Advertisement

Colour pattern measurements successfully differentiate two cryptic Onchidiidae Rafinesque, 1815 species

  • Ian Z. W. ChanEmail author
  • Jia Jin Marc Chang
  • Danwei Huang
  • Peter A. Todd
Original Paper

Abstract

Cryptic species, by definition, appear very similar to each other. In the absence of obvious external morphological differences, quantitative measurements of fine-scale colour pattern differences may be used to distinguish between cryptic species. To demonstrate how this is accomplished, 30 specimens each of two cryptic onchidiid sea slug species in Singapore were collected and identified by sequencing a fragment of the mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase subunit I gene. Sequences displayed a clear barcode gap: intraspecific distances (0–0.4%) and interspecific distances (4.8–5.5%) were distinct. To quantify colour patterns, eight pattern properties on the animals’ dorsal surface were measured using the PAT-GEOM software. Linear discriminant analysis and classification tree analysis were able to classify specimens with 80% and 81.7% accuracy respectively, and both identified proportion cover and randomness as the most important properties for differentiating the two species. Agreement between the genetic and pattern data is demonstrated by a significant correlation between the pairwise genetic and pattern distance matrices, as well as the significantly greater interspecific than intraspecific distances in both datasets. These results demonstrate that fine-scale pattern differences can be used to differentiate Peronia cryptic species. This approach has potential applications for a range of disciplines, including behaviour and ecology, and as an additional line of evidence for integrative taxonomy.

Keywords

Peronia Sensory ecology PAT-GEOM Integrative taxonomy Pattern quantification 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank L. Roman Carrasco for his advice on statistics and the National Parks Board, Singapore for the permit (number NP/RP 15-088) under which the specimens were collected.

Author contributions

I.Z.W.C. conceived and designed the experiment, performed image and data analysis and wrote the manuscript, including the preparation of the figures and tables. J.J.M.C. and D.H. conceived and designed the experiment, collected the specimens and performed genetic and morphological analyses and contributed to the final draft of the manuscript. P.A.T. conceived and designed the experiment and contributed to the final draft of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was funded by a Singapore Ministry of Education Academic Research Fund (MOE AcRF) Tier 1 Grant (R154-000-660-112) and by the National Research Foundation, Prime Minister’s Office, Singapore under its Marine Science R&D Programme (MSRDP-P03).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All applicable international, national and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed by the authors.

Sampling and field studies

The specimens were collected under a permit issued by the National Parks Board, Singapore (number NP/RP 15-088).

Data availability

The datasets and scripts used for all analyses are included in the “Electronic supplementary material” of the article.

Supplementary material

12526_2019_940_MOESM1_ESM.docx (1.5 mb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 1.49 mb)
12526_2019_940_MOESM2_ESM.txt (63 kb)
ESM 2 (TXT 62 kb)
12526_2019_940_MOESM3_ESM.txt (15 kb)
ESM 3 (TXT 14 kb)

