9 th World Sponge Conference 2013. 4-8 November 2013, Fremantle WA, Australia Genetic diversity of the Indo-Pacific barrel sponge Xestospongia testudinaria (Haplosclerida : Petrosiidae) Edwin Setiawan 1,2, Dirk Erpenbeck 1, Thomas Swierts 3, N.J. de Voogd 3, Gert Wörheide 1 1 Dept.of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Palaeontology & Geobiology, LMU München 2 Dept.of Biology,10 November Institute of Technology, Surabaya, Indonesia 3 Naturalis Biodiversity Center Leiden, The Netherlands
Why genetic diversity? Information for genetic connectivity & phylogeography Impact of environmental disturbances to marine ecosystem (e.g. Sutherland 2004; Lopez- Legentil et al. 2008; Lopez- Legentil & Pawlik 2009) Species delimitation
Why Xestospongia testudinaria? Abundant in the Indo-Pacific (de Voogd & van Soest 2002) One of the most common Indonesian reef sponges (van Soest 1989; de Voogd & Cleary 2008)
Background Earth & Environmental Sciences, Palaeontology & Geobiology
Research question Genetic diversity & connectivity in a broader scale? Species delimitation? = or X. testudinaria What about X. bergquistia? X. muta fig. Ritson-Williams et al. 2005 2 identical haplotype between it (Swierts et al. 2013)
RESULTS 8 haplotypes 2 identical haplotypes for: X. testudinaria (206 sequences) X. bergquistia (4 sequences) X. muta (116 sequences) Genetic connectivity (3 partition of cox1 gene) 4 specific haplotypes for X. testudinaria 2 specific haplotypes for X. muta p-distance of 0.0092 & nucleotide diversity (π) of 0.0037
Haplotype distribution (X. testudinaria & X. bergquistia) X. muta in the Caribbean (Lopez-Legentil & Pawlik 2009)
Phylogenetic reconstruction: All three barrel sponge taxa are not resolved
Discussion Earth & Environmental Sciences, Palaeontology & Geobiology Haplotype diversity index of 3 partition cox1: Xestospongia testudinaria (0.0037) similar to X. muta (π=0.0039), Lopez- Legentil & Pawlik 2009 Phorbas fictitius (π=0.0042), Xavier et al. 2010 Low mtdna substitution rates in Porifera 3 partition has a higher resolution than 5 partition of cox1 (Erpenbeck et al., 2006)
Species concept disagreement? Gray zone (De Quieroz, 2007) Diagnosable species concept Morphology (Fromont 1991,van Soest 1980) X. testudinaria X. bergquistia = X. muta Sterol compounds (Fromont et al. 1994) X. testudinaria X. bergquistia = X. muta Microsatellites (Bell, 2013) X. testudinaria X. bergquistia
Ecological species concept Reproductive (Fromont & Bergquist 1994) X. testudinaria X. bergquistia Geography (Montalvo & Hill 2011) X. testudinaria X. muta Monophyletic species concept (cox1) X. testudinaria = X. bergquistia = X. muta Cosmopolite barrel sponges?
Possible explanation: Ancient Polymorphism? (Charlesworth 2010) Haplotype similarity result of high longevity? (e.g., McMurray et al. 2008) Adapted figure from Charlesworth 2010
Conclusions 1. Severe problems in species delimitation. 2. Discrepancy between morphology & molecules in haplosclerid sponges (McCormack et al.2002; Raleigh et al. 2007; Redmond & McCormack 2008,2009; Redmond et al. 2007). 3. Employ other marker besides cox 1. 4. Bottom up re-examination for haplosclerid sponges (see Cardenas et al. 2012).
Acknowledgements DAAD and NCB Naturalis Leiden Queensland Museum Indonesian Government and ITS Surabaya Graduate Center LMU Munich Molecular Palaeobiology Lab LMU Munich
Further cox1 genetic pattern similarity to (ATP6) & Intron of ATPsynβ in X. testudinaria
5 partition of cox1 ATP 6 ATPsynβ X. testudinaria consist of at least three different species?