Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Research article
  • Open Access

Interspecific hybridization in seahorses: artificially produced hybrid offspring of Hippocampus kuda and Hippocampus reidi

Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences201821:11

https://doi.org/10.1186/s41240-018-0088-x

Received: 12 September 2017

Accepted: 7 February 2018

Published: 7 May 2018

Abstract

Interspecific hybridization experiments were conducted between the common seahorse Hippocampus kuda (male) and the slender seahorse H. reidi (female) during artificial rearing to develop a new aquarium fish with unique polyandrous mating. Molecular analysis via mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) cytochrome b and nuclear DNA (ncDNA) ribosomal protein S7 gene supported the hybridization between the two species, and the hybrid also showed morphological characteristics of both species. Juveniles of H. kuda have dense melanophores on the whole body or only on the trunk and tail, whereas juveniles of H. reidi have thin melanophores on the whole body or present in stripes only along their prominent trunk and tail rings. However, all the hybrid juveniles had dense melanophores only on the tail, with the striped trunk rings, thus showing an intermediate pattern, and these patterns were limited to the fairly early stage of development (1–10 days old). In contrast, the two eye spines in the hybrid were apparent after 9 days old, which were not inherited from H. kuda (one eye spine), but from H. reidi (two eye spines). According to LOESS (local regression) analysis, the growth rate increased between 20 and 25 days, and the hybrids grew faster than H. kuda when they entered the explosive second phase of growth between 25 and 45 days for all the seahorses. This study highlights the hybridization between H. kuda and H. reidi may contribute to the improved taxonomic information of young seahorses.

Keywords

  • Seahorse
  • Hippocampus kuda complex
  • Hybrid
  • Phenotype
  • Growth
  • Early stage

Background

The genus Hippocampus includes 41 species throughout the world (Lourie et al. 2016). Hippocampus kuda (common seahorse) has an enormous distribution, including the Indo-Pacific Ocean, except for the eastern Pacific. Some populations are mature at 7 cm in standard length (SL), whereas others grow to 17 cm SL. Their color varies: yellow, sandy, or white, but usually black, with a grainy texture or dark spots. The snout is thick, and the coronet is overhanging at the back and often topped by a slight depression (cup-like). A single eye spine is prominent, but body spines are low and blunt (rounded bump only). H. kuda is a mainstay species in the aquarium trade and traditional Chinese medicine. In contrast, H. reidi (slender seahorse) is distributed along the western Atlantic coast, from the USA to Argentina. Adults measure from 10 to 18 cm SL. Their color also varies: red, yellow, orange, black, or brown, with white saddles and scattered black dots. The snout is clumpy, and the coronet is convoluted (like a crumpled ball of paper), rounded, and often folded in upon itself. Double eye spines are prominent, but body spines are none or low, and blunt . H. reidi is used in the aquarium trade and as curios (dried specimens) (Lourie et al. 1999; Indiviglio 2002; Lourie et al. 2004; Hercos and Giarrizzo 2007; Piacentino 2008; Lourie 2016; Lourie et al. 2016).

Although their reproductive rates are low and their home ranges limited, H. kuda and H. reidi are generally valuable seahorse species, with worldwide market demand, which may cause their overexploitations and threaten natural populations through the undoubted pressure of the activities of fisheries that supply the market (Vincent 1996; Lourie et al. 1999). From a conservation perspective, aquaculture is an important way to conserve endangered species and bioresources from extinction (Ireland et al. 2002; Lindberg et al. 2013; Ho et al. 2015). However, interspecies hybridization can be a management problem to design plans such as conservation of biodiversity and process of breeding (Allendorf et al. 2001; do Prado et al. 2011; Morgan et al. 2012; Brennan et al. 2015; Ho et al. 2015). Therefore, interspecific hybridization study is necessary in the context of aquaculture to ensure effective bioresource management. With rare records of interspecific hybridization in the family Syngnathidae, according to a review by Ho et al. (2015), four cases of interspecific hybridization in the seahorse have been reported: H. kuda chesteri (suspected ♂ H. reidi × ♀ H. kuda) (Bull and Mitchell 2002; Woodall et al. 2009), ♂ H. algiricus × ♀ H. hippocampus (Otero-Ferrer et al. 2015), ♂ H. erectus × ♀ H. reidi, and ♀ H. erectus × ♂ H. reidi (Ho et al. 2015). A large seahorse database of the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) cytochrome b sequences is available for intra- or interspecies comparisons in morphological or molecular ways from its phylogenetic investigation (Casey et al. 2004; Lourie et al. 2005; Han et al. 2017a, b; Woodall et al. 2018). Nuclear DNA (ncDNA) ribosomal protein S7 gene is also useful for species-level identification; however, the S7 gene of H. reidi revealed gene introgression between H. reidi and H. erectus, although the two species are more genetically distant than H. kuda and H. reidi (Teske et al. 2004; Ho et al. 2015).

