What sustains populations? N = (b irths d eaths ) + (i mmigration e - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

WAMSI 1.1.3 | Ecological 1

What sustains populations?

N = (births – deaths) + (immigration – emigration)

WAMSI | Ecological Connectivity in the Kimberley Photo: Kimberley scene at spring low tide, Zoe Richards

Ecological connectivity underpins the distribution, abundance and diversity of populations

Why the ocean is special The ocean provides the potential for widespread dispersal. But potential connectivity ≠ realised connectivity

Photo: Irvine Island at low tide, Kathryn McMahon

• Vast, remote, valued
• Management imperatives
• Little known to science
• Complex topography, powerful currents, disturbance

Why the Kimberley is special

WAMSI KIMBERLEY PROJECT 1.1.3

OLIVER BERRY, JIM UNDERWOOD, KATHRYN MCMAHON

ZO E R I C H A R D S , M I K E T R AV E RS , G L E N N M O O R E , U D H I H E R N AWA N , J O EY D I B AT T I STA , JA M ES G I L M O U R

Ecological Connectivity of Kimberley Marine Communities

WAMSI | Ecological Connectivity in the Kimberley Photo: Bathurst Island, Kathryn McMahon

Approach

Focal taxa Representative models Hierarchical sampling Multiple scales Genomics Cutting edge, powerful

Considerations

• Habitat forming
• Harvested
• Representative of trophic levels
• Representative larval/seed durations
• Representative larval/seed modes

Focal taxa

WAMSI | Ecological Connectivity in the Kimberley

Hierarchical design

Broad-scale Fine-scale

WAMSI | Ecological Connectivity in the Kimberley

• 1. Differences in the frequencies of DNA variants accumulate under

isolation.

• 2. Genetic variation can be partitioned among geographic locations

to infer the scale and strength of genetic connectivity.

• 3. Inferences can be made about demographic connectivity, based
• n some assumptions.

Genomics

Sampling and genotyping

Species Sampling sites Individuals Markers

• A. aspera_C

14 388 2894

• I. brueggemanni

17 1093 2125

• T. hemprichii

17 749 16

• H. ovalis

11 407 9

• T. niloticus

17 514 5428

• P. milleri

28 842 4472

• L. carponotatus

53 1016 4468 Total 157 5009 19474

2 Fine scale patterns: General population boundaries are

shared between several taxa

3 Fine scale patterns: Important stepping stone locations

and transition zones exist

4 Fine scale processes: King Sound, Sunday Strait and

barriers to dispersal

5 Broad scale processes: Negligible cross-shelf connectivity exists

between the inshore and offshore Kimberley

6 Broad scale patterns: Taxon specific connectivity

between the Kimberley and neighbouring bioregions

7 Broad and fine scale patterns: The distribution of

genetic diversity is taxon specific

8 Cryptic genetic lineages in the broadcast

spawning coral

1 The extent of connectivity differs among species Major findings

The extent of connectivity differs among species

Major findings

“Relatedness” is detected over 20 km in Halophila ovalis seagrass

• 0.400
• 0.300
• 0.200
• 0.100

0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 0.01 0.025 0.05 0.25 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 45 r Distance Class (End Point, km) r U L

Major findings

WAMSI | Ecological Connectivity in the Kimberley

• 0.0005

0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002 0.0025 0 to 10 0 to 20 0 to 30 0 to 40 0 to 50 0 to 60 0 to 70 0 to 80 0 to 90 0 to 100 0 to 150 0 to 200 0 to 250 0 to 300 0 to 350 0 to 400 r Distance (kilometres)

“Relatedness” is detectable over a long distance in Miller’s damselfish

Major findings

Collaboration with Richard Evans DPaW

2 Fine scale patterns: Some barriers are shared 3 Fine scale patterns: Important stepping stone locations and

transition zones exist

4 Fine scale processes: King Sound, Sunday Strait and barriers to

dispersal

5 Broad scale processes: Negligible cross-shelf connectivity exists

between the inshore and offshore Kimberley

6 Broad scale patterns: Taxon specific connectivity

between the Kimberley and neighbouring bioregions

7 Broad and fine scale patterns: The distribution of

genetic diversity is taxon specific

8 Cryptic genetic lineages in the broadcast

spawning coral

1 Fine scale patterns: The extent of connectivity differs among species

Major findings

Some barriers are shared, some are not

Major findings

Acropora Isopora Halophila

Barrier between Sunday Islands & Buccaneer Archipelago

Thalassia

Barrier between N & S Buccaneer

Trochus

No barrier

• P. milleri

Stripy

Transition zone

Stepping-stones and transition zones Coral: Acropora aspera

Major findings

WAMSI | Ecological Connectivity in the Kimberley

Stepping-stones and transition zones Seagrass: Thalassia hemprichii

Bathurst Bedford S Longitude Bedford N Tide Rip Mermaid Sunday Is S Sunday Is N Halls Pool Talon Jackson Noyon Shenton Bluff Bathurst Longitude Tide Rip

Major findings

Stepping-stones and transition zones Major findings

Stripey Snapper, Lutjanus carponotatus Model-based clustering analysis North - South

2 Fine scale patterns: General population boundaries are

shared between several taxa

3 Fine scale patterns: Important stepping stone locations

and transition zones exist

4 Sound, Sunday Strait and barriers to dispersal Fine

scale processes: King

5 Negligible inshore - offshore connectivity exists

6 Broad scale patterns: Taxon specific connectivity

between the Kimberley and neighbouring bioregions

7 Broad and fine scale patterns: The distribution of

genetic diversity is taxon specific

8 Cryptic genetic lineages in the broadcast

spawning coral

1 Fine scale patterns: Spatial patterns of

connectivity differ between taxa

Major findings

Negligible inshore – offshore connectivity exists Major findings

Trochus Acropora

8 days, 2011 40 days, 2010

Particle tracking courtesy Ming Feng, CSIRO

2 Fine scale patterns: General population boundaries are

shared between several taxa

3 Fine scale patterns: Important stepping stone locations

and transition zones exist

4 Fine scale processes: King Sound, Sunday Strait and

barriers to dispersal

5 Broad scale processes: Negligible cross-shelf connectivity exists

between the inshore and offshore Kimberley

6 Species differ in their relationships to neighbouring

bioregions

7 Broad and fine scale patterns: The distribution of

genetic diversity is taxon specific

8 Cryptic genetic lineages in the broadcast

spawning coral

1 Fine scale patterns: Spatial patterns of

connectivity differ between taxa

Major findings

Connectivity between the Kimberley and neighbouring bioregions Major findings

Miller’s damselfish: bioregional Populations coloured according to principal components

Broad scale: WA populations distinct from Indian Ocean and Indonesia

WAMSI | Ecological Connectivity in the Kimberley Seagrass: Thalassia hemprichii

WA scale: Pilbara distinct from Kimberley

Indonesia Kimberley Pilbara

Major findings

Connectivity between the Kimberley and neighbouring bioregions

Stripy snapper: semi-bioregional Pilbara Kimberley

• N. Territory

Gascoyne

Major findings

2 Fine scale patterns: General population boundaries are

shared between several taxa

3 Fine scale patterns: Important stepping stone locations

and transition zones exist

4 Fine scale processes: King Sound, Sunday Strait and

barriers to dispersal

5 Broad scale processes: Negligible cross-shelf connectivity exists

between the inshore and offshore Kimberley

6 Broad scale patterns: Taxon specific connectivity

between the Kimberley and neighbouring bioregions

7 Species differ in the distribution of genetic diversity

8 Cryptic genetic lineages in the broadcast

spawning coral

1 Fine scale patterns: Spatial patterns of

connectivity differ between taxa

Major findings

The distribution of genetic diversity is taxon specific Major findings

• A. aspera
• I. brueggemanni

Trochus: offshore has less diversity

Seagrass: Genetic diversity declines with distance from Coral Triangle, but the Kimberley has much lower diversity

WAMSI | Ecological Connectivity in the Kimberley

R² = 0.48502 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000

Allelic richness Distance from Coral Triangle (km)

• Kimberley

Seagrass: Thalassia hemprichii

Major findings

2 Fine scale patterns: General population boundaries are

shared between several taxa

3 Fine scale patterns: Important stepping stone locations

and transition zones exist

4 Fine scale processes: King Sound, Sunday Strait and

barriers to dispersal

5 Broad scale processes: Negligible cross-shelf connectivity exists

between the inshore and offshore Kimberley

6 Broad scale patterns: Taxon specific connectivity

between the Kimberley and neighbouring bioregions

7 Broad and fine scale patterns: The distribution of

genetic diversity is taxon specific

8 Cryptic genetic lineages exist in coral

1 Fine scale patterns: Spatial patterns of

connectivity differ between taxa

Major findings

Cryptic genetic lineages in coral

FST = 0.59

asp-a asp-b asp-c asp-d

Major findings

Management implications

2 Fine scale patterns: General population boundaries are shared between

several taxa

3 Fine scale patterns: Important stepping stone locations and transition

zones exist

4 Fine scale processes: King Sound, Sunday Strait and barriers to dispersal 5 Broad scale processes: Negligible cross-shelf connectivity exists between the inshore

and offshore Kimberley

6 Broad scale patterns: Taxon specific connectivity between the Kimberley

and neighbouring bioregions

7 Broad and fine scale patterns: The distribution of genetic diversity is

taxon specific

8 Cryptic genetic lineages exist in coral 1 Fine scale patterns: Spatial patterns of connectivity differ

between taxa

Ecological connectivity of hard corals and seagrass < 20 – 30 km = = protected areas need to large enough to encompass routine dispersal distances to maintain self-replenishment and supplement recruitment outside, and spaced at similar distances to aid recovery after disturbance through connectivity between protected areas.

