Hydrobiologia

, Volume 605, Issue 1, pp 55–63 | Cite as

Strong genetic divergence indicates that congeneric damselflies Coenagrion puella and C. pulchellum (Odonata: Zygoptera: Coenagrionidae) do not hybridise

  • Chris D. Lowe
  • Ian F. Harvey
  • David J. Thompson
  • Phillip C. Watts
Primary research paper

Abstract

Coenagrionid damselflies are in general decline in the British Isles. Numerous factors have been implicated in the loss of these species including recent speculation that hybridisation between congeners may result in species decline. Here we use a panel of 12 microsatellite loci to examine levels of genetic divergence and the likely occurrence of hybridisation in five populations of Coenagrion puella and C. pulchellum using samples from four sites in south-east England. Coenagrion puella and C. pulchellum were highly genetically divergent, and there was no evidence of hybridisation between any of the populations examined, even where C. puella and C. pulchellum were sympatric. There was some suggestion that C. pulchellum was less genetically diverse than C. puella, though this may have been a result of ascertainment bias associated with cross-species application of microsatellite markers. We conclude that there is no evidence that hybridisation between C. puella/pulchellum could be responsible for the on-going demographic decline in C. pulchellum. Nevertheless, further genetic studies such as this one are likely to provide estimates of diversity, population structure and dispersal capacity that will be invaluable in future conservation management strategies for coenagrionid damselflies.

