Research Article |
Corresponding author: Waldir Miron Berbel-Filho ( waldirmbf@hotmail.com ) Academic editor: Javier Maldonado
© 2018 Waldir Miron Berbel-Filho, Luciano Freitas Barros-Neto, Ricardo Marques Dias, Liana Figueiredo Mendes, Carlos Augusto Assumpção Figueiredo, Rodrigo Augusto Torres, Sergio Maia Queiroz Lima.
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Citation:
Berbel-Filho WM, Barros-Neto LF, Dias RM, Mendes LF, Figueiredo CAA, Torres RA, Lima SMQ (2018) Poecilia vivipara Bloch & Schneider, 1801 (Cyprinodontiformes, Poeciliidae), a guppy in an oceanic archipelago: from where did it come? ZooKeys 746: 91-104. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.746.20960
|
Poecilia vivipara, a small euryhaline guppy is reported at the Maceió River micro-basin in the Fernando de Noronha oceanic archipelago, northeast Brazil. However, the origin (human-mediated or natural dispersal) of this insular population is still controversial. The present study investigates how this population is phylogenetically related to the surrounding continental populations using the cytochrome oxidase I mitochondrial gene from eleven river basins in South America. Our phylogenetic reconstruction showed a clear geographical distribution arrangement of P. vivipara lineages. The Fernando de Noronha haplotype fell within the 'north' clade, closely related to a shared haplotype between the Paraíba do Norte and Potengi basins; the geographically closest continental drainages. Our phylogenetic reconstruction also showed highly divergent lineages, suggesting that P. vivipara may represent a species complex along its wide distribution. Regarding to the insular population, P. vivipara may have been intentionally introduced to the archipelago for the purpose of mosquito larvae control during the occupation of a U.S. military base following World War II. However, given the euryhaline capacity of P. vivipara, a potential scenario of natural (passive or active) dispersal cannot be ruled out.
Fernando de Noronha arquipelago, Human-mediated dispersal, Mitochondrial DNA, Mosquitofish, Mosquito larvae control, Natural dispersal
The origin of terrestrial and freshwater organisms on oceanic islands has historically been a topic of intrigue within the field of biogeography. Oceanic islands are created by volcanic or coralline processes (
There are four oceanic archipelagos in the Brazilian territory: Rocas Atoll, Fernando de Noronha, São Pedro and São Paulo, and Trindade and Martin Vaz (
Originally described from Suriname, P. vivipara is a small poeciliid species found mainly in lentic waters, ranging in salinity from freshwater to hypersaline conditions (
Molecular approaches have been used to identify the source regions of introduced species, particularly in cases where the species in question has a wide geographical range and introduction events are not well documented (
During a field trip to sample Bathygobius soporator (Valenciennes 1837) at the Fernando de Noronha archipelago, we unexpectally found P. vivipara (Fig.
DNA extraction was performed using the DNA easy Tissue Kit (Qiagen). Cytochrome Oxidase I (COI) mitochondrial DNA gene was amplified, using the primers FISH-BCH2 (5’ ACTTCYGGGTGRCCRAARAATCA 3’) and FISH-BCL (5’ TCAACYAATCAYAAAGATATYGGCAC 3’) (
List of species, sampling sites (basin, municipality, state, country, and number in the map), geographical coordinates, catalogue number and GenBank access number used in the phylogenetic analysis. Abbreviations: N, number of individuals; *, sequences from GenBank; CE, Ceará State; PB, Paraíba State; MG, Minas Gerais State; PE, Pernambuco State; PR, Paraná State, RJ; Rio de Janeiro State; RN, Rio Grande do Norte State; SE, Sergipe State.
Species | N | Sampling site | Latitude | Longitude | Voucher N° | GenBank N° |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Poecilia vivipara* | 3 | Macanao, Margarita island, Nueva Esparta, Venezuela (1) | 10,988, -64,164 | – | KP761881–KP761883 | |
Poecilia vivipara* | 2 | Tubores, Margarita island, Nueva Esparta , Venezuela (1) | 10,905, -64,107 | – | KP761884–KP761885 | |
Poecilia vivipara | 4 | Maceió, Fernando de Noronha, PE, Brazil (2) | -3,865, -32,425 | UFRN0822 | KU684422–KU684425 | |
Poecilia vivipara | 1 | Jaguaribe, Saboeiro, CE, Brazil (3) | -6,541, -39,910 | UFRN0337 | KU684421 | |
Poecilia vivipara | 5 | Piranhas-Açu, Serra Negra do Norte, RN, Brazil (4) | -6,579, -37,255 | UFRN0289 | KU684426–KU684430 | |
Poecilia vivipara | 4 | Potengi, Macaíba, RN, Brazil (5) | -5,881, -35,369 | UFRN2694 | KU684417–KU684420 | |
Poecilia vivipara | 4 | Paraíba do Norte, Barra de Santana, PB, Brazil (6) | -7,529, -35,998 | UFRN0431 | KU684431–KU684434 | |
Poecilia vivipara | 3 | Ipojuca, Ipojuca, PE, Brazil (7) | -8,583, -35,043 | UFRN1072 | KU684414–KU684416 | |
Poecilia vivipara | 3 | São Francisco, Serra Talhada, PE, Brazil (8) | -8,211, -38,534 | UFRN0529 | KU684441–KU684443 | |
Poecilia vivipara | 3 | Piauí, Estância, SE, Brazil (9) | -11,209, -37,282 | UFRN0823 | KU684438–KU684440 | |
Poecilia vivipara | 3 | São João, São João da Barra, RJ, Brazil (10) | -22,523, -42,559 | UFRN1074 | KU684435–KU684437 | |
Poecilia vivipara* | 1 | Paraná, Piraguaçu, MG, Brazil (11) | -22,613, -45,514 | – | GU701911 | |
Poecilia vivipara* | 2 | Paraná, Califórnia, PR, Brazil (11) | -23,675, -51,313 | – | GU70190; GU701908 | |
Poecilia vivipara* | 1 | Paraná, Campo Mourão, PR, Brazil (11) | -24,078, -52,296 | – | GU701904 | |
Poecilia hondurensis* | 2 | Aguán, Honduras | – | – | – | JX968669–JX968670 |
Poecilia mexicana* | 1 | Lempa, El Salvador | – | – | – | JX968662– JX968663 |
Poecilia reticulata* | 2 | Pernadeles, Dominican Replubic | – | – | – | X968695–X968696 |
Poecilia sphenops* | 2 | Nahualate, Guatemala | – | – | – | JX968660–JX968661 |
Pamphorichthyshollandi | 4 | Sergipe, Aracaju, SE, Brazil | -10,926, -37,102 | UFRN3663 | KU484444–KU684447 |
In order to determine how P. vivipara collected from Fernando de Noronha relate to their continental conspecifics, specimens from eight basins across northeast Brazil (including the closest coastal drainages to Fernando de Noronha archipelago), two basins from south and southwest Brazil, and one continental island in Venezuela (Isla Margarita), were included in the phylogenetic analysis (Fig.
Map with the sampling sites of individuals used on genetic analyses. Circles represent sampled sites. Squares represent sequences retrieved from GenBank. An asterisk represents the type locality of Poecilia vivipara. Different colours represent different phylogenetic clades. Sampling sites: 1 Margarita island 2 Maceió 3 Jaguaribe 4 Piranhas-Açu 5 Potengi 6 Paraíba do Norte 7 Ipojuca 8 São Francisco 9 Piauí 10 São João 11 Paraná.
Phylogenetic analysis was carried out using only the haplotype data (one representative per haplotype) via Bayesian Coalescent constant size tree reconstruction using Beast v.1.75 (
To visualize the relationships among intraspecific haplotypes, a haplotype network was generated using PopART v. 1.7 (
The phylogenetic reconstruction revealed 12 haplotypes in P. vivipara. In most cases, each haplotype was restricted to a single drainage. In fact, only three out of eleven drainages sampled (Paraná, Piauí, and São Francisco) presented more than one haplotype. Four major clades were revealed in the phylogenetic analysis, hereafter named the ‘Venezuela’, ‘north’, ‘central’, and ‘south’ clades. The Venezuelan specimens represented one haplotype which was closely related to the samples from northeast Brazil, although with low posterior probability. The Fernando de Noronha individuals exhibited a unique haplotype, which was closely related to the shared haplotype found in Potengi and Paraíba do Norte drainages. Thus, the insular oceanic individuals fell within the ‘north clade’, comprised of lineages of northeast Brazil (Jaguaribe, Piranhas-Açu, Potengi, Paraíba do Norte, and the haplotype 3 from São Francisco). The ‘central clade’ was composed of haplotypes south of Paraíba do Norte river basin (Ipojuca and Piauí), including the São Francisco river basin (haplotype 7), located in northeast Brazil. Haplotypes found within the southernmost drainages comprised the ‘south clade’ (São João and Paraná basins) (Figs
Our haplotype network reconstruction also showed a clear geographic pattern, within the Brazilian clades: north, central, and south clades grouping within haplogroups. The only exceptions to this pattern were the haplotypes from the São Francisco river basin. Two distantly related haplotypes (3 and 7) were found at the same sampling site; however, haplotype 3 fell within the north clade, while haplotype 7 fell within the central clade. The Fernando de Noronha haplotype is placed within the north clade, separated by two mutational steps from the haplotype shared between the Potengi and Paraíba do Norte rivers (Fig.
The phylogenetic reconstruction and haplotype network clearly showed that lineage distribution followed a geographic pattern, and this pattern was corroborated by the genetic distance among drainages. The pairwise K2P distances were zero among drainages with shared haplotypes (Piranhas-Açu and Paraíba do Norte, and Jaguaribe and São Francisco), while the furthest apart sites exhibited higher genetic distance (2.6 % between Piranhas-Açu and Paraná River basins) (Fig.
K2P distance of Poecilia vivipara among basins (lower diagonal), and within basins in bold (main diagonal). River basins are MAR = Isla Margarita; MAC= Maceió; JAG= Jaguaribe; PAC= Piranhas-Açu; POT= Potengi; PBN= Paraíba do Norte; IPO= Ipojuca; SFR= São Francisco; PIA= Piauí; SAO= São João; PAR= Paraná.
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1.MAR | 0 | ||||||||||
2.MAC | 0.022 | 0 | |||||||||
3.JAG | 0.022 | 0.007 | – | ||||||||
4.PAC | 0.023 | 0.008 | 0.005 | 0 | |||||||
5.POT | 0.018 | 0.003 | 0.003 | 0.005 | 0 | ||||||
6.PBN | 0.018 | 0.003 | 0.003 | 0.005 | 0 | 0 | |||||
7.IPO | 0.018 | 0.017 | 0.017 | 0.018 | 0.013 | 0.013 | 0 | ||||
8.SFR | 0.023 | 0.012 | 0.007 | 0.012 | 0.009 | 0.009 | 0.013 | 0.013 | |||
9.PIA | 0.024 | 0.022 | 0.022 | 0.024 | 0.019 | 0.019 | 0.005 | 0.017 | 0.001 | ||
10.SAO | 0.018 | 0.022 | 0.022 | 0.023 | 0.018 | 0.018 | 0.015 | 0.022 | 0.021 | 0 | |
11.PAR | 0.021 | 0.024 | 0.024 | 0.026 | 0.021 | 0.021 | 0.017 | 0.024 | 0.021 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Dispersal routes across marine barriers and the subsequent colonization events of oceanic islands by unlikely organisms have been extensively described using DNA-based methods (
Several factors can facilitate marine dispersal of freshwater species during particular stages of life (eggs, larvae or adults), including transport by birds, storms, rafting, ocean currents, sea level fluctuations, and decreases in superficial water salinity (
Although it was not the main aim of the study, our results revealed a deep genetic structure within on P. vivipara. Usually, K2P distances above 2 % for COI have been considered as high intraspecific divergences, or a threshold value for species delimitation in freshwater fishes (
The present study represents a preliminary phylogeographical survey of Poecilia vivipara, a widely distributed South American guppy. Particularly, looking into the insular population of the Fernando de Noronha oceanic archipelago, which has been controversially reported as an introduced species to the archipelago. Our phylogenetic reconstruction showed a clear geographical arrangement within the distribution of P. vivipara lineages, and deep genetic divergence among clades. These findings indicate P. vivipara as a potential species complex; however, this possibility requires further investigation. The Fernando de Noronha population possibly represents an exclusive lineage which is phylogenetically related to the closest continental river basins. Poecilia vivipara may have been intentionally introduced into the archipelago for the purpose of mosquito larvae control during the occupation of a U.S. military base. However, given the euryhaline capacity of P. vivipara, a potential scenario of natural (passive or active) dispersal scenario cannot be completely disregarded. Although the origin of the archipelago lineage is still uncertain, this population may represent an interesting biological system for studies on biogeography, ecology, and evolution of isolated populations.
We are grateful to Angela Zanata, Hostelo Osman Jr., Damião Rabelo (ICMBio-FN), and Juliana Valverde for their assistance in field work and to ICMBio (Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservação da Biodiversidade) for logistic support at Fernando de Noronha Island. Rodrigo Torres is especially grateful for research fellowship provided by CNPq (grant no. 301208/2012-3). Waldir Berbel-Filho receives a PhD scholarship from the Science without Borders Program/CNPq (process #233161/2014-7). Luciano Barros-Neto is grateful to CAPES for his PhD scholarship. We are grateful to Benjamin Whittaker from Swansea University for his friendly review and suggestions.