Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-dnltx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T13:51:13.335Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The genetic structure of harbour porpoises in the Baltic Sea relative to adjacent waters remains to be clarified: a reply to Berggren & Wang

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 October 2008

Anna Palmé*
Affiliation:
Division of Population Genetics, Department of Zoology, Stockholm University, S-106 91 Stockholm, Sweden.
Linda Laikre
Affiliation:
Division of Population Genetics, Department of Zoology, Stockholm University, S-106 91 Stockholm, Sweden.
Nils Ryman
Affiliation:
Division of Population Genetics, Department of Zoology, Stockholm University, S-106 91 Stockholm, Sweden.
Fred Utter
Affiliation:
School of Aquatic and Fisheries Sciences, University of Washington, Box 355020, Seattle, WA 98195, USA.
*
*Division of Population Genetics, Department of Zoology, Stockholm University, S-106 91 Stockholm, Sweden. E-mail anna.palme@popgen.su.se
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Type
Letters
Copyright
Copyright © Fauna & Flora International 2008

A strong conservation focus on harbour porpoises Phocoena phocoena in the Baltic Sea is based on the presumption of a Baltic group genetically isolated from populations further west in the Belt-Kattegat area. This contention stems primarily from the results of a study (Wang & Berggren, Reference Wang and Berggren1997) claiming a statistically significant mtDNA haplotype frequency difference (P < 0.05) between the two regions. The result has been widely accepted as a scientific fact. We pointed out a flaw in Wang & Berggren's (Reference Wang and Berggren1997) statistical analysis, noting that the difference is not significant using generally accepted criteria (Palmé et al., Reference Palmé, Laikre, Utter and Ryman2008). We argue that the genetic structure of the harbour porpoise in this region is unresolved, and stress the urgency of addressing this issue. The response by Berggren & Wang (Reference Berggren and Wang2008) fails to clarify whether or not their mtDNA data support the existence of a genetically separate Baltic population.

In standard statistical hypothesis testing the probability of interest is obtaining (under the null hypothesis) an outcome as bad as or worse than the one observed. Wang & Berggren (Reference Wang and Berggren1997) reported the probability of a worse outcome, not including the probability of the observation they actually made (or possible ties), thereby making it easier to obtain significance. Most basic statistics textbooks (e.g. Sokal & Rohlf, Reference Sokal and Rohlf1995) recommend such inclusion, which is reflected in the P-values we obtained using other software (Table 2; Palmé et al., Reference Palmé, Laikre, Utter and Ryman2008). Regardless of the P-value interpretation and the α-level, however, the observed F ST based on Wang & Berggren's (Reference Wang and Berggren1997) data is very low (0.007) and we show that for their data it is impossible to separate a case of complete panmixia from a discrete (10% migration) Baltic population. This analysis, based on Wang & Berggren's (Reference Wang and Berggren1997) mtDNA data, reflects the female segment of the population, accounting for the stronger female philopatry claimed by Berggren & Wang.

Given the weakness of Wang & Berggren's (Reference Wang and Berggren1997) data, the strong conservation focus on a genetically separate Baltic porpoise population currently lacks scientific support. This is so even if small sample sizes result in poor statistical power. The precautionary principle should, as always in conservation, be applied in the absence of adequate data but it should not be used to create sub-structuring that may not exist.

At present, we cannot separate the following basic scenarios (cf. Laikre et al., Reference Laikre, Palm and Ryman2005) of possible Baltic harbour porpoise genetic structure in the Baltic-Belt-Kattegat Seas: (1) complete panmixia, (2) the Baltic representing a genetically distinct and separate population, (3) continuous genetic exchange over this region. Effective conservation management is strongly dependent on which of these alternatives (or combination of them) is true. Palmé et al. (Reference Palmé, Laikre and Ryman2004) suggested that the cumulative genetic data available for porpoises in this region should be analysed jointly using appropriate statistical techniques. To our knowledge this analysis has still not been carried out.

Cost effective species conservation requires scientifically valid information on population genetic structure over a species’ distribution range. Such information provides the basis for focusing conservation management on relevant genetic units to minimize loss of intraspecific diversity, thus maximizing evolutionary potential. Given that the population genetic structure of harbour porpoise in the Baltic Sea and adjacent waters is unresolved, there is no scientifically valid genetic support for current costly conservation efforts. We thank Berggren & Wang for their attention to this problem, and hope that the present exchange, along with Palmé et al. (Reference Palmé, Laikre, Utter and Ryman2008), will serve to stimulate investigations to clarify whether or not there exists a genetically and demographically separate Baltic harbour population.

References

Berggren, P. & Wang, J.Y. (2008) The Baltic harbour porpoise and the precautionary principle in conservation: a response to Palmé et al. Oryx, 42, 489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laikre, L., Palm, S. & Ryman, N. (2005) Genetic population structure of fishes: implications for coastal zone management. Ambio, 34, 111119.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Palmé, A., Laikre, L. & Ryman, N. (2004) Population Genetics of Harbour Porpoise in Swedish Waters – A Literature Review. The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Report 5419. Http://www.naturvardsverket.se/Documents/publikationer/620-5419-8.pdf [accessed 16 June 2008].Google Scholar
Palmé, A., Laikre, L., Utter, F. & Ryman, N. (2008) Conservation genetics without knowing what to conserve: the case of the Baltic harbour porpoise Phocoena phocoena. Oryx, 42, 305308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sokal, R.R. & Rohlf, F.J. (1995) Biometry, 3rd edition. W.H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco, USA.Google Scholar
Wang, J.Y. & Berggren, P. (1997) Mitochondrial DNA analysis of harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) in the Baltic Sea, the Kattegat-Skagerrak Seas and off the west coast of Norway. Marine Biology, 127, 531537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar