Advertisement

Evolutionary Ecology

, Volume 25, Issue 5, pp 1145–1161 | Cite as

Ecological and genetic assessment of spatial structure among replicate contact zones between two topminnow species

  • Jacob F. SchaeferEmail author
  • David D. Duvernell
  • Brian R. Kreiser
Original Paper

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Coexistence Hybridization Ecological gradient Mosaic Fundulus 

Notes

Acknowledgments

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).

Supplementary material

10682_2011_9461_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (62 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 61 kb)

References

  1. Aboim MA, Mavarez J, Bernatchez L, Coelho MM (2010) Introgressive hybridization between two Iberian endemic cyprinid fish: a comparison between two independent hybrid zones. J Evol Biol 23:817–828PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson EC, Thompson EA (2002) A model-based method for identifying species hybrids using multilocus genetic data. Genetics 160:1217–1229PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 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
  4. Bierne N, Borsa P, Daguin C, Jollivet D, Viard F, Bonhomme F, David P (2003) Introgression patterns in the mosaic hybrid zone between Mytilus edulis and M. galloprovincialis. Mol Ecol 12:447–461PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blanchard TA (1996) Ovarian cycles and microhabitat use in two species of topminow, Fundulus olivaceus and F. euryzonus, from the southern United States. Environ Biol Fish 47:155–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blum MJ (2008) Ecological and genetic associations across a Heliconius hybrid zone. J Evol Biol 21:330–341PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Braasch ME, Smith PW (1965) Relationships of the topminnows Fundulus notatus and Fundulus olivaceus in the upper Mississippi River valley. Copeia 1965:46–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Braby CE, Somero GN (2006) Eological gradients and relative abundance of native (Mytilus trossulus) and invasive (Mytilus galloprovincialis) blue mussels in the California hybrid zone. Mar Biol 148:1249–1262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bridle JR, Baird S, Butlin RK (2001) Spatial structure and habitat variation in a grasshopper hybrid zone. Evolution 55:1832–1843PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Cain ML, Andreasen V, Howard DJ (1999) Reinforcing selection is effective under a relatively broad set of conditions in a mosaic hybrid zone. Evolution 53:1343–1353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carranza A, Arim M, Scarabino F, Defeo O (2010) Coexistence patterns of benthic gastropods on the Uruguayan shelf. Oikos 119:1312–1318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cummins KW (1962) An evaluation of some techniques for the collection and analysis of benthic samples with special emphasis on lotic waters. Am Midl Nat 67:477–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dammhahn M, Kappeler P (2008) Small-scale coexistence of two mouse lemur species Microcebus berthae and M. murinus) within a homogeneous competitive environment. Oecologia 157:473–483PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Davies KF, Holyoak M, Preston KA, Offeman VA, Lum Q (2009) Factors controlling community structure in heterogeneous metacommunities. J Anim Ecol 78:937–944PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Duvernell DD, Schaefer JF, Hancks DC, Fonoti JA, Ravanelli AM (2006) Hybridization and reproductive isolation among syntopic populations of the ropminnows Fundulus notatus and F. olivaceus. J Evol Biol 20:152–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ellison CK, Niehuis O, Gadau J (2008) Hybrid breakdown and mitochondrial dysfunction in hybrids of Nasonia parasitoid wasps. J Evol Biol 21:1844–1851PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Endler JA (1977) Geographic variation. speciation, and clines. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  18. Fagan WF (2002) Connectivity, fragmentation and extinction risk in dendritic metapopulations. Ecology 83:3243–3249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Frimpong EA, Angermeier PL (2009) FishTraits: a database of ecological and life-history traits of freshwater fishes of the United States. Fisheries 34:487–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gay L, Crochet P, Bell DA, Lenormand T (2008) Comparing clines on molecular and phenotypic traits in hybrid zones: a window on tension zone models. Evolution 62:2789–2806PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gorman OT (1986) Assemblage organization of stream fishes: the effect of rivers on adventitious streams. Am Nat 128:611–616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Harrison RG (1986) Pattern and process in a narrow hybrid zone. Heredity 56:337–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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
  24. Holt RD (2006) Emergent neutrality. Trends Ecol Evol 21:531–533PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Howard DJ (1986) A zone of overlap and hybridization between two ground cricket species. Evolution 40:34–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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
  27. Jiggins CD, Mallet J (2000) Bimodal hybrid zones and speciation. Trends Ecol Evol 15:250–255PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jones FC, Brown C, Pemberton JM, Braithwaite VA (2006) Reproductive isolation in a threespine stickleback hybrid zone. J Evol Biol 19:1531–1544PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. M’Gonigle LK, FitzJohn RA (2009) Assortative mating and spatial structure in hybrid zones. Evolution 64:445–455Google Scholar
  30. Mason NWH, Lanoiselée C, Mouillot D, Wilson JB, Argillier C (2008) Does niche overlap control relative abundance in French lacustrine fish communities? A new method incorporating functional traits. J Anim Ecol 77:661–669PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Menge B, Olson AM (1990) Role of scale and environmental factors in regulation of community structure. Trends Ecol Evol 5:52–57PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Milne RI, Terzioglu S, Abbott RJ (2003) A hybrid zone dominated by fertile F1s: maintenance of species barriers in Rhododendron. Mol Ecol 12:2719–2729PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nolte AW, Freyhof J, Tautz D (2006) When invaders meet locally adapted types: rapid moulding of hybrid zones between sculpins (Cottus, Pisces) in the Rhine system. Mol Ecol 15:1983–1994PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Paschall JE, Oleksiak MF, VanWye JD, Roach JL, Whitehead JA, Wykcoff GJ, Kolell KJ, Crawford DL (2004) FunnyBase: a systems level functional annotation of Fundulus ESTs for the analysis of gene expression. BMC Genomics 5:96PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Patten MA, Rotenberry JT, Zuk M (2004) Habitat selection, acoustic adaptation, and the evolution of reproductive isolation. Evolution 58:2144–2155PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 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
  37. Petrusek A, Seda J, Machácek J, Ruthová S, Smilauer P (2008) Daphnia hybridization along ecological gradients in pelagic environments: the potential for the presence of hybrid zones in plankton. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 363:2931–2941PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Raymond M, Rousset F (1995) GENEPOP (version 1.2): population genetics software for exact tests and ecumenicism. J Heredity 86:248–249Google Scholar
  39. Redenbach Z, Taylor EB (2003) Evidence for bimodal hybrid zones between two species of char (Pisces: Salvelinus) in northwestern North America. J Evol Biol 16:1135–1148PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ross ST (2001) Inland fishes of Mississippi. University Press of Mississippi, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  41. Ross CL, Harrison RG (2002) A fine-scale spatial analysis of the mosaic hybrid zone between Gryllus firmus and Gryllus pennsylvanicus. Evolution 56:2296–2312PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Schaefer JF (2001) Riffles as barriers to inter-pool movement by three cyprinids (Notropis boops, Campostoma anomalum and Cyprinella venusta). Fresh Biol 46:274–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schaefer JF, Kreiser BK, Champagne C, Mickle PM, Duvernell DD (2009) Patterns of co-existence and hybridisation between narrowly endemic (Fundulus euryzonus) and broadly distributed (F. olivaceus) topminnows in a riverine contact zone. Ecol Fresh Fish 18:360–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Setzer PY (1970) An analysis of a natural hybrid swarm by means of chromosome morphology. Trans Am Fish Soc 99:139–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Seutin G, White BN, Boag PT (1991) Preservation of avian blood and tissue samples for DNA analyses. Can J Zool 69:82–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1994) Biometry: the principles and practices of statistics in biological research. W.H. Freeman and Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  47. Tews J, Brose U, Grimm V, Tielborger K, Wichmann MC, Schwager M, Jeltsch F (2004) Animal species diversity driven by habitat heterogeneity/diversity: the importance of keystone structures. J Biogeogr 31:79–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Thomerson JE (1966) A comparative biosystematic study of Fundulus notatus and Fundulus olivaceus (Pices: Cyprinodontidae). Tulane Stud Zool 13:29–47Google Scholar
  49. 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
  50. Thomerson JE, Woolridge DP (1970) Food habits of allotopic and syntopic populations of the topminnows Fundulus olivaceus and Fundulus notatus. Am Midl Nat 84:573–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Vähä J-PK, Primmer CR (2006) Detecting hybridization between individuals of closely related populations—a simulation study to assess the efficiency of model-based Bayesian methods to detect hybrid individuals. Mol Ecol 15:63–72PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Vannote RL, Minshall GW, Cummins KW, Sedell JR, Cushing CE (1980) The river continuum concept. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 37:130–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Weir BS (1979) Inferences about linkage diseequilibrium. Biometrics 35:235–254PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Weir BS, Cockerham CC (1984) Estimating F-statistics for the analysis of population structure. Evolution 38:1358–1370CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jacob F. Schaefer
    • 1
    Email author
  • David D. Duvernell
    • 2
  • Brian R. Kreiser
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesThe University of Southern MississippiHattiesburgUSA
  2. 2.Department of Biological SciencesSouthern Illinois University EdwardsvilleSt. LouisUSA

Personalised recommendations