Management implications 1

Bathurst Island Noyon

Habitat providers : MPA and IPA networks for corals and seagrass

20km 20km 20km 20km 20km

• Restricted connectivity between Buccaneer Archipelago and Dampier

Peninsula in corals and seagrasses = demographically independent populations, but exchange evolutionary important genes

• Negligible connectivity between inshore Kimberley and neighbouring

regions = these reefs are reliant on standing genetic variation for adaptation

Management implications 2

Habitat providers : Buccaneer Archipelago and Dampier Peninsula are demographically independent for corals and seagrass

Cryptic Acropora coral lineages = current assessments of the diversity of hard coral species in the Kimberley are likely substantial underestimates Management implications 3 Habitat providers: current estimates of species diversity in corals are underestimates

No restrictions to connectivity of Trochus in Buccaneer Archipelago and Dampier Peninsula = is a single stock in which maintenance of healthy sources of recruits will supplement harvested sites over ecological time frames within this region Management implications 4 Harvested mollusc: Dampier Peninsular and Buccaneer Archipelago can be managed as a single stock for Trochus

restricted connectivity of Trochus between Rowley Shoals and Scott Reef with the inshore Kimberley = recruitment from outside unlikely to replenish

• ver-harvested stocks at oceanic atolls and inshore

reefs are over timeframes relevant to harvest management Management implications 5 Harvested mollusc: oceanic atoll systems can be managed independently for Trochus

Management implications 6 Reef -obligate fish : Pilbara and Kimberley can be managed independently for damselfish

Restricted ecological l connectivit ity between th the Kim imberley an and Pilb ilbara bio ioregions in in dam amselfis ishes = recruitment between th these regions is is unlik likely ly to

• replenis

ish pop

• pula

lations an and th they need to

• be man

anaged in independently, but t oc

• ccasional in

inter-regional con

• nnectivity lik

likely ly exch changes genes for adaptation

Management implications 7 Harvested fish: the Kimberley, Pilbara (and Northern Territory) can be managed separately in stripy snapper

Restricted ecological l connectivit ity between th the bior ioregions of th the Kim imberley, Pilb ilbara (an (and Northern Territ itory) in in str tripy sn snapper = rec

ecruit itment betw tween reg egions unlik likely to

• rep

eplenish pop

• pula

lations and nee eed to

• be

e managed in indep ependently, but t tr transit ition zones exis xist betw twee een th them em in in whic ich in inter er-regional con

• nnectiv

ivity lik likel ely exch changes es gen enes for

• r adaptation

Connectivity between people

Acknowledgments

• The State Government of Western Australia and WAMSI partners for funding this research.
• Bardi Jawi rangers and traditional owners: Daniel Oades, Damon Pyke, Azton Howard, Chris

Sampi, Daniel Oades, Kevin George, Kevin Ejai, Kevin Dougal, Tasha Stumpagee, Phillip McCarthy, Sandy Isaac, Peter Hunter, Zac Ejai, Paul Davey and Trevor Sampi.

• Kimberley Land Council
• Mayala traditional owners, especially Sandy, Alec and Janella Isaac
• Michael Stat, Sam Moyle, Fiona Webster, Karen Miller, Gary Kendrick, Jean-Paul Hobbs, Andrea

Zavala Perez, Kelly Waples, Stuart Field, Kim Friedman, Rich Evans

• Cygnet Bay Pearls staff, especially Flynny, Scotty, James Brown, and Erin McGinty
• Indigenous Communities Education and Awareness (ICEA)
• Caroline Diss and John Dayman

WAMSI | Ecological Connectivity in the Kimberley

• How do macrotidal systems influence ecological connectivity of key taxa?
• What is the extent of fine scale connectivity within and between coastal reefs (up to

100 km)?

• What is the extent of larger scale alongshore connectivity within and between coastal

and offshore reefs?

• What are the dispersal distances of key taxa?
• Are proposed management areas sufficient for ecological connectivity to support

populations of key taxa?

• What are the influences of major disturbance? How will climate change affect dispersal

patterns of key taxa?

• How can genetic data be best incorporated into oceanographic models?
• What role does the Kimberley play in the maintenance of systems outside of the

region?

• How is the condition of the Kimberley influenced by external biological and

anthropogenic influences? Management implications

KMRP 1.1.3 questions