Ecological and genetic assessment of spatial structure among replicate contact zones between two topminnow species
- 307 Downloads
The spatial structure of contact zones is often described as disjunct, diffuse or mosaic and presumed to be related to underlying ecological gradients. However, the ecology of contact zones, how they are structured, and if that structure is predictable based on the strength and nature of ecological gradients is unknown. Large spatial scales and the unreplicated nature of many of the best studied contact zones has made it difficult to codify broader ecological patterns. Freshwater stream fish contact zones have the advantage of being potentially replicated with well defined boundaries and predictable linear gradients (river continuum concept). We sampled four replicate topminnow (Fundulus olivaceus and F. notatus) contact zones in Gulf of Mexico drainages. In each, we quantified contact zone spatial structure and the strength of ecological gradients (habitat, physicochemical variables and fish community functional traits). All three types of contact zone structure were represented. Systems with weaker gradients had diffuse contact zones, low species richness and were numerically dominated by generalist species. Rates of hybridization were also variable among systems. There was no hybridization detected in the mosaic zone while hybrids were found at most of the co-occurrence sites in the diffuse and disjunct zones. Overall, local ecology clearly influences contact zone structure and the two species interact in fundamentally different ways in these four systems.
KeywordsCoexistence Hybridization Ecological gradient Mosaic Fundulus
We thank R. Diehl for assistance with contact zone modeling and two anonymous reviewers for constructive comments. Field and laboratory assistance provided by Joseph Einhorn, Patsy Alldredge, Brian Schoeneck, Stephanie Meier, Wendy Vogel, Andrea Gafford, Charles Champagne, Paul Mickle and Scott Clark. Funding provided by the National Science Foundation (DEB # 0716985).
- Belkhir K, Borsa P, Chikhi L, Raufaste N, Bonhomme F (2001) Genetix 4.02, logiciel sous Windows TM pour la genetique des populations. Laboratoire genome, populations, interactions: CNRS UMR 5000. Universite de Montpellier II, Montpellier, FranceGoogle Scholar
- Endler JA (1977) Geographic variation. speciation, and clines. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
- Harrison RG, Rand DM (1989) Mosaic hybrid zones and the nature of species boundaries. In: Otte D, Endler J (eds) Speciation and its consequences. Sunderland, Sinauer, pp 111–113Google Scholar
- Howell WM, Black A (1981) Karyotypes in populations of the cyprinodontid fishes of the Fundulus notatus species complex: a geographic analysis. Bull Al Mus Nat Hist 6:19–30Google Scholar
- M’Gonigle LK, FitzJohn RA (2009) Assortative mating and spatial structure in hybrid zones. Evolution 64:445–455Google Scholar
- Peres-Neto PR (2006) Patterns in the co-occurrence of fish species in streams: the role of site suitability, morphology and phylogeny versus species interactions. Oecologia 140:352–360Google Scholar
- Raymond M, Rousset F (1995) GENEPOP (version 1.2): population genetics software for exact tests and ecumenicism. J Heredity 86:248–249Google Scholar
- Ross ST (2001) Inland fishes of Mississippi. University Press of Mississippi, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1994) Biometry: the principles and practices of statistics in biological research. W.H. Freeman and Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Thomerson JE (1966) A comparative biosystematic study of Fundulus notatus and Fundulus olivaceus (Pices: Cyprinodontidae). Tulane Stud Zool 13:29–47Google Scholar
- Thomerson JE (1967) Hybrids between the cyprinodontid fishes, Fundulus notatus and Fundulus olivaceus in Southern Illinois. Trans Ill State Acad Sci 60:375–379Google Scholar