Keywords

Introgression Conservation Habitat-loss Population structure 

References

  1. Aljanabi, S. & I. Martinez, 1997. Universal and rapid salt-extraction of high quality genomic DNA for PCR-based techniques. Nucleic Acids Research 25: 4692–4693.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amos, W., 1999. A comparative approach to the study of microsatellite evolution. In Goldstein, D. B. & C. Schlotterer (eds), Microsatellites: evolution and application. Oxford University Press, USA.Google Scholar
  3. Askew, R. R., 1988. The dragonflies of Europe. Harley Books, Essex, England.Google Scholar
  4. Barton, N. H. & G. M. Hewitt, 1985. Analysis of hybrid zones. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 16: 113–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chippindale, P. T., V. K. Davé, D. H. Whitmore & J. V. Robinson, 1999. Phylogenetic relationships of North American damselflies of the genus Ischnura (Odonata: Zygoptera: Coenagrionidae) based on sequences of three mitochondrial genes. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 11: 854–860.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chovanec, A. & J. Waringer, 2001. Ecological integrity of river-flood plain systems—assessment by dragonfly surveys (Insecta: Odonata). Regulated Rivers: Research & Management 17:493–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Corbet, P. S., 1999. Dragonflies: behaviour and ecology of Odonata, revised edition. Harley Books, Essex, England.Google Scholar
  8. Dijkstra, K. D. B. & R. Lewington, 2006. Field guide to the dragonflies of Britain and Europe including western Turkey and north-western Africa, British Wildlife Publishing, Milton on Stour.Google Scholar
  9. Evanno, G., S. Regnaut & J. Goudet, 2005. Detecting the number of clusters of individuals using the software structure: a simulation study. Molecular Ecology 14: 2611–2620.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Freeland, J. R. & K.F. Conrad, 2002. Genetic similarity within and among populations of the Variable and Azure damselflies (Coenagrion pulchellum and C. puella). Hydrobiologia 479: 69–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Goudet, J., 1995. fstat (vers. 1.2): a computer program to calculate F-statistics. Journal of Heredity 86:485–486.Google Scholar
  12. Goudet, J., 1999. pca-general for Windows, ver. 1.2. http://www2.unil.ch/izea/softwares/pcagen.html.
  13. Hare, M. P., S. A. Karl & J. C. Avise, 1996. Anonymous nuclear DNA markers in the American Oyster and their implications for the heterozygote deficiency phenomenon in marine bivalves. Molecular Biology and Evolution 13: 334–345.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Jiggins, C. D. & J. Mallet, 2000. Bimodal hybrid zones and speciation. Trends in Evolution and Ecology 15: 250–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lowe, C. D., S. J. Kemp, I. F. Harvey, D. J. Thompson & P. C. Watts, 2007. Variable microsatellite loci isolated from the azure damselfly, Coenagrion puella (L.) (Zygoptera; Coenagrionidae). Molecular Ecology Notes 7: 880–882.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. McPeek, M. A., M. Grace & J. M. L. Richardson, 2001. Physiological and behavioural responses to predators shape the growth/predation risk trade-off in damselflies. Ecology 82: 1535–1545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Miller, M. N. & O. M. Fincke, 2004. Mistakes in sexual recognition among sympatric Zygoptera vary with time of day and colour polymorphism (Odonata: Coenagrionidae). International Journal of Odonatology 7: 471–491.Google Scholar
  18. Nielsen, E., M. M. Hansen, D. E. Ruzzante, D. Meldrup & P. Grønkjær, 2003. Evidence of a hybrid-zone in Atlantic Cod (Gadhus morhua) in the Baltic and Danish Belt Sea revealed by individual admixture analysis. Molecular Ecology 12: 1497–1508.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pritchard, J. K. & W. Wen, 2003. Documentation for structure software: version 2. http://pritch.bsd.uchicago.edu.
  20. Pritchard, J. K., M. Stephens & P. Donnelly, 2000. Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data. Genetics 155: 945–959.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Rice, W. R., 1989. Analyzing tables of statistical tests. Evolution 43: 223–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sanchez-Guillen, R. A., H. Van Gossum & A. Cordero Rivera, 2005. Hybridization and the inheritance of female colour polymorphism in two ischnurid damselflies (Odonata: Coenagrionidae). Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 85: 471–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Schindler, M., C. Fesl & A. Chovanec, 2003. Dragonfly associations (Insecta: Odonata) in relation to habitat variables: a multivariate approach. Hydrobiologia 497: 169–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Schlötterer, C., 2004. The evolution of molecular markers—just a matter of fashion? Nature Reviews Genetics 5:63–68.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Smallshire, D. & A. Swash, 2004. Britain’s dragonflies. Wild Guides Ltd, Hampshire, UK.Google Scholar
  26. Turgeon, J. & M. A. McPeek, 2002. Phylogeographic analysis of a recent radiation of Enallagma damselflies (Odonata: Coenagrionidae). Molecular Ecology 11: 1989–2002.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Turner, J. R. G., 1971. Two thousand generations of hybridisation in a Heliconius butterfly. Evolution 25: 471–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tynkkynen, K., M. J. Rantala & J. Suhonen, 2004. Interspecific aggression and character displacement in the damselfly Calopteryx splendens. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 17: 759–767.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Tynkkynen, K., A. Grapputo, J. S. Kotiaho, M. J. Rantala, S. Vaananen & J. Suhonen, 2007. Hybridization in Calopteryx damselflies: the role of males. Animal Behaviour. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2007.09.017.
  30. Van Tol, J. & M. Verdonk, 1988. Protection des libellules (Odonates) et de leurs biotopes. Conseil de l’Europe, comité européen pour la sauvegarde de la nature et des ressources naturelles, Strasbourg. Collection Sauvegarde de la Nature 38: 188.Google Scholar
  31. Watts, P. C., D. J. Thompson & S. J. Kemp, 2004a. Cross-species amplification of microsatellite loci in some European zygopteran species (Odonata: Coenagrionidae). International Journal of Odonatology 7: 87–96.Google Scholar
  32. Watts, P. C., J. H. Wu, C. Westgarth, D. J. Thompson & S. J. Kemp, 2004b. A panel of microsatellite loci for the southern damselfly, Coenagrion mercuriale (Odonata: Coenagrionidae). Conservation Genetics 5: 117–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Watts, P. C., I. J. Saccheri, S. J. Kemp & D. J. Thompson, 2006. Population structure and the impact of regional and local habitat isolation upon genetic diversity of the endangered damselfly Coenagrion mercuriale (Odonata: Zygoptera). Freshwater Biology 51: 193–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wright, S., 1951. The genetical structure of populations. Annals of Eugenics 15: 323–354.Google Scholar
  35. Young, W. P., C. O. Ostberg, P. Kiem & G. H. Thorgaard, 2001. Genetic characterisation of hybridisation and introgression between andromous rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus) and costal cutthroat trout (O. clarki clarki). Molecular Ecology 10: 921–930.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chris D. Lowe
    • 1
  • Ian F. Harvey
    • 1
  • David J. Thompson
    • 1
  • Phillip C. Watts
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Biological SciencesLiverpool UniversityLiverpoolUK

Personalised recommendations