Presentation on theme: "Past and modern invasive stories of Onychopoda (Cladocera): molecular-biology methods as a tool for the study with special attention to genus Cercopagis."— Presentation transcript:
Past and modern invasive stories of Onychopoda (Cladocera): molecular-biology methods as a tool for the study with special attention to genus Cercopagis Aladin N.V. (Zoological Institute RAS) in co-operation with: Plotnikov I.S. (Zoological Institute RAS), Chuikov Yu.S. (Environment Protection Agency of Astrakhan Region) Exploring diversity of Baltic Sea biota: new tools, results and implications Tvärminne Zoological Station, University of Helsinki, on April 22-24, 2005
Within Cladocera, four major taxa can be distinguished: Anomopoda, Ctenopoda, Haplopoda and Onychopoda. The last one shows remarkable geographical distribution. Most of the described species are restricted to the Caspian Sea, the Aral Sea, and peripheral areas of the Black Sea, including the Sea of Azov, i.e. in the remnants of Eastern Paratethys. The remaining onychopods are either freshwater inhabitants or marine animals, widespread in the world ocean.
Molecular phylogenetic analysis has demonstrated monophyly of three Onychopoda families, and sister group relationship between Onychopoda and Haplopoda (Richter, S., Braband, A., Aladin, N., Scholtz, G., 2001, Mol. Phyl. Evol.). We suggested an independent invasion into the Ponto-Caspian basin at least three times, twice originating in Palearctic freshwater bodies and once starting from the world ocean.
Currently we would like to apply molecular markers to study the modern invasions of Onychopoda: Bythotrephes sp., Cercopagis sp., Cornigerius sp., Podonevadne sp. and Evadne anonyx. Bythotrephes sp. invaded and settled in freshwater reservoirs and lakes in Europe and later invaded and settled in Great American Lakes. Cercopagis sp. invaded and settled in Baltic Sea and later invaded and settled in Great American Lakes. Recently it was reported that Cornigerius sp., Podonevadne sp. and Evadne anonyx are going to invade Baltic Sea. There is some chance that these species could be settled in the Baltic Sea and may go further.
We would like to put some questions that should be answered using new tools, results and implications.
Lets start from taxonomy.
Onychopoda consists of Podonidae, Polyphemidae and Cercopagidae
The following structure of genus Cercopagis was proposed by Mordukhai- Boltovskoi in 1968.
Polyphemoidea = Onychopoda Rivier, 1998
Polyphemoidea = Onychopoda Aladin et al., 1999
Polyphemoidea = Onychopoda Aladin et al., 2000
Polyphemoidea = Onychopoda Aladin et al., 2005
Our present opinion is that only 3 Cercopagis species are available. Two species: C. socialis and C. micronyx are capable for sexual reproduction and one C. cylindrata is capable only for parthenogenitic reproduction.
The following message I got from Hugh. Regardless morphological difference DNA studies showed that in North America only one species of Cercopagis that we prefer to call C. socialis (regulation of priority).
What taxonomy questions we should answer? 1.Using classical and molecular biology studies we should answer how many species of Cercopagis, Cornigerius and Podonevadne are living now in Northern America and Eurasia. 2.We need to check again weather we have only one species: Bythotrephes longimanus as recent molecular-biology studies showed us. 3.We need special taxonomic revision of the whole Onychopoda group for better understanding of all three families.
Lets continue with morphology.
Morphology of Cercopagis is diverse due to cyclomorphosis, cloning and predators impact
Some scientists believe that hook is using to anchor during sexual reproduction. Others believe that hook serves against predation.
Asexual (parthenogenetic) forms (clones) have no hook. Some scientists believe that hook also absent in spring forms that just hatched from resting eggs.
A photograph of Cercopagis without hook, that I got from Henn in autumn 1998.
Morphological differences between male, parthenogenetic and gamogenetic females is quite high. For some Cercopagis species males are still not known.
Cercopagis is much smaller than Bythotrephes. Students from Asko Laboratory (Sweden) in the beginning determined Bythotrephes as Cercopagis. Originally scientists identified at least two Bythotrephes (B. cederstroemi and B. longimanus). Now after DNA studies left only B. longimanus.
What morphology questions we should answer? 1.It will be nice to understand the reasons of morphological differences. Are they induced by different density of water that depends from salinity and temperature (cyclomorphosis)? 2.Could some morphological structures (hooks or horns, sharp end of brood pouch) save from predators? 3.Is there any connection between reproduction mode and availability of hook? 4.Which morphologycal parameters are enough stable to serve taxonomy and are good to be used in species identification keys?
Lets continue with distribution.
Cercopagis native areas and invaded areas in Eurasia.
Cercopagis invaded areas in Northern America.
Worldwide distribution of Cercopagis (native and invaded areas) In Aral Lake Cercopagis was last observed in summer In Sudochie Lake Cercopagis was last observed in autumn In Sudochie Reservoir, that replaced the lake, Cercopagis was last observed in autumn In recent samples collected in this reservoir ( ) Cercopagis was absent.
The following message I got from Ragnar. It is important to note that even in rich country as Sweden not enough money for monitoring.
What distribution questions we should answer? 1.We need very carefully to check samples from freshwater lakes around Baltic Sea. Is Cercopagis already invaded them but local researchers are continuing to label it as Bythotrephes? 2.Special monitoring program for control of possible invasions of Cercopagis to freshwater lakes in Northern Europe is needed. Why not to give special attention to Ladoga and other big lakes of Northern Europe? 3.At what stage from the life cycle Bythotrephes, Cercopagis, Cornigerius, Podonevadne are traveling around the world? Are they living organisms in ballast waters or resting eggs attached to fouling organisms outside the boat? Or both?
Lets continue with ecology.
Cercopagis in the Aral Sea was observed for the last time in summer Before that it always was presented in zooplankton. It disappeared due to salinisation. More info about the fate of Cercopagis in Aral you may have from In this lake Cercopagis never reached high abundances. The same is true for Cercopagis from the Caspian Sea.
In opposite to native areas (Caspian, Aral, Black, Azov Seas) Cercopagis in newly invaded lakes and seas started to reach high levels of abundance (several thousands individuals in m 3 ). Cercopagis formed a paste that led fishing nets to sink.
Luckily more often abundance of Cercopagis in invaded areas is much lower (several hundreds individuals in m 3 ).
In Internet the following information about feeding is given: Feeding type. Heterotrophic Feeding behavior. Members of the family Cercopagidae are active predators. Cercopagids capture prey (mainly small plankton crustaceans) with the first pair of thoracic legs (thoracopods I), retain prey by other three pairs of thoracic legs (thoracopods II-IV), crush its cuticle by mandibles, and suck the prey body contents. Detailed information on feeding behavior of C.(C.) pengoi is not available. Food spectrum. Information is not available. Supply of food. Information is not available. Quantitative characteristics of feeding. Information is not available. From this situation it is clear that more studies are needed. Recent experiments made by Joseph Makarewicz team gave some more info on this matter. Unfortunately direct filming still is not available. Takashi Onbe tried to do this but didnt succeed. Lot of scientists still believe that Cercopagis is omnivorous. If Cercopagis is strictly carnivorous at the bottom of aquaria should be lots of exeskeletons of sucked victims. Unfortunately we didnt see them in our aquarias.
In Internet on the same page (paragraph on Life history and development ) it is said: Parthenogenetic females of the first generation of C. (C.) pengoi, hatch from resting eggs, and are anatomically distinct from parthenogenetic females of following generations. They resemble С. (Apagis) ossiani M.- Bolt., which are characterized by 4 pairs of caudal spines, a significantly shortened caudal process without a loop and maximal fecundity (Simm and Ojaveer, 1999; Rivier 2000; Grigorovich et al., 2000; Rivier unpubl.). From this situation it is clear that more studies are needed. Cercopagis ossiani according to Mordukhai-Boltovskoi is very rare morphotype. If this hypothesis about spring forms is correct, at the beginning of spring should be a lot of these forms in all known localities. We have a lot of sympathy to this hypotheses, but unfortunately we dont know data confirming this hypotheses. Special experiments are needed as well as direct observations during special spring monitoring.