References

  1. Awati PR, Karandikar KR (1948) Onchidium verraculatum, Cuv. (anatomy, embryology and bionomics). Zool Mem Univ Bombay 1:1–52Google Scholar
  2. Beheregaray LB, Caccone A (2007) Cryptic biodiversity in a changing world. J Biol 6(4):9.  https://doi.org/10.1186/jbiol60 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bergh R (1891) Die cryptobranchiaten Dorididen. Zool Jahrb Abt Anat Ontog Tiere 6:103–144Google Scholar
  4. Bickford D, Lohman DJ, Sodhi NS, Ng PK, Meier R, Winker K, Ingram K, Das I (2007) Cryptic species as a window on diversity and conservation. Trends Ecol Evol 22(3):148–155.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2006.11.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bray JR, Curtis JT (1957) An ordination of the upland forest communities of southern Wisconsin. Ecol Monogr 27(4):325–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Breiman L, Friedman JH, Stone CJ, Olshen RA (1984) Classification and regression trees. Taylor & Francis, Abingdon-on-ThamesGoogle Scholar
  7. Britton KM (1984) The Onchidiacea (Gastropoda: Pulmonata) of Hong Kong with a worldwide review of the genera. J Molluscan Stud 50:179–191Google Scholar
  8. Brower AV (2006) Problems with DNA barcodes for species delimitation: ‘ten species’ of Astraptes fulgerator reassessed (Lepidoptera: Hesperiidae). Syst Biodivers 4(2):127–132.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S147720000500191X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chan IZW, Stevens M, Todd PA (2018) PAT-GEOM: a software package for the analysis of animal patterns. Methods Ecol Evol, 0:1–10.  https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13131
  10. Chang JJM, Tay YC, Ang HP, Tun KPP, Chou LM, Meier R, Huang D (2018) Molecular and anatomical analyses reveal that Peronia verruculata (Gastropoda: Onchidiidae) is a cryptic species complex. Contrib Zool 87(3):149–165Google Scholar
  11. Cronin TW, Shashar N, Caldwell RL, Marshall J, Cheroske AG, Chiou TH (2003) Polarization vision and its role in biological signaling. Integr Comp Biol 43(4):549–558.  https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/43.4.549 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Crook AC (1997) Colour patterns in a coral reef fish: is background complexity important? J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 217(2):237–252.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-0981(97)00059-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cuthill IC, Partridge JC, Bennett AT, Church SC, Hart NS, Hunt S (2000) Ultraviolet vision in birds. In: Slater P, Rosenblatt J, Snowdon C, Roper T (eds) Advances in the study of behavior, vol 29. Academic Press, Cambridge, pp 159–214Google Scholar
  14. Cuvier G, Latreille PA (1830) Le règne animal distribué d’après son organisation, pour servir de base à l’histoire naturelle des animaux et d’introduction à l’anatomie comparée, 2nd edn. Chez Déterville, ParisGoogle Scholar
  15. Dall SR, Giraldeau LA, Olsson O, McNamara JM, Stephens DW (2005) Information and its use by animals in evolutionary ecology. Trends Ecol Evol 20(4):187–193.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2005.01.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dayrat B (2005) Towards integrative taxonomy. Biol J Linn Soc 85:407–415.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8312.2005.00503.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dayrat B, Conrad M, Balayan S, White TR, Albrecht C, Golding R et al (2011) Phylogenetic relationships and evolution of pulmonate gastropods (Mollusca): new insights from increased taxon sampling. Mol Phylogenet Evol 59:425–437.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2011.02.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Deshpande UD, Nagabhushanam R, Hanumante MM (1979) Reproductive ecology of the marine pulmonate, Onchidium verruculatum. Hydrobiologia 71:83–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dimitrova M, Merilaita S (2009) Prey concealment: visual background complexity and prey contrast distribution. Behav Ecol 21(1):176–181.  https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arp174 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fontaneto D, Giordani I, Melone G, Serra M (2007) Disentangling the morphological stasis in two rotifer species of the Brachionus plicatilis species complex. Hydrobiologia 583(1):297–307.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-007-0573-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Golikov AN, Starobogatov YI (1972) Class Gastropoda. In: Mordukhai-Boltovskoi FD (ed) Guide to the fauna of the Black and Azov seas, vol 3. Naukova Dumka, Kiev, pp 65–166Google Scholar
  22. Gotelli NJ (2004) A taxonomic wish-list for community ecology. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B 359:585–597.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2003.1443 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Goulding TC, Khalil M, Tan SH, Dayrat B (2018) Integrative taxonomy of a new and highly-diverse genus of onchidiid slugs from the Coral Triangle (Gastropoda: Pulmonata: Onchidiidae). ZooKeys 763:1–111.  https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.763.21252 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jorger KM, Norenburg JL, Wilson NG, Schrodl M (2012) Barcoding against a paradox? Combined molecular species delineations reveal multiple cryptic lineages in elusive meiofaunal sea slugs. BMC Evol Biol 12:245.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2148-12-245 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Joseph S, Poriya P, Vakani B, Singh SP, Kundu R (2014) Identification of a group of cryptic marine limpet species, Cellana karachiensis (Mollusca: Patellogastropoda) off Veraval Coast, India, using mtDNA COI sequencing. Mitochondrial DNA A DNA Mapp Seq Anal 27(2):1328–1331.  https://doi.org/10.3109/19401736.2014.945577
