Back to all available

Exploring reported population differences in Norway lobster (Nephrops norvegicus) in the Pomo Pits region of the Adriatic Sea using genome-wide markers

ecology
genetics
genomics
marine-biology
population-biology

Abstract

The Norway lobster (Nephrops norvegicus) is one of the most important decapod crustacean seafood species in the Adriatic Sea. Previous research has identified significant differences in growth rates and maturation timing of Nephrops in the Pomo/Jabuka Pits area compared to other subpopulations in Adriatic fishing grounds. Here, we use 1,623 genome-wide single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) to investigate whether the Pomo Pits subpopulation is genetically different from other sites in the Adriatic and neighbouring seas. We found no genetic differentiation among all Adriatic sites, suggesting high gene flow between Pomo Pits Nephrops and those of surrounding areas. We also found genetic homogeneity between the Adriatic sites and single-site samples from the Aegean and Tyrrhenian Seas. However, we detected distinct genetic differentiation between all Mediterranean sites and an Atlantic site in western Scotland, which provides evidence for a phylogenetic break between the Atlantic and the Mediterranean. Our results indicate that Pomo Pits Nephrops are not genetically different from others sampled in the Adriatic and that key biological parameters in Pomo Pits Nephrops could be driven by spatial variation in fishing pressure and/or environmental factors rather than geographic isolation.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at peer.review@peerj.com.