Research Article |
Corresponding author: Anna Maria Jażdżewska ( anna.jazdzewska@biol.uni.lodz.pl ) Academic editor: Adam Petrusek
© 2020 Anna Maria Jażdżewska, Tomasz Rewicz, Tomasz Mamos, Remi Wattier, Karolina Bącela-Spychalska, Michał Grabowski.
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Citation:
Jażdżewska AM, Rewicz T, Mamos T, Wattier R, Bącela-Spychalska K, Grabowski M (2020) Cryptic diversity and mtDNA phylogeography of the invasive demon shrimp, Dikerogammarus haemobaphes (Eichwald, 1841), in Europe. NeoBiota 57: 53-86. https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.57.46699
|
The regions of the Black, Caspian, and Azov seas are known for being both (i) the place of extensive crustacean radiation dated to the times of Paratethys and Sarmatian basins, and (ii) present donors of alien and invasive taxa to many areas worldwide. One amphipod morphospecies, Dikerogammarus haemobaphes, is known both as native to rivers draining to the Black and Caspian seas as well as a successful invader (nicknamed demon shrimp) in Central and Western European rivers. Based on mitochondrial (COI and 16S) and nuclear (28S) datasets and 41 sampling sites, representing both the native (19) and the invaded (22) range, we assessed cryptic diversity, phylogeography and population genetics of this taxon. First, we revealed the presence of two divergent lineages supported by all markers and all species delimitation methods. The divergence between the lineages was high (18.3% Kimura 2-parameter distance for COI) and old (ca. 5.1 Ma), suggesting the presence of two cryptic species within D. haemobaphes. Lineage A was found only in a few localities in the native range, while lineage B was widespread both in the native and in the invaded range. Although genetic divergence within lineage B was shallow, geographic distribution of 16S and COI haplotypes was highly heterogeneous, leading us to the definition of four Geo-Demographic Units (GDUs). Two GDUs were restricted to the native range: GDU-B1 was endemic for the Durugöl (aka Duruşu) Liman in Turkey, whereas GDU-B2 occurred only in the Dniester River. GDU-B3 was both present in several localities in the native range in the Black Sea drainage area and widespread in Central and Western Europe. The GDU-B4 was found exclusively in the Moskva River in Russia. Extended Bayesian Skyline Plot indicated steady growth of GDU-B3 population size since 30 ka, pointing to the rather old history of its expansion, first in the late Pleistocene in the native range and nowadays in Central and Western Europe. The analysis of haplotype distribution across the present distribution range clearly showed two invasion routes to Central and Western Europe. The first one, originating from the lower Dnieper, allowed the demon shrimp to colonize Polish rivers and the Mittellandkanal in Germany. The second one, originating from the Danube delta, allowed to colonize the water bodies in the upper Danube basin. The UK population has originated from the Central Corridor, as only a haplotype found exclusively along this route was recorded in the UK. Population genetics analysis showed that the invasion of the demon shrimp along the Central Corridor was not associated with the loss of genetic diversity, which might contribute to the success of this invader in the newly colonized areas.
Amphipoda, COI gene, Crustacea, inland waters, invasion routes, non-indigenous species, 16S gene
Global climate changes impact the size and extent of areas that may potentially be inhabited by many species (
Molecular methods provide a useful tool for casting light on the processes and pathways of invasions, supplementing observations coming from traditional monitoring (
Several studies uncovered the presence of substantial cryptic diversity in the invasive aquatic morphospecies with divergent genetic lineages showing different potential to spread and colonize new areas (
The area of the Black, Caspian, Azov, and Aral seas is recognized as the region of extensive radiation of crustacean species flocks dated to the times of Parathetys and Sarmatian basins (
European freshwater continental invasion corridors after
Ponto-Caspian amphipods have high invasion potential, and as many as 13 morphospecies originating from that region have been recorded as alien or invasive elsewhere (
The demon shrimp has a high potential for invasion (
Based on the thorough sampling across Europe and using two mitochondrial and one nuclear marker, our study aims to reveal the phylogeographic structure and historical population dynamics of D. haemobaphes in its native Black Sea basin and in the invaded range. Taking into account what is currently known about the recently studied and closely related killer shrimp, the history of the demon shrimp invasion and the geological history of the native area, we hypothesized that (i) it is plausible that in the native region the demon shrimp encompasses several weakly divergent lineages dating back to Pleistocene, (ii) there are possibly two sources, the Dnieper and the Danube deltas and, hence, two independent routes for the species invasion to Central and Western Europe – the so-called Central Corridor and the Southern Corridor of invasion, respectively, (iii) learning from the invasion history of the closely related killer shrimp, we can expect that the populations of the demon shrimp will also show signs of demographic and spatial expansion and no loss of genetic diversity, except the UK population, in comparison to the source population.