In the present study, we induced hybridization of artificially reared ♂ H. kuda and ♀ H. reidi, and describe the differences between the ♂ H. kuda × ♀ H. reidi hybrid and the parental species, and our new morphological description with molecular verification will help for the better understanding of taxonomic information for future conservation effort.

Methods

Artificial rearing conditions

Juveniles were raised in separate rectangular glass tanks (50 × 30 × 28 cm), connected to filter tanks (26 × 26 × 28 cm). The tanks were monitored daily, and any uneaten food was siphoned away as waste. We cycled the tank water 9–10 times per day. The rearing conditions were as follows: temperature 24.0 ± 0.5 °C, salinity 33 ± 1.0 ppt, pH 7.78 ± 0.42, dissolved oxygen 6.8 ± 0.3 mg/L, and photoperiod 14 h light:10 h dark. Lebistes reticulatus (1–2 days old), 5–7 mm copepod nauplii of 2–3 weeks (O.S.I., Snowville, Utah, USA), and blood worms were fed daily to the juvenile seahorses (Choi et al. 2006).

Sampling

We housed together only male H. kuda and female H. reidi purchased from markets in Korea in the spring of 2014. Under daily monitoring, we sampled 0- to 45-day old hybrid (♂ H. kuda × ♀ H. reidi) offspring (n = 133) and 0- to 45-day old juveniles of H. kuda (n = 77) to compare the early growth patterns of them. The meristic counts of seven broodstock of H. kuda (n = 5) and H. reidi (n = 2) were compared with the hybrid and H. kuda offspring for morphological analysis. Six specimens were used for a molecular analysis: one each of the H. kuda and H. reidi broodstock, two H. kuda offspring, and two hybrid offspring. We preserved and fixed the specimens in 99% ethanol or 10% formaldehyde.

Morphological analysis

We counted the meristic characters, including the trunk rings, tail rings, dorsal fin rays, pectoral fin rays, anal fin rays, eye spines (supraorbital spine), cheek spines (infraoperculum spine), and nose spines (anteorbital spine). However, we could not check the tail rings of one of the H. reidi broodstock specimen, because it had a damaged tail tip. Spine counts have limited utility in the very early stage of growth because they only mature after a certain stage. Whereas, a melanophore pattern analysis is an alternative method in this early life stage and has been used as a classificatory key in the early life stages of many other fish species, although the pattern disappears retrogradely as growth proceeds (Matarese et al. 1989).

Measurements were made with the microscope-integrated Active Measure software (Shinhanoptics, Seoul, Korea) based on set points for the following parameters: head length (HL), trunk length (TrL), tail length (TaL), snout length (SnL), snout depth (SnD), head depth (HD), dorsal and pectoral fin base lengths (DfL and PfL, respectively), eye diameter (ED), and standard length (SL) (Lourie 2003; Choo and Liew 2006). We derived age–SL relational expression and allometric relational expression (SL–HL, SL–TrL, SL–TaL, SL–SnL, SL–SnD, SL–HD, SL–DfL, SL–PfL, and SL–ED) using LOESS (local regression) curves in ggplot2 package of R software ver. 3.3.1 (Jacoby 2000; Wickham 2009; R Core Team 2017), and we examined the differences in the growth patterns of the seahorses by LOESS, a non-parametric approach of simple polynomial regression represented by a moving average. Because the value of the regression function for the point is obtained from local polynomial, LOESS do not give simple mathematical formula and not predict movements before and after the regression of the data. Nonetheless, LOESS visualize flexible fitting regression, and it is more understandable for moving trend in the sample than many other methods. We set the 98% confidence intervals of LOESS curve on the means, and a two-tailed P value is considered as statistical significance of rejection for the regression (Jacoby 2000; Lim et al. 2013).

Molecular analysis

Genomic DNA was extracted from the right eyeball or right-side tail tissue in all four specimens using the AccuPrep® Genomic DNA Extraction Kit (Bioneer, Daejeon, Korea). We used the mtDNA cytochrome b and ncDNA ribosomal protein S7 gene sequences for the genetic analysis. We compared the sequences with the GenBank sequences (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/) for subclades A and C of H. kuda (Lourie et al. 2005) and H. reidi (Teske et al. 2007) to identify the species, using H. trimaculatus as the outgroup (Chang et al. 2013).

PCR was performed on an S1000™ Thermal Cycler (Bio-Rad, Hercules, California, USA) in a reaction mixture containing 3 μl of 10× Ex Taq buffer (plus 20 mM Mg2+), 2.4 μl of 2.5 mM dNTPs, 1 μl of forward primer, 1 μl of reverse primer, 0.1 μl of TaKaRa Ex Taq DNA polymerase (Takara Bio, Kusatsu, Shiga, Japan), 3 μl of genomic DNA, and distilled water to a total volume to 30 μl. The PCR was designed to amplify the mtDNA cytochrome b gene using primers Shf2 (5′-TTGCAACCGCATTTTCTTCAG-3′) and Shr2 (5′-CGGAAGGTGAGTCCTCGTTG-3′) under the following conditions: initial denaturation at 94 °C for 2 min 30 s, 35 cycles of denaturation at 94 °C for 30 s, annealing at 50 °C for 30 s, and extension at 72 °C for 75 s, with a final extension at 72 °C for 5 min (Lourie and Vincent 2004), and ncDNA ribosomal protein S7 gene (1st intron, RP1) using primers S7RPEX1F (5′-TGGCCTCTTCCTTGGCCGTC-3′) and S7RPEX2R (5′-AACTCGTCTGGCTTTTCGCC-3′) under the following conditions: initial denaturation at 95 °C for 1 min, 30 cycles of denaturation at 95 °C for 30 s, annealing at 60 °C for 1 min, and extension at 72 °C for 2 min, and a final extension at 72 °C for 10 min (Chow and Hazama 1998). The samples were purified with a LaboPass™ PCR Purification Kit (Cosmogenetech, Seoul, Korea). The sequencing reactions were performed in a DNA Engine Tetrad 2 Peltier Thermal Cycler (Bio-Rad) using an ABI BigDye® Terminator v3.1 Cycle Sequencing Kit (Applied Biosystems, Waltham, MA, USA). The sequences were aligned with BioEdit version 7 (Hall 1999). Genetic distances were calculated with the Kimura two-parameter model (Kimura 1980) in the MEGA version 6.05 software (Tamura et al. 2013). A neighbor-joining tree was constructed from 696 bp of the cytochrome b gene using MEGA, and confidence levels were assessed with 1000 bootstrap replications. Heterozygosity of ncDNA causes a mixed signal as double peaks of sequence chromatograms, and single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) and insert/deletion (indel) overlap may reveal hybridization (Sousa-Santos et al. 2005; Sonnenberg et al. 2007; Bae et al. 2016). Therefore, 571 bp of ribosomal protein S7 gene via forward and reverse reading was used for demonstration of hybridization in this study (Fig. 1).
Figure 1
Fig. 1

Heterozygous sequences of the hybrid, H. kuda × H. reidi, in ribosomal protein S7 gene. Double peaks of single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP, e.g., A and B) and insert/deletion (indel, C) are suggested by the site number and red nucleotide. Indel overlapping of the aligned sequences represents the double peak chromatogram at a single base pair site (arrow)

Results

Morphological differences and molecular test

We observed no significant morphological differences in the trunk rings, tail rings, dorsal fin rays, pectoral fin rays, anal fin rays, nose spines, and cheek spines between H. kuda and the hybrid, because the ranges of these features overlapped (Table 1). However, all 1- to 10-day old specimens of the hybrid had dense melanophores only on the tails, and their striped trunk rings showed an intermediate form (Fig. 2a) compared with those of the parents. H. kuda has dense melanophores on its whole body or only on the trunk and tail, whereas the juveniles of H. reidi have thin melanophores or a striped pattern and the melanophores only occur on their prominent trunk and tail rings (Fig. 2b; see Choo and Liew 2006; Mai and Loebmann 2009; Van Wassenbergh et al. 2009). However, the melanophores of the hybrids became more like the dense melanophores on the whole bodies of H. kuda after 11 days, so the new pattern was limited to the early stage of development. In contrast, the two eye spines (or their traces) in the hybrid were apparent after they were 9 days old, which were not inherited from H. kuda (one eye spine), but from H. reidi (two eye spines) (Table 1).
Table 1

Meristic counts of Hippocampus kuda, Hippocampus reidi, and their hybrid

 

Present study

Lourie et al. (2004)

Juvenile (offspring)

Adult (broodstock)

Adult

Hybrid (♂ H. kuda × ♀ H. reidi)

H. kuda

H. reidi

H. kuda

H. reidi

H. kuda

Number

133

77

2

5

39**

80**

Trunk ring

11

11

11

11

11

11

Tail ring

34–38 (36)

35–37 (36)

32

35–37

31–39 (35)

34–38 (36)

Dorsal fin ray

15–20 (17)

16–19 (17)

16–17

16–18

16–19 (17)

17–18

Pectoral fin ray

15–18 (16)

15–17 (16)

15–16

15–17

15–17 (16)

15–18 (16)

Anal fin ray

4

4

4

4

Eye spine*

2

1

2

1

1–2 (2)

0–1

Nose spine*

0

0

0

0

0

Cheek spine*

1

1

1

1

1–2 (2)

1–2

*Spine values are represented by the day after fixation. Bracket indicates mode in the count range

**Number of specimens is stated in Lourie et al. (1999)

Figure 2
Fig. 2

Melanophore patterns: a before 10-day old hybrid (male Hippocampus kuda × female Hippocampus reidi) and b before 10-day old H. kuda. Eye spine formation: c after 30-day old hybrid (male H. kuda × female H. reidi) and d after 30-day old H. kuda

One of the H. reidi sequences from Teske et al. (2007) was most similar with the H. reidi sequences used in our study (genetic distance: 0.000–0.001), and haplotypes C22 and C34 of H. kuda in Lourie et al. (2005) was identical to our H. kuda sequences (Fig. 3). The distance between subclades A and C of H. kuda was 0.025–0.026, and the distance between the subclade C and H. reidi was 0.025–0.028, and the distance between the subclade A and H. reidi was 0.042–0.043. The outgroup distances were 0.174–0.176 with the subclade C, 0.189 with the subclade A, and 0.174–0.175 with H. reidi, respectively. Thus, the maternal molecular mtDNA data indicated that the hybrid offspring corresponded to H. reidi and that the eye spine phenotype was inherited from H. reidi, although the hybrid specimens were born from the male H. kuda brood pouch (Fig. 3). Analysis of S7 sequences with a length of 571 bp revealed an average of one indel and 13 SNP overlaps, and these overlaps representing double peaks in the sequence also demonstrated the hybridization of both species (Fig. 1).
Figure 3
Fig. 3

Neighbor-joining tree represents the molecular relationship between hybrid (male H. kuda × female H. reidi) and H. kuda by cytochrome b of mitochondrial DNA. Each branch indicates degree of bootstrap support. Bar indicates genetic distance of 0.02

Growth comparison

We confirmed the growth rates of both species increased most rapidly between 20 and 25 days; therefore, we distinguished two phases of development in both species (Fig. 4). According to the significant differences (P < 0.02) of the SL–age relationship, the first phase was identified between 3 and 18 and the second between 24 and 45 days old. The slopes of both species from 3 to 18 days old are almost parallel, but between 24 and 45 days old, species exhibit different growth rates (Fig. 4a). Therefore, the growth rates of the hybrid and H. kuda were different in both phases. Our results supported the multilinear graph of the H. kuda growth rate reported by Choo and Liew (2006). In this study, the linear regression equation from first section of hybrid was y = 0.3495x + 8.0311 (coefficient of determination [r2]: 0.8235), and it from first section of H. kuda was y = 0.3147x + 6.7682 (r2: 0.7865). After that, it from second section of hybrid was y = 1.2677x − 13.143 (r2: 0.9252), and it from first section of H. kuda was y = 1.0336x − 10.059 (r2: 0.9207). The allometric alteration was separated by 15 mm SL standard in the present study as a result of growth turning point versus the middle of 20 mm SL of Choo and Liew (2006), so the patterns were not completely same (Fig. 4; Choo and Liew 2006). Nonetheless, our result supported the previous study that the second phase grew faster than the first phase in H. kuda when they entered the explosive second phase of growth.
Figure 4
Fig. 4

LOESS curves between hybrid (male H. kuda × female H. reidi, red) and H. kuda (green) with their 98% confidence intervals (band). a Growth differences between the day after birth (x-axis) and standard length (y-axis). bj Allometric differences between standard length (x-axis) and the nine body parts (y-axis, b head length, c trunk length, d tail length, e snout length, f snout depth, g head depth, h dorsal fin base length, i pectoral fin base length, j eye diameter)

Most of the allometric graphs for the hybrid and H. kuda showed non-significant differences, except for HL (before 9 mm SL and after 33 mm SL), SnL (before 10 mm SL and after 28 mm SL), and ED (before 8 mm SL and after 27 mm SL). The measurements that differed according to LOESS (P < 0.02) were some related to the head, indicating that these features have different growth patterns in the hybrid and H. kuda (Fig. 4bj). In contrast, measurements of TrL, TaL, SnD, HD, DfL, and PfL did not differ on LOESS analysis, suggesting that it is difficult to distinguish them based on the allometric patterns in these traits. In two of the three measurements that did change after hybridization (HL, SnL), the curves for allometric growth were higher level for H. kuda than for the hybrid. However, the slope for one of these three measurements (ED) was steeper in the hybrid than in H. kuda (Fig. 4bj).

Discussion

The examined two species, H. kuda and H. reidi, are known to have different morphotypes in previous studies (Lourie et al. 1999; Lourie et al. 2004; Lourie 2016). However, the morphological characters of some seahorses can be ambiguous because wide meristic or morphometric ranges occur in these characters within the same species, and their ranges can overlap among different species, including H. kuda and H. reidi (Hubbs 1922; Lourie et al. 1999, 2004; Ho et al. 2015). In this study, eye spine and melanophore are useful tools to distinguish the two seahorses in their early stages, and thus, these tools will help to quickly identify the hybrids. Furthermore, genetic tools are also very useful to improve identifying species and intraspecific hybrids as improved taxonomic analysis (do Prado et al. 2011; Ho et al. 2015). Although mtDNA is a matrilineal inheritance system, the discordance between an intermediate or patrilineal phenotype and the molecular results paradoxically confirms interspecific hybridization (Wayne and Jenks 1991; Kwun and Kim 2010). Moreover, the hybrid sequence showed double peaks on SNP site before the overlapping indel site which continued throughout the sequence. Therefore, this heterozygosity demonstrates the hybridization of both species (Fig. 1).

A shorter snout allows the seahorse to successfully capture concentrated prey and to use its pivot-feeding strategy to catch evasive prey (Leysen et al. 2011; Van Wassenbergh et al. 2011), and a bigger eye closely related to favorable vision of feeding except for fishes having smaller eyes in dark or murky environments (Gatz 1979; Caves et al. 2017). These points support that hybridization between the two species improved the growth rate by altering the snout length and eye diameter. This improvement may be genetically inherited from H. reidi; however, this must be confirmed with overall comparison of the hybrid and H. reidi offspring to determine whether the phenomenon is influenced by intermediate type or synergy.

Molecular evidence of monogamy has been reported in the many seahorse species in both laboratory and wild populations, including H. kuda and H. reidi (Rosa et al. 2007; Freret-Meurer and Andreata 2008; Ooi et al. 2010; Rose et al. 2014). However in this experiment, polyandry occurred among one H. reidi (♀) and several H. kuda (♂) specimens before interspecific fertilization, even though the seahorses are known to be monogamous species. Polygamy has already been reported in several seahorse species in nature (Kvarnemo et al. 2000; Foster and Vincent 2004); and thus, we newly report that polygamy between the two species can also occur in laboratory conditions.

The genus Hippocampus has been listed in Appendix II of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES 2017), and international trade is restricted (Vincent et al. 2011). In Asia, even if trade is approved, H. reidi must be transported from its place of origin to a lucrative market over the great distance with exposure of high mortality; therefore, the commercial distribution of H. reidi is limited. Nevertheless, the conservation plans may be revised or extended for H. kuda and H. reidi, because the definition of the name H. kuda has been controversial with its sister species (Lourie et al. 1999; Teske et al. 2005; Lourie et al. 2016) and both species have a possibility of interspecific hybridization in distribution channels for economic benefits. The distinct morphotypes, geographic isolation, and genetic results can confirm that H. kuda and H. reidi are separate species, or they may be the products of the ongoing evolutionary divergence of a single complex (Teske et al. 2005; Lourie et al. 2016).

Chester Zoo (UK, http://www.chesterzoo.org/) breeds H. reidi and H. kuda, and its researchers insist that H. kuda chesteri can reproduce (Bull and Mitchell 2002; Woodall et al. 2009). However, hybrid verification of the H. kuda chesteri is not fully conducted because mtDNA verification shows the maternal result (Woodall et al. 2009). Therefore, we must check the capacity of H. kuda chesteri because it increases the importance of the hybrid between female H. kuda and male H. reidi produced with the opposite mating strategy in the present study. Interactive sexual hybridization also doubts that the species are capable of full genetic exchange.

Conclusions

Discordance between morphological results (melanophore and development patterns) and the molecular result of mtDNA cytochrome b (neighbor-joining tree) paradoxically confirmed interspecific hybridization of two seahorses, H. kuda and H. reidi. Moreover, heterozygosity of ncDNA ribosomal protein S7 gene via partially mixed template also supported the hybridization. In allometric growth comparison, the snout length growth was slower, but the eye diameter growth was faster in hybrids than those of H. kuda, which suggests successful suction has a favorable impact in the early stage growth. A detailed morphological study is essential for the immediate analysis of these species and to support their future management. Improved taxonomic information will aid in distinguishing hybridization from parental phenotypes so as to monitor hybrids in the international trades.

Abbreviations

DfL: 

Dorsal fin base length

ED: 

Eye diameter

HD: 

Head depth

HL: 

Head length

indel: 

Insert/deletion

LOESS: 

Local regression

mtDNA: 

Mitochondrial DNA

ncDNA: 

Nuclear DNA

P

Probability value of local regression

PCR: 

Polymerase chain reaction

PfL: 

Pectoral fin base length

r 2

Coefficient of determination

SL: 

Standard length

SnD: 

Snout depth

SnL: 

Snout length

SNP: 

Single nucleotide polymorphism

TaL: 

Tail length

TrL: 

Trunk length

Declarations

Acknowledgements

This study is supported by Korea Institute of Marine Science and Technology Promotion (KIMST) and also supported by the Marine Fish Resources Bank of Korea (MFRBK) under the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries, Korea. We are thankful to K. S. Han (Dongwon Institute of Science and Technology, Korea) for the statistical guidance and F. N. Barría for the translation of Piacentino (2008).

Funding

This work is supported by Korea Institute of Marine Science and Technology Promotion (KIMST) and also supported by the Marine Fish Resources Bank of Korea (MFRBK).

Availability of data and materials

All datasets analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Authors’ contributions

SYH performed the morphological and molecular experiments and wrote the manuscript. SR and GEN performed the rearing experiment and sampling. SR and JKK suggested all aspects of the study design and commented on the earlier drafts of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Marine Biology, Pukyong National University, Busan, South Korea
(2)
Haechunma Co., Ltd., Jeju, South Korea
(3)
Genetics and Breeding Research Center, National Institute of Fisheries Science, Geoje, South Korea

References

  1. Allendorf FW, Leary RF, Spruell P, Wenburg JK. The problems with hybrids: setting conservation guidelines. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 2001;16:613–22.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Bae SE, Kim JK, Kim JH. Evidence of incomplete lineage sorting or restricted secondary contact in Lateolabrax japonicus complex (Actinopterygii: Moronidae) based on morphological and molecular traits. Biochem Syst Ecol. 2016;66:98–108.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Brennan AC, Woodward G, Seehausen O, Muñoz-Fuentes V, Moritz C, Guelmami A, Abbott RJ, Edelaar P. Hybridization due to changing species distributions: adding problems or solutions to conservation of biodiversity during global change? Evol Ecol Res. 2015;16:475–91.Google Scholar
  4. Bull CD, Mitchell JS. Seahorse husbandry in public aquaria, 2002 manual. Chicago: Project Seahorse and the John G. Shedd Aquarium; 2002.Google Scholar
  5. Casey SP, Hall HJ, Stanley HF, Vincent ACJ. The origin and evolution of seahorses (genus Hippocampus): a phylogenetic study using the cytochrome b gene of mitochondrial DNA. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2004;30:261–72.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Caves EM, Sutton TT, Johnsen S. Visual acuity in ray-finned fishes correlates with eye size and habitat. J Exp Biol. 2017;220:1586–96. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.151183 View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Chang CH, Shao KT, Lin YS, Liao YC. The complete mitochondrial genome of the three-spot seahorse, Hippocampus trimaculatus (Teleostei, Syngnathidae). Mitochondrial DNA. 2013;24:665–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Choi YU, Rho S, Jung MM, Lee YD, Noh GA. Parturition and early growth of crowned seahorse, Hippocampus coronatus in Korea. Korean Journal of Aquaculture. 2006;19:109–18.Google Scholar
  9. Choo CK, Liew HC. Morphological development and allometric growth patterns in the juvenile seahorse Hippocampus kuda Bleeker. J Fish Biol. 2006;69:426–45.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Chow S, Hazama K. Universal PCR primers for S7 ribosomal protein gene introns in fish. Mol Ecol. 1998;7:1255–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. CITES. Convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora. Appendices I, II and III valid from 4 April 2017. 2017. Retrieved from https://cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/app/2017/E-Appendices-2017-04-04.pdf on June 16.Google Scholar
  12. do Prado FD, Hashimoto DT, Mendonça FF, Senhorini JA, Foresti F, Porto-Foresti F. Molecular identification of hybrids between Neotropical catfish species Pseudoplatystoma corruscans and Pseudoplatystoma reticulatum. Aquac Res. 2011;42:1890–4.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Foster SJ, Vincent ACJ. Life history and ecology of seahorses: implications for conservation and management. J Fish Biol. 2004;65:1–61.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Freret-Meurer NV, Andreata JV. Field studies of a Brazilian seahorse population, Hippocampus reidi Ginsburg, 1933. Braz Arch Biol Technol. 2008;51:543–51.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Gatz AJ. Ecological morphology of freshwater stream fishes. Tulane Studies in Zoology and Botany. 1979;21:91–124.Google Scholar
  16. Hall TA. BioEdit: a user-friendly biological sequence alignment editor and analysis program for Windows 95/98/NT. Nucleic Acids Symp Ser. 1999;41:95–8.Google Scholar
  17. Han SY, Kim JK, Kai Y, Senou H. Seahorses of the Hippocampus coronatus complex: taxonomic revision, and description of Hippocampus haema, a new species from Korea and Japan (Teleostei, Syngnathidae). ZooKeys. 2017;712:113–39. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.712.14955 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Han SY, Kim JK, Tashiro F, Kai Y, Yoo JT. Relative importance of ocean currents and fronts in population structures of marine fish: a lesson from the cryptic lineages of the Hippocampus mohnikei complex. Mar Biodivers. 2017:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12526-017-0792-2
  19. Hercos AP, Giarrizzo T. Pisces, Syngnathidae, Hippocampus reidi: filling distribution gaps. Check List. 2007;3:287–90.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Ho NKP, Ho ALFC, Underwood GD, Underwood A, Zhang D, Lin J. A simple molecular protocol for the identification of hybrid Western Atlantic seahorses, Hippocampus erectus × H. reidi, and potential consequences of hybrids for conservation. Journal of Zoo and Aquarium Research. 2015;3:11–20.Google Scholar
  21. Hubbs CL. Variations in the number of vertebrae and other meristic characters of fishes correlated with the temperature of water during development. Am Nat. 1922;56:360–72.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Indiviglio F. Seahorses: everything about history, care, nutrition, handling, and behavior. Hauppauge: Barron's Educational Series; 2002. p. 96.Google Scholar
  23. Ireland SC, Anders PJ, Siple JT. Conservation aquaculture: an adaptive approach to prevent extinction of an endangered white sturgeon population. Am Fish Soc Symp. 2002;28:211–22.Google Scholar
  24. Jacoby WG. Loess: a nonparametric, graphical tool for depicting relationships between variables. Elect Stud. 2000;19:577–613.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Kimura M. A simple method for estimating evolutionary rates of base substitutions through comparative studies of nucleotide sequences. J Mol Evol. 1980;16:111–20.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Kvarnemo C, Moore GI, Jones AG, Nelson WS, Avise JC. Monogamous pair bonds and mate switching in the Western Australian seahorse Hippocampus subelongatus. J Evol Biol. 2000;13:882–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Kwun HJ, Kim JK. Occurrence of natural hybrid between Oplegnathus fasciatus and Oplegnathus punctatus from the South Sea of Korea. Korean Journal of Ichthyology. 2010;22:201–5.Google Scholar
  28. Leysen H, Roos G, Adriaens D. Morphological variation in head shape of pipefishes and seahorses in relation to snout length and developmental growth. J Morphol. 2011;272:1259–70.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Lim ASP, Myers AJ, Yu L, Buchman AS, Duffy JF, De Jager PL, Bennett DA. Sex difference in daily rhythms of clock gene expression in the aged human cerebral cortex. J Biol Rhythm. 2013;28:117–29.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Lindberg JC, Tigan G, Ellison L, Rettinghouse T, Nagel MM, Fisch KM. Aquaculture methods for a genetically managed population of endangered Delta Smelt. N Am J Aquac. 2013;75:186–96.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. Lourie SA. Measuring seahorses. Project seahorse technical report no. 4, version 1.0. Columbia: Project Seahorse, Fisheries Centre, University of British; 2003.Google Scholar
  32. Lourie SA. Seahorses: a life-size guide to every species. Brighton: Ivy Press; 2016. p. 160.Google Scholar
  33. Lourie SA, Foster SJ, Cooper EWT, Vincent ACJ. A guide to the identification of seahorses. Washington: Project Seahorse and TRAFFIC North America, University of British Columbia and World Wildlife Fund; 2004.Google Scholar
  34. Lourie SA, Green DM, Vincent ACJ. Dispersal, habitat differences, and comparative phylogeography of Southeast Asian seahorses (Syngnathidae: Hippocampus). Mol Ecol. 2005;14:1073–94.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Lourie SA, Pollom RA, Foster SJ. A global revision of the Seahorses Hippocampus Rafinesque 1810 (Actinopterygii: Syngnathiformes): taxonomy and biogeography with recommendations for further research. Zootaxa. 2016;4146:1–66.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Lourie SA, Vincent ACJ. A marine fish follows Wallace’s Line: the phylogeography of the three-spot seahorse (Hippocampus trimaculatus, Syngnathidae, Teleostei) in Southeast Asia. J Biogeogr. 2004;31:1975–85.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  37. Lourie SA, Vincent ACJ, Hall HJ. Seahorses: an identification guide to the world’s species and their conservation. London: Project Seahorse; 1999. p. x + 214.Google Scholar
  38. Mai ACG, Loebmann D. Size and number of newborn juveniles in wild Hippocampus reidi broods. Pan-American Journal of Aquatic Sciences. 2009;4:154–7.Google Scholar
  39. Matarese AC, Kendall AW Jr, Blood DM, Vinter BM. Laboratory guide to early life history stages of northeast Pacific fishes. Seattle: US Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service; 1989. p. 652.Google Scholar
  40. Morgan JAT, Harry AV, Welch DJ, Street R, White J, Geraghty PT, Macbeth WG, Tobin A, Simpfendorfer CA, Ovenden JR. Detection of interspecies hybridisation in Chondrichthyes: hybrids and hybrid offspring between Australian (Carcharhinus tilstoni) and common (C. limbatus) blacktip shark found in an Australian fishery. Conserv Genet. 2012;13:455–63.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  41. Ooi BL, Juanita J, Choo CK. Genetic mating system of spotted seahorse (Hippocampus kuda, Bleeker, 1852). Terengganu: 9th UMT International Annual Symposium on Sustainability Science and Management (UMTAS) 2010; 2010. p. 6.Google Scholar
  42. Otero-Ferrer F, Herrera R, López A, Socorro J, Molina L, Bouza C. First records of Hippocampus algiricus in the Canary Islands (north-east Atlantic Ocean) with an observation of hybridization with Hippocampus hippocampus. J Fish Biol. 2015;87:1080–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Piacentino GLM. Área de distribución para el género Hippocampus e H. patagonicus Piacentino & Luzzatto 2004 y nueva cita para Hippocampus reidi Guinsburg 1933 (Pisces, Syngnathiformes) en el Mar Argentino. Boletim do Laboratório de Hidrobiologia. 2008;21:107–11.Google Scholar
  44. R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2017. Available online at https://www.R-project.org/ Google Scholar
  45. Rosa IL, Oliveira TPR, Castro ALC, de Souza Moraes LE, Xavier JHA, Nottingham MC, Dias TLP, Bruto-Costa LV, Araújo ME, Birolo AB, Mai ACG, Monteiro-Neto C. Population characteristics, space use and habitat associations of the seahorse Hippocampus reidi (Teleostei: Syngnathidae). Neotropical Ichthyology. 2007;5:405–14.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  46. Rose E, Small CM, Saucedo HA, Harper C, Jones AG. Genetic evidence for monogamy in the dwarf seahorse, Hippocampus zosterae. Journal of Heredity. 2014;105:922–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  47. Sonnenberg R, Nolte AW, Tautz D. An evaluation of LSU rDNA D1-D2 sequences for their use in species identification. Front Zool. 2007;4:6.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  48. Sousa-Santos C, Robalo JI, Collares-Pereira MJ, Almada VC. Heterozygous indels as useful tools in the reconstruction of DNA sequences and in the assessment of ploidy level and genomic constitution of hybrid organisms. DNA Seq. 2005;16:462–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Tamura K, Stecher G, Peterson D, Filipski A, Kumar S. MEGA6: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis version 6.0. Mol Biol Evol. 2013;30:2725–9.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  50. Teske PR, Cherry MI, Matthee CA. The evolutionary history of seahorses (Syngnathidae: Hippocampus): molecular data suggest a West Pacific origin and two invasions of the Atlantic Ocean. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2004;30:273–86.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Teske PR, Hamilton H, Matthee CA, Barker NP. Signatures of seaway closures and founder dispersal in the phylogeny of a circumglobally distributed seahorse lineage. BMC Evol Biol. 2007;7:138.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  52. Teske PR, Hamilton H, Palsbøll PJ, Choo CK, Gabr H, Lourie SA, Santos M, Sreepada A, Cherry MI, Matthee CA. Molecular evidence for long-distance colonization in an indo-Pacific seahorse lineage. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2005;286:249–60.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  53. Van Wassenbergh S, Roos G, Aerts P, Herrel A, Adriaens D. Why the long face? A comparative study of feeding kinematics of two pipefishes with different snout lengths. J Fish Biol. 2011;78:1786–98.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Van Wassenbergh S, Roos G, Genbrugge A, Leysen H, Aerts P, Adriaens D, Herrel A. Suction is kid’s play: extremely fast suction in newborn seahorses. Biol Lett. 2009;5:200–3.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  55. Vincent ACJ. The international trade in seahorses. Cambridge: Traffic International; 1996.Google Scholar
  56. Vincent ACJ, Foster SJ, Koldewey HJ. Conservation and management of seahorses and other Syngnathidae. J Fish Biol. 2011;78:1681–724.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Wayne RK, Jenks SM. Mitochondrial DNA analysis implying extensive hybridization. Nature. 1991;351:565–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  58. Wickham H. ggplot2: elegant graphics for data analysis. New York: Springer-Verlag New York; 2009. p. viii + 213.Google Scholar
  59. Woodall L, Shaw P, Koldewey H. Seahorse identification: new techniques to the rescue. EAZA News. 2009;65:14–5.Google Scholar
  60. Woodall LC, Otero-Ferrer F, Correia M, Curtis JMR, Garrick-Maidment N, Shaw PW, Koldewey HJ. A synthesis of European seahorse taxonomy, population structure, and habitat use as a basis for assessment, monitoring and conservation. Mar Biol. 2018;165:19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-017-3274-y View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s) 2018

Advertisement