geographic (coastal eastern North America, Gulf of Mexico, western Africa, Australia, and Hawaii) and temporal sampling (1991–2003), mitochondrial (control region [CR] and cytochrome oxidase I [COI]) and nuclear gene (lactate dehydrogenase A intron 6 [LDHA6]) variation among 76 individuals was used to test for cryptic speciation in the scalloped hammerhead, Sphyrna lewini (Griffith and Smith). CR and COI gene trees confirmed previous evidence of divergence between Atlantic and Indo-Pacific scalloped hammerhead populations; populations were reciprocally monophyletic. However, the between-basin divergence recorded in the mtDNA genome was not reflected in nuclear gene phylogenies; alleles for LDHA6 were shared between ocean basins, and Atlantic and Indo-Pacific populations were not reciprocally monophyletic. Unexpectedly, CR, COI, and LDHA6 gene trees recovered a deep phylogenetic partition within the Atlantic samples. For mtDNA haplotypes, which segregated by basin, average genetic distances were higher among Atlantic haplotypes (CR: DHKY=0.036, COI: DGTR=0.016) than among Indo-Pacific haplotypes (CR: DHKY=0.010, COI: DGTR=0.006) and approximated divergences between basins for CR (DHKY=0.036 within Atlantic; DHKY=0.042 between basins). Vertebral counts for eight specimens representing divergent lineages from the western north Atlantic were consistent with the genetic data. Coexistence of discrete lineages in the Atlantic, complete disequilibrium between nuclear and mitochondrial alleles within lineages and concordant partitions in genetic and morphological characters indicates reproductive isolation and thus the occurrence of a cryptic species of scalloped hammerhead in the western north Atlantic. Effective management of large coastal shark species should incorporate this important discovery and the inference from sampling that the cryptic scalloped hammerhead is less abundant than S. lewini, making it potentially more susceptible to fishery pressure.

References

  1. Abercrombie DL, Clarke SC, Shivji MS (2005) Global-scale genetic identification of hammerhead sharks: application to assessment of the international fin trade and law enforcement. Conserv Genet (in press)Google Scholar
  2. Avise JC, Ball RM (1990) Principles of genealogical concordance in species concepts and biological taxonomy. Oxford Surv Evol Biol 7:45–67Google Scholar
  3. Baum JK, Myers RA, Kehler D, Gerber L, Blanchard W, Harley SJ (2002) Preliminary standardized catch rates for pelagic and large coastal sharks from logbook and observer data from the Northwest Atlantic. Col Vol Sci Pap ICCAT 54:1294–1313Google Scholar
  4. Bermingham E, McCafferty SS, Martin AP (1999) Fish biogeography and molecular clocks: Perspectives from the Panamanian isthmus. In: Kocher TD, Stepien CA (eds) Molecular systematics of fishes. Academic, NewYork, pp 113–128Google Scholar
  5. Bonfil R (1997) Status of shark resources in the Southern Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean: implications for management. Fish Res Amsterdam, 29:101–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Borsa P (2002) Allozyme, mitochondrial-DNA, and morphometric variability indicate cryptic species of anchovy (Engraulis encrasicolus). Biol J Linnean Soc 75:261–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown CA (1998) Standardized catch rates of four shark species in the Virginia–Massachusetts (U.S.) rod and reel fishery 1986–1997. SB-IV-5, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Center, MiamiGoogle Scholar
  8. Campton DE, Bass AL, Chapman FA, Bowen BW (2000) Genetic distinction of pallid, shovelnose, and Alabama sturgeon: emerging species and the US Endangered Species Act. Conser Gen 1:17–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Castro JI, Woodley CM, Brudek RL (1999) A preliminary evaluation of the status of shark species. FAO Tech Pap 0 (380): I–iv;1–72Google Scholar
  10. Colborn J, Crabtree RE, Shaklee JB, Pfeiler E, Bowen BW (2001) The evolutionary enigma of bonefishes (Albula spp.): cryptic species and ancient separations in a globally distributed shorefish. Evolution 55: 807–820PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Compagno LJV (1984) FAO species catalogue, vol 4. Sharks of the world. An annotated and illustrated catalogue of shark species known to date. Part 1. Hexanchiformes to Lamniformes. United Nations Development Programme Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  12. Compagno LJV, Cook SF (1995) The exploitation and conservation of freshwater elasmobranchs: status of taxa and prospects for the future. J Aquariculture Aquat Sci 7:62–90Google Scholar
  13. Cramer J (1998) Large pelagic logbook catch rates for sharks. SB-IV-II, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, MiamiGoogle Scholar
