Marine Biology

, 150:1173 | Cite as

Small effective number of parents (Nb) inferred for a naturally spawned cohort of juvenile European flat oysters Ostrea edulis

  • D. Hedgecock
  • S. Launey
  • A. I. Pudovkin
  • Y. Naciri
  • S. Lapègue
  • F. Bonhomme
Research Article

Abstract

The great fecundity and very high larval mortality of most marine invertebrates and fish make possible substantial variance in the number of offspring contributed by adults to subsequent generations. The reproductive success of such organisms may thus resemble a sweepstakes lottery, in which a minority of progenitors succeeds in replacing an entire population, while the majority fails to procreate. One specific prediction of this hypothesis, that genetic diversity of newly settled cohorts should be less than that of the adult population, is tested in the present study. Microsatellite DNA markers were examined in naturally spawned juvenile European flat oysters Ostrea edulis (L.), collected over a 12-day period in 1993 from the western Mediterranean Sea, near Sète, France (43°32′N, 3°56′E) and grown out for a period of up to 10 months. Variation in these juveniles was compared to that in a pooled sample of adults collected in 1994 from two locations (Thau Lagoon and Port St. Louis) that had statistically homogeneous allelic frequencies. Though nearly twice as large as the pooled adult sample, the juvenile sample had only 60% of the adult allelic diversity. Analyses of linkage disequilibrium and kinship, as well as estimation of the effective number of parents, suggested that 10–20 adults produced this juvenile cohort. This observation supports the hypothesis of sweepstakes reproductive success and suggests that partial inbreeding may occur even in species with large populations and dispersing planktonic larvae.

Supplementary material

227_2006_441_MOESM1_ESM.doc (88 kb)
Supplementary material

References

  1. Árnason E (2004) Mitochondrial cytochrome b DNA variation in the high-fecundity Atlantic cod: Trans-Atlantic clines and shallow gene genealogy. Genetics 166:1871–1885PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Avise JC (1994) Molecular markers, natural history and evolution. Chapman and Hall, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Avise JC (2001) Introduction to the proceedings of the symposium “DNA-Based Profiling of Mating Systems and Reproductive Behaviors in Poikilothermic Vertebrates” in the same volume J Hered 92:99PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Balloux F (2004) Heterozygote excess in small populations and the heterozygote-excess effective population size. Evolution 58:1891–1900PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Baer CF (1999) Among-locus variation in F ST: fish, allozymes and the Lewontin–Krakauer test revisited. Genetics 152:653–659PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Belkhir K, Borsa P, Goudet J, Chikhi L, Bonhomme F (1996–2001) Genetix, version 4.05. A windows program for population genetic analysis. Laboratoire Génome, Populations, Interactions, CNRS UPR 9060, Université de Montpellier II, MontpellierGoogle Scholar
  7. Bierne N, Launey S, Naciri-Graven Y, Bonhomme F (1998) Early effect of inbreeding as revealed by microsatellite analyses on Ostrea edulis larvae. Genetics 148:1893–1906PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Bierne N, Tsitrone A, David P (2000) An inbreeding model of associative overdominance during a population bottleneck. Genetics 155:1981–1990PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Bonhomme F, Planes S (2000) Some evolutionary arguments about what maintains the pelagic interval in reef fishes. Env Biol Fish 59:365–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cockerham CC, Weir BS (1977) Digenic descent measures for finite populations. Genet Res 30:121–147Google Scholar
  11. Cole HA (1941) The fecundity of Ostrea edulis. J Mar Biolog Assoc UK 25:243–260Google Scholar
  12. Cole HA (1942) Primary sex-phases in Ostrea edulis. Q J Microsc Sci 83:317–356Google Scholar
  13. Cornuet JM, Luikart G (1996) Description and power analysis of two tests for detecting recent population bottlenecks from allele frequency data. Genetics 144:2001–2014PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. David P (1998) Heterozygosity-fitness correlations: new perspectives on old problems. Heredity 80:531–537PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. David P, Perdieu M-A, Pernot A-F, Jarne P (1997a) Fine grained spatial and temporal population genetic structure in the marine bivalve Spisula ovalis. Evolution 51:1318–1322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. David P, Berthou P, Noel P, Jarne P (1997b) Patchy recruitment patterns in marine invertebrates: a spatial test of the density-dependent hypothesis in the bivalve Spisula ovalis. Oecologia 111:331–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Diaz-Almela E, Boudry P, Launey S, Bonhomme F, Lapegue S (2004) Reduced female gene flow in the European flat oyster Ostrea edulis. J Hered 95:510–516PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Edmands S, Moberg PE, Burton RS (1996) Allozyme and mitochondrial DNA evidence of population subdivision in the purple sea urchin Strongylocentrotus purpuratus. Mar Biol 126:443–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Evans F, Matson S, Brake J, Langdon C (2003) The effects of inbreeding on performance traits of adult Pacific oysters (Crassostrea gigas). Aquaculture 230:89–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Flowers JM, Schroeter SC, Burton RS (2002) The recruitment sweepstakes has many winners: genetic evidence from the sea urchin Strongylocentrus purpuratus. Evolution 56:1445–1453PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Goodnight KF, Queller DC (1999) Computer software for performing likelihood tests of pedigree relationship using genetic markers. Mol Ecol 8:1231–1234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hauser L, Adcock GJ, Smith PJ, Bernal Ramırez JH, Carvalho GR (2002) Loss of microsatellite diversity and low effective population size in an overexploited population of New Zealand snapper (Pagrus auratus). Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99:11724–11747CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hedgecock D (1986) Is gene flow from pelagic larval dispersal important in the adaptation and evolution of marine invertebrates? Bull Mar Sci 39:550–564Google Scholar
  24. Hedgecock D (1994a) Does variance in reproductive success limit effective population size of marine organisms? In: Beaumont A (ed) Genetics and evolution of aquatic organisms. Chapman and Hall, London, pp 122–134Google Scholar
  25. Hedgecock D (1994b) Temporal and spatial genetic structure of marine animal populations in the California Current. CalCOFI Reports 35:73–81Google Scholar
  26. Hedgecock D, Chow V, Waples R (1992) Effective population numbers of shellfish broodstocks estimated from temporal variance in allelic frequencies. Aquaculture 108:215–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hedrick P (2005) Large variance in reproductive success and the N e/N ratio. Evolution 59:1596–1599PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Hellberg ME, Burton RS, Neigel JE, Palumbi SR (2002) Genetic assessment of connectivity among marine populations. Bull Mar Sci Suppl S 70:273–290Google Scholar
  29. Hill WG (1981) Estimation of effective population-size from data on linkage disequilibrium. Genet Res 38:209–216Google Scholar
  30. Herbinger CM, Doyle RW, Taggart CT, Lochmann SE, Cook D, (1997) Family relationships and effective population size in a natural cohort of cod larvae. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 54(Suppl. 1):11–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hoarau G, Boon E, Jongma DN, Ferber S, Palsson J, Van der Veer HW, Rijnsdorp AD, Stam WT, Olsen JL (2005) Low effective population size and evidence for inbreeding in an overexploited flatfish, plaice (Pleuronectes platessa L.). Proc Roy Soc B-Biol Sci 272:497–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Johnson MS, Black R (1984) Pattern beneath the chaos: the effect of recruitment on genetic patchiness in an intertidal limpet. Evolution 38:1371–1383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lewontin RC, Krakauer J (1973) Distribution of gene frequency as a test of the theory of the selective neutrality of polymorphisms. Genetics 74:175–195PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Launey S, Hedgecock D (2001) High genetic load explains segregation distortion and heterosis in a bivalve mollusc. Genetics 159:255–265PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Launey S, Ledu C, Boudry P, Bonhomme F, Naciri-Graven Y (2002) Geographic structure as revealed by microsatellite polymorphism in the flat oyster Ostrea edulis L. J Heredity 93:40–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Li G, Hedgecock D (1998) Genetic heterogeneity detected by PCR-SSCP, among samples of larval Pacific oysters (Crassostrea gigas Thunberg), supports the hypothesis of large variance in reproductive success. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 55:1025–1033CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Moberg PE, Burton RS (2000) Genetic heterogeneity among adult and recruit red sea urchins, Stronglyocentrotus franciscanus. Mar Biol 136:773–784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Naciri-Graven Y, Launey S, Lebayon N, Baud J-P (2000) Influence of parentage upon growth in Ostrea edulis: evidence for inbreeding depression. Genet Res 76:159–168PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nei M, Tajima F (1981) Genetic drift and estimation of effective population-size. Genetics 98:625–640PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Ó Foighil D, Taylor DJ (2000) Evolution of parental care and ovulation behavior in oysters. Mol Phylogenet Evol 15:301–313PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ohta T (1971) Associative overdominance caused by linked detrimental mutations. Genet Res 18:277–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Palumbi SR (1996) Macrospatial genetic structure and speciation in marine taxa with high dispersal abilities. In: Ferraris JD, Palumbi SR (eds), Molecular zoology: advances, strategies, and protocols. Wiley-Liss, New York, pp 101–117Google Scholar
  43. Palumbi SR (2003) Population genetics, demographic connectivity, and the design of marine reserves. Ecol Appl 13:S146–S158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Planes S, Lenfant P (2002) Temporal change in the genetic structure between and within cohorts of a marine fish, Diplodus sargus, induced by a large variance in individual reproductive success. Mol Ecol 11:1515–1524PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pollak E (1983) A new method for estimating the effective population-size from allele frequency changes. Genetics 104:531–548PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Pouvreau B (1977) L’huître plate Ostrea edulis L.: maturité sexuelle contrôlée, élevage larvaire, croissance et mortalité, variabilité génétique. Thesis, University of Caen, pp. 115Google Scholar
  47. Pudovkin AI, Balakirev ES (1985) Microspatial genetic heterogeneity in a settlement of a marine mollusk with high potential for interdemic gene flow. Doklady Akademii Nauk SSSR (Proceedings of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR) 285:1218–1220Google Scholar
  48. Pudovkin AI, Zaykin DV, Hedgecock D (1996) On the potential for estimating the effective number of breeders from heterozygote-excess in progeny. Genetics 144:383–387PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Rasmussen DI (1979) Sibling clusters and gene frequencies. Am Nat 113:948–951CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Robertson A (1965) The interpretation of genotypic ratios in domestic animal populations. An Prod 7:319–324Google Scholar
  51. Ruzzante DE, Taggart CT, Cook D (1996) Spatial and temporal variation in the genetic composition of a larval cod (Gadus morhua) aggregation: Cohort contribution and genetic stability. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 53:2695–2705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Ruzzante DE, Taggart CT, Cook D (1999) A review of the evidence for genetic structure of cod (Gadus morhua) populations in the NW Atlantic and population affinities of larval cod off Newfoundland and the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Fish Res 43:79–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Saavedra C, Zapata C, Alvarez G (1995) Geographical patterns of variability at allozyme loci in the European oyster Ostrea edulis. Mar Biol 122:95–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sambrook JJ, Fritsch EF, Maniatis T (1989) Molecular cloning. A laboratory manual. Cold Spring Harbor, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  55. Taylor MS, Hellberg ME (2003) Genetic evidence for local retention of pelagic larvae in a Caribbean reef fish. Science 299:107–109PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Turner TF, Wares JP, Gold JR (2002) Genetic effective size is three orders of magnitude smaller than adult census size in an abundant, estuarine-dependent marine fish (Sciaenops ocellatus). Genetics 162:1329–1339PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Walne PPR (1964) Observations of the fertility of the oyster Ostrea edulis. J Mar Biol Assoc UK 44:293–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Waples RS (1991) Genetic methods for estimating the effective size of cetacean populations. In: Hoelzel AR (ed) Genetic ecology of whales and dolphins. International Whaling Commission, Special Issue 13, Cambridge, pp 279–300Google Scholar
  59. Waples RS (2002) Evaluating the effect of stage-specific survivorship on the N e/N ratio. Mol Ecol 11:1029–1037PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Watts RJ, Johnson MS, Black R (1990) Effects of recruitment on genetic patchiness in the urchin Echinometra mathaei in Western Australia. Mar Biol 105:145–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Weir BS, Cockerham CC (1984) Estimating F-statistics for the analysis of population structure. Evolution 38:1358–1370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Zouros E, Pogson GH (1994) Heterozygosity, heterosis and adaptation. In: Beaumont AR (ed) Genetics and evolution of aquatic organisms. Chapman and Hall, London, pp. 135–146Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. Hedgecock
    • 1
  • S. Launey
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  • A. I. Pudovkin
    • 5
  • Y. Naciri
    • 2
    • 6
  • S. Lapègue
    • 2
  • F. Bonhomme
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesUniversity of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA
  2. 2.Laboratoire Génétique et PathologieIFREMERLa TrembladeFrance
  3. 3.CNRS-IFREMER, UMR 5171Université Montpellier IISèteFrance
  4. 4.Laboratoire de Génétique des PoissonsINRAJouy en JosasFrance
  5. 5.Institute of Marine BiologyVladivostokRussia
  6. 6.Laboratoire de Génétique et Phylogénie MoléculairesConservatoire et Jardin Botaniques de la Ville de GenèveGenevaSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations