Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-2dmjx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-06T23:20:00.618Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Staying well connected – Lithistid sponges on seamounts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 June 2015

Merrick Ekins*
Affiliation:
Queensland Museum, PO Box 3300, South Brisbane 4101, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Dirk Erpenbeck
Affiliation:
Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences and GeoBio-Center, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Richard-Wagner-Straße 10, 80333 München, Germany
Gert Wörheide
Affiliation:
SNSB – Bavarian State Collections for Palaeontology and Geology, Richard-Wagner-Straße 10, 80333 München, Germany
John N. A. Hooper
Affiliation:
Queensland Museum, PO Box 3300, South Brisbane 4101, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia Eskitis Institute for Drug Discovery, Griffith University, Brisbane 4111, Queensland, Australia
*
Correspondence should be addressed to:M. Ekins, Queensland Museum, PO Box 3300, South Brisbane 4101, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia email: m.ekins@qm.qld.gov.au
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Three species of lithistid sponges, Neoaulaxinia zingiberadix, Isabella mirabilis and Neoschrammeniella fulvodesmus were collected from deep seamounts off New Caledonia to address questions about their population structure, gene flow and the relative contribution of sexual and asexual reproductive strategies to their populations. The sponges were tested by sequencing the ITS (internal transcribed spacer) and CO1 regions of their genomes. These rare and presumably ancient sponges have a distribution restricted to seamounts in the south-western Pacific. Deep seamounts represent geographically separated islands. Although the sponges could be expected to have sexual reproduction restricted to near neighbours due to low sexual dispersal opportunities via larvae, this study found surprisingly high levels of gene flow between the seamounts. Amongst the specimens of N. zingiberadix taken from two seamounts there was no population structure; CO1 resulted in identical genotypes. For the population structure within N. fulvodesmus, as revealed by ITS, most of the variation was within each individual from the six seamounts on which it occurred and CO1 revealed no difference between individuals or seamounts. The third species I. mirabilis showed four genotypes based on CO1, which were distributed across all the seamounts. Indirect measures of different species showed a range of reproductive strategies from asexual to sexual, but with much higher connection between seamounts than previously thought. Individual seamounts did not show a separate population structure as one might expect from ‘islands’. The conclusion must be that these sponges have mechanisms to attain greater dispersal than previously thought.

Figure 0

Table 1. List of the species and the collection data of all of the specimens used in this study.

Figure 1

Table 2. Comparison of diversities and FSTs of N. fulvodesmus calculated from ITS on the seamounts in order of increasing latitude.

Figure 2

Table 3. AMOVA results of the entire ITS sequence of N. fulvodesmus between seamounts, between individuals within seamounts and within individuals.

Figure 3

Table 4. AMOVA results of the entire ITS sequence of N. fulvodesmus between seamounts and within seamounts.

Figure 4

Fig. 1. Distribution of the N. fulvodesmus ITS genotypes on the seamounts (ALA, 2014).

Figure 5

Table 5. Pairwise differences in FST of N. fulvodesmus calculated from ITS between the seamounts using the distance method.

Figure 6

Table 6. Summary of significant polymorphic loci of N. fulvodesmus with linkage disequilibrium.

Figure 7

Table 7. Comparison of diversities of the seamounts of N. fulvodesmus from CO1 in order of increasing latitude.

Figure 8

Table 8. Comparison of diversities of N. zingiberadix calculated from CO1 of the seamounts in order of increasing latitude.

Figure 9

Fig. 2. Distribution of the I. mirabilis CO1 genotypes on the seamounts (ALA, 2014).

Figure 10

Fig. 3. CO1 maximum likelihood reconstruction of the samples analysed in this study. Numbers following the taxon names are Queensland Museum collection numbers (QM G) or GenBank accession numbers. Numbers on the branches indicate rapid bootstrap support values (>70). The scale bar depicts substitutions per site.

Figure 11

Table 9. Comparison of diversities of I. mirabilis calculated from CO1 of the seamounts in order of increasing latitude.

Figure 12

Table 10. Pairwise differences in FST of I. mirabilis calculated from CO1 between the seamounts using the distance method.