What ecology questions we should answer? 1.We need to find an answer why in invaded areas abundance of Cercopagis is so high if compare with native one. 2.Is this happened due to some changes in Cercopagis physiology or behavior in new localities? 3.Are Cercopagis, Cornigerius and Podonevadne true carnivorous? 4.Are Cercopagis, Cornigerius and Podonevadne omnivorous? 5.Is Cercopagis without hook available only in the beginning of life cycle shortly after hatching from resting eggs? 6.How it is possible to explain from ecological point of view that true predator Cercopagis is reaching abundance of several thousands individuals in m 3 ?
Lets continue with physiology.
Cercopagis is fairly eurytherm crustacean. Differences are not high regardless the origin of studied population.
Due to good tolerance to low temperatures Cercopagis parthenogenetic females could survive in Baltic Sea waters with high thermal pollution.
Near atomic power plant in Sosnovy Bor even in winter water temperature always is positive and surface is never covered with ice. It is possible that parthenogenetic females of Cercopagis could survive here.
Cercopagis is fairly euryhaline crustacean. Differences are not high regardless the origin of studied population.
1.According to our studies and those of our colleagues from Lancaster University Cercopagis is capable only to hyperosmotic regulation. 2.This organism could be osmoconformer in the very short range from 5-8 g/l up to 17 g/l. 3.Cercopagis hemolymph is hyperosmotic to surrounding water only in the range from fresh water up to 5-8 g/l. 4.Cercopagis will never invade even the Baltic Sea straits connecting it with the World Ocean. Salinity is too high. 5.Way of Cercopagis osmoregulation in identical to those of Bythotrephes and Polyphemus. It is the huge difference in osmoregulation capacities of marine and brackish water Podonidae. 6.From the point of view of osmotic regulation Cercopagis is very close to freshwater organisms and is very far from marine and Caspian Podonidae.
1.According to our studies and those of our colleagues from Lancaster University Cornigeriis, Podonevadne and Evadne anonyx are capable only to amphyosmotic regulation. 2.These organisms could be hypoosmotics in the range from 5-8 g/l up to g/l. 3.Cornigeriis, Podonevadne and Evadne anonyx hemolymph are hyperosmotics to surrounding water only in the range from fresh water up to 5-8 g/l. 4.These organisms could invade the whole Baltic Sea and even straits connecting it with the World Ocean. All Podonidae are better osmoregulators than Cercopagidae. 5.From the point of view of osmotic regulation Cornigeriis, Podonevadne and Evadne anonyx are very close to marine organisms and are very far from freshwater Cercopagidae.
What physiology questions we should answer? 1.Is Cercopagis more freshwater organism than brackishwater? 2.Is Cercopagis more psychrophilic organism than thermophilic? 3.Are Cornigerius, Podonevadne more marine organisms than brackishwater?
Lets continue with evolution.
From molecular biology point of view Cercopagis is also far away from Caspian Sea endemic onychopods.
Arctic immigrants invasion route. May be via this route ancestors of Cercopagis came to the present native localities.
The following evolution scenario was proposed by Mordukhai-Boltovskoi. Freshwater genera are in the left, marine – in the right, Caspian origin – in the middle.
Our opinion slightly differs from Mordukhai-Boltovskoi. Freshwater genera are in the left, marine – in the middle, Caspian origin – in the right.
What evolution questions we should answer? 1.Is Cercopagis originated from fresh water forms or from those that lived in marine or brackish water environment? 2.Is Cercopagis is true Ponto-Caspian endemic form? 3.When Cercopagis separated from Bythotrephes? 4.Are Cornigerius and Podonevadne originated from marine forms or from those that lived in brackish water environment?
Some years ago Cornigerius sp., Podonevadne sp., Evadne anonyx started invading Baltic Sea. If they settled, we need to study this invasion without mistakes that we did while studying Cercopagis invasion. This new exotic onychopod to our opinion is a true Caspian Sea endemic organism. It has amphiosmotic type of osmoregulation. It could concur whole Baltic Sea and may be Baltic Sea straits because Cornigerius sp., Podonevadne sp., Evadne anonyx upper salinity limits are higher than those of Cercopagis.