Dikerogammarus haemobaphes was collected at 55 sites in both its native (23 sites) and invaded (32 sites) ranges between 2000 and 2014 (Table
A geographic distribution of D. haemobaphes haplotypes in the native and invaded area. Numbers in triangles (native range) or circles (invaded range) represent sampling localities coded as in Table
Sites where Dikerogammarus haemobaphes was collected. N – native range, CC – Central Corridor, SC – Southern Corridor, NC – Northern Corridor; n – number of individuals sequenced for COI and 16S; h – number of haplotypes based on concatenated COI and 16S sequences; Ar and PAr – allelic and private allelic richness estimates, corrected for sample size through rarefaction; NA – sampling date not available.
Code | Native / invasive | River Basin | River | Country | Latitude / Longitude | Date | n | h | Ar | Par |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | N | Durugöl | Durugöl liman | Turkey | 41.3163, 28.6205 | 2007 | 23 | 12 | 4.03 | 4.03 |
2 | N | Danube | Danube | Romania/Bulgaria | 43.7499, 23.8987 | 2013 | 1 | 1 | x | x |
3 | N | Danube | Danube | Romania | 45.1595, 28.9089 | 2013 | 1 | 1 | x | x |
4 | N | Dniester | Dniestrovskij Liman | Ukraine | 46.3309, 30.0956 | 2009 | 8 | 1 | 1 | 0.01 |
5 | N | Dniester | Dniester | Ukraine | 46.4127, 30.2585 | 2009 | 14 | 5 | 3.30 | 0.79 |
5A | N | Dniester | Dniester | Ukraine | 46.4127, 30.2585 | 2011 | ||||
6 | N | Dniester | river near Orhei | Moldova | 47.3707, 28.8040 | 2011 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
7 | N | Dniester | Dniester | Ukraine | 48.2309, 28.2775 | 2011 | 14 | 4 | 2.67 | 0.13 |
7A | N | Dniester | Dniester | Ukraine | 48.2323, 28.2838 | 2011 | ||||
8 | N | Akkarzhanka | Akkarzhanka | Ukraine | 46.3469, 30.5969 | 2009 | 10 | 4 | 2.96 | 1.06 |
9 | N | Akkarzhanka | Dalnik | Ukraine | 46.4008, 30.5929 | 2009 | 20 | 4 | 2.41 | 0.57 |
10 | N | Bug | Southern Bug | Ukraine | 48.169, 30.4512 | 2009 | 11 | 3 | 1.96 | 0.01 |
11 | N | Dnieper | Stebleevsky Liman | Ukraine | 46.614, 32.5159 | 2009 | 23 | 5 | 1.99 | 0.09 |
11A | N | Dnieper | Dnieprovski Liman | Ukraine | 46.5595, 32.3437 | 2009 | ||||
12 | N | Dnieper | North Crimean canal | Ukraine | 46.1828, 33.5432 | 2011 | 10 | 2 | 1.52 | 1 |
13 | N | Dnieper | Kerch peninsula, Frontove | Ukraine | 45.1865, 35.4718 | 2011 | 21 | 4 | 3.27 | 0.52 |
14 | N | Dnieper | Dnieper | Ukraine | 47.7918, 35.1255 | 2009 | 6 | 3 | 2.74 | 0.77 |
15 | N | Dnieper | Saksahan | Ukraine | 48.3533, 33.8621 | 2009 | 9 | 2 | 1.57 | 0 |
16 | N | Dnieper | Dnieper | Ukraine | 48.4658, 35.0648 | 2006 | 5 | 3 | 2.73 | 0.87 |
16A | N | Dnieper | Dnieper | Ukraine | 48.4646, 35.1322 | 2006 | ||||
17 | N | Dnieper | Dnieper-Donbas channel | Ukraine | 49.0342, 36.1045 | 2011 | 6 | 2 | 1.97 | 0 |
18 | N | Don | Krasnopavlivski zaliv | Ukraine | 49.0971, 36.4267 | 2011 | 11 | 3 | 2.44 | 0.48 |
19 | N | Don | Doniec | Ukraine | 48.8915, 37.8011 | 2011 | 17 | 3 | 2.50 | 0 |
20 | CC | Dnieper | Kievski Reservoir | Ukraine | 51.0675, 30.3907 | 2009 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
20A | CC | Dnieper | Desna | Ukraine | 51.4848, 31.3308 | NA | ||||
21 | CC | Dnieper | channel in Dubay village | Belarus | 52.03, 26.8504 | 2010 | 10 | 3 | 2.31 | 0.52 |
22 | CC | Vistula | Bug | Poland | 52.1748, 23.4342 | 2004 | 5 | 3 | 2.86 | 0 |
22A | CC | Vistula | Bug | Poland | 52.1748, 23.4342 | 2003 | ||||
23 | CC | Vistula | Bug | Poland | 52.4141, 22.5612 | 2004 | 10 | 3 | 2.49 | 0.11 |
24 | CC | Vistula | Bug | Poland | 52.5333, 21.259 | 2003 | 7 | 4 | 3.31 | 0.22 |
25 | CC | Vistula | Vistula | Poland | 50.5194, 21.5965 | 2002 | 17 | 3 | 1.65 | 0.05 |
25A | CC | Vistula | Vistula | Poland | 50.4224, 21.3104 | 2002 | ||||
26 | CC | Vistula | Vistula | Poland | 51.661, 21.483 | 2002 | 10 | 3 | 2.04 | 0.59 |
