Marine Biology

, Volume 161, Issue 10, pp 2433–2443 | Cite as

Genetic structure in native and non-native populations of the direct-developing gastropod Crepidula convexa

Original Paper


In many marine invertebrate species, larval development plays an important role in population connectivity and gene flow: species with direct benthic development generally show more genetic structure than those with planktonic development. We used nuclear markers (microsatellites) to determine population genetic structure of the direct-developing snail Crepidula convexa (Gastropoda: Calyptraeidae) in seven populations with 15–85 individuals each within its native range of the northwest Atlantic and compared it to Crepidula fornicata, a congener with planktonic development. Our results are consistent with general expectations and previous work in these species with other markers: C. convexa had greater population structure and even at a regional scale shows significant isolation-by-distance, in contrast to C. fornicata. We also genotyped a single population of C. convexa introduced to the northeastern Pacific to investigate the prediction of reduced genetic diversity following introduction (founder effect). We did not find a reduction in genetic diversity, suggesting that this non-native population may be characterized by multiple introductions. This pattern is consistent with many other introduced populations of marine invertebrates, including C. fornicata.

Supplementary material

227_2014_2519_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (86 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 85 kb)


  1. Addison JA, Hart MW (2005) Spawning, copulation, and inbreeding coefficients in marine invertebrates. Biol Lett 1:450–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allendorf FW, Lundquist LL (2003) Introduction: population biology, evolution, and control of invasive species. Conserv Biol 17:24–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ament AS (1978) Geographic variation in relation to life history in three species of the marine gastropod genus Crepidula. Dissertation, University of PennsylvaniaGoogle Scholar
  4. Ament AS (1979) Geographic variation in relation to life history in three species of the marine gastropod genus Crepidula: growth rates of newly hatched larvae and juveniles. In: Stancyk SE (ed) Reproductive ecology of marine invertebrates. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, pp 61–76Google Scholar
  5. Arndt A, Smith MJ (2002) Genetic diversity and population structure in two species of sea cucumber: differing patterns according to mode of development. Mol Ecol 7:1053–1064CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barrett SCH, Kohn JR (1991) Genetic and evolutionary consequences of small population size in plants: implications for conservation. In: Falk DA, Holsinger KE (eds) Genetics and conservation of rare plants. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 3–30Google Scholar
  7. Bierne N, Welch J, Loire E, Bonhomme F, David P (2011) The coupling hypothesis: why genome scans may fail to map local adaptation genes. Mol Ecol 20:2044–2072CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blanchard M (1997) Spread of the slipper limpet Crepidula fornicata (L. 1758) in Europe: current state and consequences. Sci Mar 61(S2):109–118Google Scholar
  9. Bradbury IR, Laurel B, Snelgrove PVR, Bentzen P, Campana SE (2008) Global patterns in marine dispersal estimates: the influence of geography, taxonomic category and life history. P R Soc B 275:1803–1809CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carlton JT (1992) Introduced marine and estuarine mollusks of North America: an end-of-the-20th-century perspective. J Shellfish Res 11:489–505Google Scholar
  11. Chapuis MP, Estoup A (2007) Microsatellite null alleles and estimation of population differentiation. Mol Biol Evol 24:621–631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Collin R (2001) The effects of mode of development on phylogeography and population structure of North Atlantic Crepidula (Gastropoda: Calyptraeidae). Mol Ecol 10:2249–2262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Collin R (2002) Another last word on Crepidula convexa with a description of C. ustulatulina n. sp. (Gastropoda: Calyptraeidae) from the Gulf of Mexico and southern Florida. Bull Mar Sci 70:177–184Google Scholar
  14. Collin R (2003) Worldwide patterns in mode of development in calyptraeid gastropods. Mar Ecol-Prog Ser 247:103–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Collin R, Wonham MJ, Barr KR (2006) Crepidula convexa Say, 1822 (Caenogastropoda: Calyptraeidae) in Washington State, U.S.A. Am Malacol Bull 21:113–116Google Scholar
  16. Cowen RK, Sponaugle S (2009) Larval dispersal and marine population connectivity. Ann Rev Mar Sci 1:443–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Daguin-Thiebaut C, Le Cam S, Viard F (2009) Isolation of 11 microsatellite markers in Crepidula convexa (Gastropoda, Calyptraeideae) for parentage analyses. Mol Ecol Resour 9:917–920CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dempster AP, Laird NM, Rubin DB (1977) Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm. J R Stat Soc B 39:1–38Google Scholar
  19. Dupont L, Jollivet D, Viard F (2003) High genetic diversity and ephemeral drift effects in a successful introduced mollusc (Crepidula fornicata: Gastropoda). Mar Ecol-Prog Ser 253:183–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. El Mousadik A, Petit RJ (1996) High level of genetic differentiation for allelic richness among populations of the argan tree (Argania spinosa (L.) Skeels) endemic to Morocco. Theor Appl Genet 92:832–839CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Goudet J (2002) FSTAT, a program to estimate and test gene diversities and fixation indices (version 2.9.3). Available from. Updated from Goudet (1995)
  22. Hedgecock D, Pudovkin AI (2011) Sweepstakes reproductive success in highly fecund marine fish and shellfish: a review and commentary. B Mar Sci 87:971–1002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hedrick PW (1999) Highly variable loci and their interpretation in evolution and conservation. Evolution 53:313–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hellberg ME (1996) Dependence of gene flow on geographic distance in two solitary corals with different larval dispersal capabilities. Evolution 50:1167–1175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hendler G, Franz DR (1971) Population dynamics and life history of Crepidula convexa Say (Gastropoda: Prosobranchia) in Delaware Bay. Biol Bull 141:514–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Henry JJ, Collin R, Perry KJ (2010) The slipper snail, Crepidula: an emerging lophotrochozoan model system. Biol Bull 218:211–229Google Scholar
  27. Herborg L-M, Weetman D, van Oosterhout C, Hänfling B (2007) Genetic population structure and contemporary dispersal pattern of a recent European invader, the Chinese mitten crab, Eriocheir sinensis. Mol Ecol 16:231–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hoagland KE (1977) Systematic review of fossil and recent Crepidula. Malacologia 16:363–420Google Scholar
  29. Hoagland KE (1984) Use of molecular genetics to distinguish species of the gastropod genus Crepidula (Prosobranchia: Calyptraeidae). Malacologia 25:607–628Google Scholar
  30. Hoagland KE (1985) Genetic relationships between one British and several North American populations of Crepidula fornicata based on allozyme studies (Gastropoda: Calyptraeidae). J Molluscan Stud 51:177–182Google Scholar
  31. Jombart T (2008) Adegenet: a R package for the multivariate analysis of genetic markers. Bioinformatics 24:1403–1405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jombart T, Devillard S, Balloux F (2010) Discriminant analysis of principal components: a new method for the analysis of genetically structured populations. BMC Genet 11:94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jost L (2008) G st and its relatives do not measure differentiation. Mol Ecol 17:4015–4026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kawecki TJ (2008) Adaptation to marginal habitats. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 39:321–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kelly RP, Palumbi SR (2010) Genetic structure among 50 species of the northeastern Pacific rocky intertidal community. PLoS One 5:e8594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kinlan BP, Gaines SD (2003) Propagule dispersal in marine and terrestrial environments: a community perspective. Ecology 84:2007–2020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kyle CJ, Boulding EG (2000) Comparative population genetic structure of marine gastropods (Littorina spp.) with and without pelagic larval dispersal. Mar Biol 137:835–845CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Le Cam S, Riquet F, Pechenik JA, Viard F (2014) Paternity and gregariousness in the sex-changing sessile marine gastropod Crepidula convexa: comparison with other protandrous Crepidula species. J Hered 105:397–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lee HJ, Boulding EG (2009) Spatial and temporal population genetic structure of four northeastern Pacific littorinid gastropods: the effect of mode of larval development on variation at one mitochondrial and two nuclear DNA markers. Mol Ecol 18:2165–2184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. López-Duarte PC, Carson HS, Cook GS, Fodrie FJ, Becker BJ, DiBacco C, Levin LA (2012) What controls connectivity? An empirical, multi-species approach. Integr Comp Biol 52:511–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Marko PB, Hart MW (2011) The complex analytical landscape of gene flow inference. Trends Ecol Evol 26:448–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. McGlashan D, Ponniah M, Cassey P, Viard F (2008) Clarifying marine invasions with molecular markers: an illustration based on mtDNA from mistaken calyptraeid gastropod identifications. Biol Invasions 10:51–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. McMillan WO, Raff RA, Palumbi SR (1992) Population genetic consequences of developmental evolution in sea urchins (Genus Heliocidaris). Evolution 46:1299–1312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Meirmans PG, Hedrick PW (2011) Assessing population structure: Fst and related measures. Mol Ecol Resour 11:5–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Nei M, Maruyama T, Chakraborty R (1973) The bottleneck effect and genetic variability in populations. Evolution 29:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Novak SJ, Mack RN (2005) Genetic bottlenecks in alien plant species. In: Sax DF, Stachowicz JJ, Gaines SD (eds) Species invasions: insights into ecology, evolution, and biogeography. Sinauer Associates Inc, Sunderland, pp 201–228Google Scholar
  47. Olson RR, McPherson R (1987) Potential vs. realized larval dispersal: fish predation on larvae of the ascidian Lissoclinum patella (Gottschaldt). J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 110:245–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ordóñez V, Pascual M, Ruis M, Turon X (2013) Mixed but not admixed: a spatial analysis of genetic variation of an invasive ascidian on natural and artificial substrates. Mar Biol 160:1645–1660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Peakall R, Smouse PE (2012) GenAlEx 6.5: genetic analysis in Excel. Population genetic software for teaching and research-an update. Bioinformatics 28:2537–2539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Piry S, Alapetite A, Cornuet J-M, Paetkau D, Baudouin L, Estoup A (2004) GeneClass2: a software for genetic assignment and first-generation migrant detection. J Hered 95:536–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Pritchard JK, Stephens M, Donnelly P (2000) Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data. Genetics 155:945–959Google Scholar
  52. Rannala B, Mountain JL (1997) Detecting immigration by using multilocus genotypes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 94:9197–9201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Riquet F, Daguin-Thiébaut C, Ballenghien M, Bierne N, Viard F (2013) Contrasting patterns of genome-wide polymorphism in the native and invasive range of the marine mollusc Crepidula fornicata. Mol Ecol 22:1003–1018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rius M, Darling JA (2014) How important is intraspecific genetic admixture to the success of colonising populations? Trends Ecol Evol 29:233–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Roman J, Darling JA (2007) Paradox lost: genetic diversity and the success of aquatic invasions. Trends Ecol Evol 22:454–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rousset F (2000) Genetic differentiation between individuals. J Evol Biol 13:58–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Rousset F (2008) GENEPOP’007: a complete re-implementation of the GENEPOP software for Windows and Linux. Mol Ecol Resour 8:103–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sakai AK, Allendorf FW, Holt JS, Lodge DM, Molofsky J, With KA, Baughman S, Cabin RJ, Cohen JE, Ellstrand NC, McCauley DE, O’Neil P, Parker IM, Thompson JN, Weller SG (2001) The population biology of invasive species. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 32:305–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Selkoe KA, Toonen RJ (2011) Marine connectivity: a new look at pelagic larval duration and genetic metrics of dispersal. Mar Ecol-Prog Ser 436:291–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Shanks AL (2009) Pelagic larval duration and dispersal distance revisited. Biol Bull 216:373–385Google Scholar
  61. Siegel DA, Kinlan BP, Gaylord B, Gaines SD (2003) Lagrangian descriptions of marine larval dispersion. Mar Ecol-Prog Ser 260:83–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Simon-Bouhet B, Garcia-Meunier P, Viard F (2006) Multiple introductions promote range expansion of the mollusc Cyclope neritea (Nassariidae) in France: evidence from mitochondrial sequence data. Mol Ecol 15:1699–1711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Strathmann MF, Strathmann RR (2007) An extraordinarily long larval duration of 4.5 years from hatching to metamorphosis for teleplanic veligers of Fusitriton oregonensis. Biol Bull 213:153–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. R Core Team (2013) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0,
  65. Thieltges DW, Strasser M, Reise K (2006) How bad are invaders in coastal waters? The case of the American slipper limpet Crepidula fornicata in western Europe. Biol Invasions 8:1673–1680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Townsend CH (1895) The transplanting of eastern oysters to Willapa Bay, Washington, with notes on the native oyster industry. In: United States Commision of Fish and Fisheries. Part XXI. Report of the commissioner for the year ending June 30, 1895, pp 193–202Google Scholar
  67. Treml EA, Roberts JJ, Chao Y, Halpin PN, Possingham HP, Riginos C (2012) Reproductive output and duration of the pelagic larval stage determine seascape-wide connectivity of marine populations. Integr Comp Biol 52:525–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Viard F, Ellien C, Dupont L (2006) Dispersal ability and invasion success of Crepidula fornicata in a single gulf: insights from genetic markers and larval-dispersal model. Helgoland Mar Res 60:144–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Weersing K, Toonen RJ (2009) Population genetics, larval dispersal, and connectivity in marine systems. Mar Ecol-Prog Ser 393:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Whitlock MC (2011) G’ST and D do not replace FST. Mol Ecol 20:1083–1091CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Wonham MJ, O’Connor M, Harley CDG (2005) Positive effects of a dominant invader on introduced and native mudflat species. Mar Ecol-Prog Ser 289:109–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wright S (1931) Evolution in Mendelian populations. Genetics 16:97–159Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Ecology and EvolutionStony Brook UniversityStony BrookUSA
  2. 2.CNRS, UMR 7144, Team Div&Co, Lab. Adaptation et Diversité en Milieu MarinStation Biologique de RoscoffRoscoffFrance
  3. 3.Sorbonne UniversitésUPMC Univ Paris 06, UMR 7144RoscoffFrance

Personalised recommendations