Thank you for your attention. You may reach me with you answers to my questions by my On the next slide you may find a list of papers on Cercopagis and Onychopoda published by our team. You may order papers presented in the list for free.
1.Khlebovich V.V., Aladin N.V., Hypotonic regulation in marine Cladocerans Evadne nordmanni and Podon leuckarti // J. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 12: (in Russian) 2.Aladin N.V., 1978b. Osmoregulatory abilities of marine Cladocera // Morphology, systematics and evolution of animals. P (in Russian) 3.Aladin N.V., On the forming of a latent egg in the White Sea Evadne nordmanni and Podon leuckarti (Cladocera, Podonidae) // Zool. J., 58(2). (in Russian) 4.Aladin N.V., Morpho-physiological adaptations of marine cladocerans. Autoref. of cand. Sc. theses. (in Russian) 5.Aladin N.V., 1982a. Salinity adaptations and osmoregulation abilities of the Cladocera. 1. Forms from open seas and oceans // Zool. J., 61(3): (in Russian) 6.Aladin N.V., 1982b. Salinity adaptations and osmoregulation abilities of the Cladocera. 2. Forms from Caspian and Aral Seas // Zool. J., 61(4): (in Russian) 7.Aladin N.V., 1982c. Salinity adaptations and osmoregulation abilities of the Cladocera. 2. Forms from brackish and fresh waters // Zool. J., 61(6): (in Russian) 8.Aladin N.V., Andreev N.I Influence of salinity of the Aral Sea on changes in composition of fauna of Cladocera // Hydrobiol. J. 20(3): (in Russian) 9.Aladin N.V General characteristic of the Aral Sea hydrobionts from the viewpoint of osmoregulation physiology // Proc. Zool. Inst. Acad. Sc. USSR, 223: 5-18 (in Russian) 10.Aladin N.V., 1991e. Salinity tolerance and morphology of the osmoregulation organs to Cladocera from Aral sea // Hydrobiologia, 225: Aladin N.V., 1995b. The conservation ecology of the Podonidae from the Caspian and Aral Seas // Hydrobiologia. Vol P N. V. Aladin, V. Ryabova, Yu. S. Chuykov, I. S. Plotnikov Problems of macro- and microevolution in superfamily Polyphemoidea=Onychopoda (Cladocera) Proceed. of Zool. Inst., 281. Pp Aladin N.V., Rivier I.K., Chuykov Yu.S., Richter S., Ryabova V.N., Avinsky V.A., Plotnikov I.S On invasion of representatives of genus Cercopagis (Cercopagidae, Polyphemoidea, Cladocera) in the Baltic Sea and Lake Ontario. In: Proc. of Annual Sci. Conf. Of St.Petersburg Univ., Febr Pp (in Russian) 14.Aladin N.V., Richter S., Chuykov Yu.S., Plotnikov I.S Problems of macro- and microevolution in superfamily Polyphemoidea (Cladocera). In: Annual scientific session of Zoological Institute RAS. (in Russian) 15.Aladin N.V., Gorokhova E.V., Chuykov Yu.S., Richter S., Ryabova V.N., Avinskiy V.A., Plotnikov I.S To the problem of genus Cercopagis (Cercopagidae, Polyphemoidea, Cladocera) representatives invasion into the Baltic Sea and Lake Ontario. 16th Baltic Marine Biologists Symposium. June 21-26, Klaipeda, Lithuania. 16.Grigorovich I.A., Macisaac H.J., River I.K., Aladin N.V., Panov V.E Comparative biology of the predatory cladoceran Cercopagis pengoi from Lake Ontario, Baltic Sea and Caspian Sea // Arch. Hydrobiol. Stuttgart, 149. pp Gorokhova E., Aladin N., Dumont H Further expansion of the genus Cercopagis (Crustacea, Branchiopoda, Onychopoda) in the Baltic Sea, with notes on taxa present and their ecology // Hydrobiologia. Hydrobiologia, 429. Pp Richter S., A. Braband, N. Aladin, G. Scholtz The Phylogenetic Relationship of Predatory Water-Fleas (Cladocera: Ohychopoda, Haplopoda) Inferred from 12S rDNA. Molecular Phylogenetic and Evolution, 19(1). Pp