  14. Dalebout ML, Mead JG, Baker CS, Baker AN, van Heldene AL (2002) A new species of beaked whale Mesoplodon perrini sp. N. (Cetacea: Ziphiidae) through phylogenetic analysis of DNA sequences. Mar Mammal Sci 18:577–608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dawson MN, Jacobs DK (2001) Molecular evidence for cryptic species of Aurelia aurita (Cnidaria, Scyphozoa). Biol Bull 200:92–96PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. de Vargas C, Norris R, Zaninetti L, Gibb SW, Pawlowski J (1999) Molecular evidence of cryptic speciation in planktonic foraminifers and their relation to oceanic provinces. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 96:2864–2868CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Dobzhansky T (1950) Mendelian populations and their evolution. Am Nat 84:401–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Eitner BJ (1995) Systematics of the genus Alopias (Lamniformes: Alopiidae) with evidence for the existence of an unrecognized species. Copeia 1995:562–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Etter RJ, Rex MA, Chase MC, Quatro JM (1999) A genetic dimension to deep-sea biodiversity. Deep Sea Res Part I Oceanog Res Pap 6:1095–1099CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Farris JS, Källersjö M, Kluge AG, Bult C (1994) Testing significance of incongruence. Cladistics 10:315–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Farris JS, Källersjö M, Kluge AG, Bult C (1995) Constructing a significance test for incongruence. Syst Biol 44:570–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Felsenstein J (1981) Evolutionary trees from DNA sequences: a maximum likelihood approach. J Mol Evol 17:368–376CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Felsenstein J (1985) Confidence limits on phylogenies: an approach using the bootstrap. Evolution 39:783–791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fraser-Brunner A (1950) A synopsis of the hammerhead sharks (Sphyrna), with description of a new species. Rec Austral Mus 22(3):231–219Google Scholar
  25. Friesen VL, Piatt JF, Baker AJ (1996) Evidence from cytochrome b sequences and allozymes for a ‘new’ species of alcid: the longbilled murrelet (Brachyramphus perdix). Condor 98:681–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Garcia-Rodriguez AI, Bowen BW, Domning D, Mignucci-Giannoni A, Marmontel M, Montoya-Ospina A, Morales Vela B, Rudin M, Bonde RK, McGuire PM (1998) Phylogeography of the West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus): how many populations and how many taxa? Mol Ecol 7:1137–1149CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Gardner MG, Ward RD (2002) Taxonomic affinities within Australian and New Zealand Mustelus sharks (Chondrichthyes: Triakidae) inferred from allozymes, mitochondrial DNA and precaudal vertebrae counts. Copeia 2002:356–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gilbert CR (1967) A revision of the hammerhead sharks (family Sphyrnidae). Proc US Nat Mus 119(3539)Google Scholar
  29. Goldman N, (1993) Statistical tests of models of DNA substitution. J Mol Evol 36:182–198CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Grady JM, Quattro JM (1999) Using character concordance to define taxonomic and conservation units. Conserv Biol 13:1004–1007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hasegawa M, Kishino M, Yano T (1985) Dating the human-ape splitting by a molecular clock of mitochondrial DNA. J Mol Evol 22:160–174CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Heemstra PC (1997) A review of the smooth-hound sharks (genus Mustelus, family Triakidae) of the western Atlantic Ocean, with description of two new species and a new subspecies. Bull Mar Sci 60:894–928Google Scholar
  33. Hillis DM, Mable BK, Larson A, Davis SK, Zimmer EA (1996) Nucleic acids IV: sequencing and cloning. In: Hillis DM, Moritz C, Mable BK (eds) Molecular systematics. Sinauer Assoc, Inc., Sunderland, pp 321–381Google Scholar
  34. Jordan DS (1908) The law of geminate species. Am Nat XLII(494):73–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kocher TD, Carleton KL (1999) Base substitution in fish mitochondrial DNA: patterns and rates. In: Kocher TD, Stepien CA (eds) Molecular systematics of fishes. Academic, NewYork, pp 13–24Google Scholar
  36. Kotas JE (2002) IUCN red list of threatened species—Sphyrna lewini. In: 2002 IUCN Red List of Threatened SpeciesGoogle Scholar
  37. Last PR, Stevens JD (1994) Sharks and rays of Australia. CSIRO, HobartGoogle Scholar