  26. Kaufman L, Rousseeuw PJ (1990) Partitioning around medoids (program pam). In: Finding groups in data: an introduction to cluster analysis. Wiley, Hoboken, pp 68–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kumar S, Stecher G, Tamura K (2016) MEGA 7: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis version 7.0 for bigger datasets. Mol Biol Evol 33:1870–1874.  https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msw054 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Layton KKS, Gosliner TM, Wilson NG (2018) Flexible colour patterns obscure identification and mimicry in Indo-Pacific Chromodoris nudibranchs (Gastropoda: Chromodorididae). Mol Phylogenet Evol 124:27–36.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2018.02.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lee CE, Frost BW (2002) Morphological stasis in the Eurytemora affinis species complex (Copepoda: Temoridae). Hydrobiologia 480(1–3):111–128.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021293203512 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Linnaeus C (1758) Systema naturæ per regna tria naturæ, secundum classes, ordines, genera, species, cum characteribus, differentiis, synonymis, locis, 10th edn. Laurentius Salvius, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  31. Maechler M, Rousseeuw P, Struyf A, Hubert M, Hornik K (2018) cluster: cluster analysis basics and extensions. R package version 2.0.7–1. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/cluster/. Accessed 5 Jun 2018
  32. Mantel N (1967) The detection of disease clustering and a generalized regression approach. Cancer Res 27(2[1]):209–220Google Scholar
  33. Mantel N, Valand RS (1970) A technique of nonparametric multivariate analysis. Biometrics 26(3):547–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Miller SE, Hausmann A, Hallwachs W, Janzen DH (2016) Advancing taxonomy and bioinventories with DNA barcodes. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B 371:20150339.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0339 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nevo E (2001) Evolution of genome–phenome diversity under environmental stress. Proc Natl Acad Sci 98(11):6233–6240.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.101109298 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Oksanen J, Blanchet FG, Friendly M, Kindt R, Legendre P, McGlinn D, … Wagner H (2018) vegan: Community Ecology Package. R package version 2.5–1. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vegant. Accessed 5 Jun 2018
  37. Pérez-Rodríguez L, Jovani R, Stevens M (2017) Shape matters: animal colour patterns as signals of individual quality. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 284(1849):20162446.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2016.2446 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. R Development Core Team (2008) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org/. Accessed 5 Jun 2018
  39. Rafinesque CS (1815) Analyse de la nature ou tableau de l’univers et des corps organisés. PalermeGoogle Scholar
  40. Ripley B (2018) tree: classification and regression trees. R package version 1.0–39. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/tree/index.html. Accessed 5 Jun 2018
  41. Schneider CA, Rasband WS, Eliceiri KW (2012) NIH image to ImageJ: 25 years of image analysis. Nat Methods 9(7):671–675.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.2089 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Smith MA, Rodriguez JJ, Whitfield JB, Deans AR, Janzen DH, Hallwachs W, Hebert PD (2008) Extreme diversity of tropical parasitoid wasps exposed by iterative integration of natural history, DNA barcoding, morphology, and collections. Proc Natl Acad Sci 105(34):12359–12364.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0805319105 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Spottiswoode CN, Stevens M (2010) Visual modeling shows that avian host parents use multiple visual cues in rejecting parasitic eggs. Proc Natl Acad Sci 107(19):8672–8676.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0910486107 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Stoddard MC, Kilner RM, Town C (2014) Pattern recognition algorithm reveals how birds evolve individual egg pattern signatures. Nat Commun 5:4117.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms5117 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Troscianko J, Stevens M (2015) Image calibration and analysis toolbox—a free software suite for objectively measuring reflectance, colour and pattern. Methods Ecol Evol 6:1320–1331.  https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12439 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Venables WN, Ripley BD (2002) Modern applied statistics with S, 4th edn. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Young CM, Greenwood PG, Powell CJ (1986) The ecological role of defensive secretions in the intertidal pulmonate Onchidella borealis. Biol Bull 171:391–404.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1541681 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Senckenberg Gesellschaft für Naturforschung 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesNational University of SingaporeSingaporeSingapore
  2. 2.Tropical Marine Science InstituteNational University of SingaporeSingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations