Comparative phylogeography of two co‐distributed but ecologically distinct rainbowfishes of far‐northern Australia

Aim

To test the influence of historical and contemporary environment in shaping the genetic diversity of freshwater fauna we contrast genetic structure in two co‐distributed, but ecologically distinct, rainbowfish; a habitat generalist (Melanotaenia splendida) and a habitat specialist (M. trifasciata).

Location

Fishes were sampled from far northern Australia (Queensland and Northern Territory).

Methods

We used sequence data from one mitochondrial gene and one nuclear gene to investigate patterns of genetic diversity in M. splendida and M. trifasciata to determine how differences in habitat preference and historical changes in drainage boundaries affected patterns of connectivity.

Results

Melanotaenia splendida showed high levels of genetic diversity and little population structure across its range. In contrast, M. trifasciata showed high levels of population structure. Whereas phylogeographic patterns differed, both species showed a strong relationship between geographical distance and genetic differentiation between populations. Melanotaenia splendida showed a shallower relationship with geographical distance, and genetic differentiation was best explained by stream length and a lower scaled ocean distance (11.98 times coast length). For M. trifasciata, genetic differentiation was best explained by overwater distance between catchments and ocean distance scaled at 1.16 × 10⁶ times coast length.

Main conclusions

Connectivity of freshwater populations inhabiting regions periodically interconnected during glacial periods appears to have been affected by ecological differences between species. Species‐specific differences are epitomized here by the contrast between co‐distributed congeners with different habitat requirements: for the habitat generalist, M. splendida, there was evidence for greater historical genetic connectivity with oceans as a weaker barrier to gene exchange in contrast with the habitat specialist, M. trifasciata.     

Can We Accurately Characterize Wildlife Resource Use When Telemetry Data Are Imprecise?

ABSTRACT Telemetry data have been widely used to quantify wildlife habitat relationships despite the fact that these data are inherently imprecise. All telemetry data have positional error, and failure to account for that error can lead to incorrect predictions of wildlife resource use. Several techniques have been used to account for positional error in wildlife studies. These techniques have been described in the literature, but their ability to accurately characterize wildlife resource use has never been tested. We evaluated the performance of techniques commonly used for incorporating telemetry error into studies of wildlife resource use. Our evaluation was based on imprecise telemetry data (mean telemetry error = 174 m, SD = 130 m) typical of field-based studies. We tested 5 techniques in 10 virtual environments and in one real-world environment for categorical (i.e., habitat types) and continuous (i.e., distances or elevations) rasters. Technique accuracy varied by patch size for the categorical rasters, with higher accuracy as patch size increased. At the smallest patch size (1 ha), the technique that ignores error performed best on categorical data (0.31 and 0.30 accuracy for virtual and real data, respectively); however, as patch size increased the bivariate-weighted technique performed better (0.56 accuracy at patch sizes >31 ha) and achieved complete accuracy (i.e., 1.00 accuracy) at smaller patch sizes (472 ha and 1,522 ha for virtual and real data, respectively) than any other technique. We quantified the accuracy of the continuous covariates using the mean absolute difference (MAD) in covariate value between true and estimated locations. We found that average MAD varied between 104 m (ignore telemetry error) and 140 m (rescale the covariate data) for our continuous covariate surfaces across virtual and real data sets. Techniques that rescale continuous covariate data or use a zonal mean on values within a telemetry error polygon were significantly less accurate than other techniques. Although the technique that ignored telemetry error performed best on categorical rasters with smaller average patch sizes (i.e., ≤31 ha) and on continuous rasters in our study, accuracy was so low that the utility of using point-based approaches for quantifying resource use is questionable when telemetry data are imprecise, particularly for small-patch habitat relationships.     

Effects of habitat complexity and predator exclusion on the abundance of juvenile red snapper

Predator exclusion and habitat complexity factors that may affect juvenile red snapper Lutjanus campechanus habitat selection were examined in field and laboratory experiments. A significant predator exclusion effect was detected. Uncaged shell habitats showed significantly lower numbers of age 0 year red snapper, and both uncaged shell and block-shell habitats showed significantly lower numbers of age 1 year red snapper compared with caged habitats ( P < 0·001). Habitat complexity also affected age 0 year red snapper, as mean abundance significantly decreased with decreased habitat complexity ( P < 0·001). In the laboratory, age 0 year red snapper association with complex habitats significantly increased with exposure to a predator Gulf flounder Paralichthys albigutta ( P < 0·001). This study showed that predator exclusion and habitat complexity were significant factors that affected the abundance of juvenile red snapper in nursery areas of the northern Gulf of Mexico. Predation may affect juvenile red snapper abundance directly through mortality and indirectly by influencing habitat selection.     

Persistence and recolonisation determine success of bog restoration for aquatic invertebrates: a comment on Mazerolle et al. (2006)

1. Mazerolle et al. (2006) concluded that some aquatic invertebrate species, including bog‐associated species, readily colonise man‐made bog pools. In contrast, in Dutch bog remnants Van Duinen et al. (2003) found that a considerable number of bog‐associated species do not colonise newly created bog pools. 2. The conclusion of Mazerolle et al. (2006) is based on vagile aquatic invertebrates. Here, we question whether their conclusion can be extended to more sedentary species, which were not captured in the Canadian study, but made up an important part of the invertebrate assemblage in the Dutch study. This discrepancy could be caused by sampling artefacts, low colonisation rates of these species or an incomplete restoration of site conditions. 3. In Canada, chances of recolonisation may be higher than in the Netherlands, as natural and near‐natural bogs are more extensive. In the Netherlands, with low chances of recolonisation, persistence of species may be more important. To disentangle the relative importance of persistence and recolonisation, evaluations of the success of restoration projects need to cover the entire invertebrate assemblage, including both vagile and more sedentary species.     

Summer stream habitat partitioning by sympatric Arctic charr, Atlantic salmon and brown trout in two sub-arctic rivers

Summer habitat use by sympatric Arctic charr Salvelinus alpinus, young Atlantic salmon Salmo salar and brown trout Salmo trutta was studied by two methods, direct underwater observation and electrofishing, across a range of habitats in two sub-arctic rivers. More Arctic charr and fewer Atlantic salmon parr were observed by electrofishing in comparison to direct underwater observation, perhaps suggesting a more cryptic behaviour by Arctic charr. The three species segregated in habitat use. Arctic charr, as found by direct underwater observation, most frequently used slow (mean ±s .d . water velocity 7·2 ± 16·6 cm s⁻¹) or often stillwater and deep habitats (mean ±s .d . depth 170·1 ± 72·1 cm). The most frequently used mesohabitat type was a pool. Young Atlantic salmon favoured the faster flowing areas (mean ±s .d . water velocity 44·0 ± 16·8 cm s⁻¹ and depth 57·1 ± 19·0 cm), while brown trout occupied intermediate habitats (mean ±s .d . water velocity 33·1 ± 18·6 cm s⁻¹ and depth 50·2 ± 18·0 cm). Niche overlap was considerable. The Arctic charr observed were on average larger (total length) than Atlantic salmon and brown trout (mean ±s .d . 21·9 ± 8·0, 10·2 ± 3·1 and 13·4 ± 4·5 cm). Similar habitat segregation between Atlantic salmon and brown trout was found by electrofishing, but more fishes were observed in shallower habitats. Electrofishing suggested that Arctic charr occupied habitats similar to brown trout. These results, however, are biased because electrofishing was inefficient in the slow-deep habitat favoured by Arctic charr. Habitat use changed between day and night in a similar way for all three species. At night, fishes held positions closer to the bottom than in the day and were more often observed in shallower stream areas mostly with lower water velocities and finer substrata. The observed habitat segregation is probably the result of interference competition, but the influence of innate selective differences needs more study.