  38. Lee CE (2000) Global phylogeography of a cryptic copepod species complex and reproductive isolation between genetically proximate “populations”. Evolution 54:2014–2027PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Maddison WP, Maddison DR (1992) McClade, version 3.0. Sinauer, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  40. Martin AP (1992) Application of mitochondrial DNA sequence analysis to the problem of species identification of sharks. NOAA Technical Report NMFS 115. National Technical Information Service, Silver SpringsGoogle Scholar
  41. Martin A (1993) Hammerhead shark origins. Nature 364:494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mayr E (1940) Speciation phenomena in birds. Amer Nat 74:249–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Moritz C (1994) Application of mtDNA in conservation: a critical review. Mol Ecol 3:401–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. NMFS (2001) Final United States plan of action for the conservation and management of sharks. NOAA/NMFS/US Department of Commerce, Feb 2001Google Scholar
  45. Palumbi SR (1996) Nucleic acids II: The polymerase chain reaction. In: Hillis DM, Moritz C, Mable BK (eds) Molecular systematics. Sinauer Assoc, Inc., Sunderland, pp 205–247Google Scholar
  46. Pardini AT, Jones CS, Noble LR, Kreiser B, Malcolm H, Bruce BD, Stevens JD, Cliff G, Scholl MC, Francis M, Duffy CAJ, Martin AP (2001) Sex-biased dispersal of great white sharks. Nature 412:139–140CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Posada D, Crandall KA (1998) MODELTEST: testing the model of DNA substitution. Bioinformatics 14:817–818PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Quattro JM, Chase MR, Rex MA, Greig TW, Etter RJ (2001a) Extreme mitochondrial DNA divergence within populations of the deep-sea gastropod Frigidoalvania brychia. Mar Biol 139:1107–1113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Quattro JM, Jones WJ, Grady JM, Rohde FC (2001b) Gene-gene concordance and the phylogenetic relationships among rare and widespread pygmy sunfishes (genus Elassoma). Mol Phylogenet Evol 18:217–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Schizas NV, Street GT, Coull BC, Chandler GT, Quattro JM (1999) Molecular population structure of the marine benthic copepod Microarthridion littorale along the southeastern and Gulf coasts of the United States. Mar Biol 135:399–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sites JW, Crandall KA (1997) Testing species boundaries in biodiversity studies. Conserv Biol 11:1289–1297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Slade RW, Moritz C, Heideman A (1994) Multiple nuclear-gene phylogenies: applications to pinnipeds and comparison with a mitochondrial DNA gene phylogeny. Mol Biol Evol 11:341–356PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Smith SE, Au DW, Show C (1998) Intrinsic rebound potentials of 26 species of Indo-Pacific sharks. Mar Freshw Res 49:663–678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Springer S (1941) A new species of hammerhead shark of the genus Sphyrna. Proc Florida Acad Sci (1940) 5:45–62Google Scholar
  55. Stevens JD, Bonfil R, Dunlvy NK, Walker PA. (2000) The effects of fishing on sharks, rays, and chimeras (chondrichthyans), and the implications for marine ecosystems. ICES J Mar Sci 57:476–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Stoner DS, Grady JM, Priede KA, Quattro JM (2003) Amplification primers for the mitochondrial control region and sixth intron of the nuclear-encoded lactate dehydrogenase A gene in elasmobranch fishes. Conserv Genet 4:805–808CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Walker TI (1998) Can shark resources be harvested sustainably? A question revisited with a review of shark fisheries. Mar Freshw Res 49:553–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Weins JL, Penkrot TA (2002) Deliniting species using DNA and morphological variation and discordant species limits in spiny lizards (Sceloporus). Syst Biol 51:69–91CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Williams ST, Knowlton N, Wiegt LA, Jara JA (2001) Evidence for three major clades within the snapping shrimp genus Alpheus inferred from nuclear and mitochondrial gene sequence data. Mol Phyl Evol 20:375–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. M. Quattro
    • 1
  • D. S. Stoner
    • 1
  • W. B. Driggers
    • 1
  • C. A. Anderson
    • 1
  • K. A. Priede
    • 1
  • E. C. Hoppmann
    • 1
  • N. H. Campbell
    • 1
  • K. M. Duncan
    • 2
  • J. M. Grady
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Biological Sciences, Marine Science Program, and School of the EnvironmentUniversity of South CarolinaColumbiaUSA
  2. 2.Department of ZoologyUniversity of HawaiiHonoluluUSA
  3. 3.Department of Biological SciencesUniversity of New OrleansNew OrleansUSA

Personalised recommendations