27 | CC | Vistula | Vistula | Poland | 52.6945, 19.0212 | 2000 | 5 | 3 | 2.86 | 0.06 |
28 | CC | Vistula | Vistula lagoon | Poland | 54.2729, 19.4134 | 2000 | 14 | 3 | 2.29 | 0 |
28A | CC | Vistula | Vistula lagoon | Poland | 54.3243, 19.5194 | 2000 | ||||
28B | CC | Vistula | Vistula lagoon | Poland | 54.3381, 19.2322 | 2002 | ||||
29 | CC | Vistula | canal between Łuknajno and Śniardwy lakes | Poland | 53.7991, 21.6355 | 2002 | 7 | 2 | 1.99 | 0 |
30 | CC | Oder | Warta | Poland | 52.6505, 14.9999 | 2001 | 9 | 3 | 2.78 | 0 |
31 | CC | Oder | Oder | Poland | 52.7332, 14.3785 | 2001 | 19 | 6 | 2.85 | 0.52 |
31A | CC | Oder | Oder | Poland | 52.6697, 14.461 | 2001 | ||||
32 | CC | Oder | Oder | Poland | 52.4396, 14.5779 | 2001 | 12 | 2 | 1.45 | 0 |
32A | CC | Oder | Oder | Poland | 52.4396, 14.5772 | 2001 | ||||
33 | CC | Elbe | Mittellandkanal | Germany | 52.3016, 11.3711 | 2010 | 2 | 2 | x | x |
34 | CC | Ems | Mittellandkanal | Germany | 52.3082, 7.6272 | 2010 | 2 | 1 | x | x |
35 | SC | Danube | Starnbergersee | Germany | 47.9734, 11.3518 | 2011 | 20 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
36 | SC | Danube | Traunsee | Austria | 47.9008, 13.7686 | 2011 | 21 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
37 | SC | Danube | Danube | Austria | 48.1625, 16.5165 | 2005 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 0 |
37A | SC | Danube | Danube | Austria | 48.2991, 16.3469 | 2005 | ||||
38 | SC | Danube | Danube | Hungary | 47.7856, 18.96 | 2011 | 4 | 2 | 1.96 | 0 |
38A | SC | Danube | Danube | Hungary | 47.8149, 18.864 | 2013 | ||||
39 | SC | Danube | Balaton | Hungary | 46.9139, 17.8935 | 2006 | 19 | 2 | 1.29 | 0 |
40 | NC | Volga | Moskva | Russia | 55.5969, 37.1223 | NA | 9 | 3 | 2.41 | 2.41 |
40A | NC | Volga | Moskva | Russia | 55.5969, 37.1223 | NA | ||||
41 | UK | Great Ouse | Great Ouse | United Kingdom | 52.1344, -0.4662 | 2014 | 9 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
The total DNA was extracted from 434 individuals according to the standard phenol-chloroform method (for details see
Haplotypes were retrieved using DNA SP v5 both for individual markers and for the concatenated sequences (
Relevant voucher information, taxonomic classifications, and the COI barcode sequences are publicly accessible through the public data set “DHAEMOBA” (https://doi.org/10.5883/DS-DHAEMOBA) on the Barcode of Life Data Systems (BOLD; www.boldsystems.org) (
Bayesian time-calibrated phylogeny was reconstructed in BEAST, version 2.5.2 (
To visualize molecular divergence of mtDNA haplotypes, a Minimum Spanning Network was generated using Arlequin 3.5.1.2 (
Four molecular species delimitation methods were applied to reveal the potential Molecular Operational Taxonomic Units (MOTUs) that could represent putative cryptic species within the studied demon shrimp populations. Two methods were distance-based: Barcode Index Number (BIN) System (
The BIN method is implemented as part of the Barcode of Life Data system (BOLD;
The ABGD method is based upon pairwise distance measures. With this method, the sequences are partitioned into groups (MOTUs), such that the distance between two sequences from two different groups will always be larger than a given threshold distance (i.e., barcode gap). We used primary partitions as a principle for group definition, as they are typically stable on a broader range of prior values, minimize the number of false-positives (over-split species), and are usually close to the number of taxa described by taxonomists (
The GMYC method defines MOTUs through identification of the switch from intraspecific branching patterns (coalescent) to interspecific species branching patterns (Yule process) on a phylogenetic tree. First, a log-likelihood ratio test is performed to assess if the GMYC model fits the observed data significantly better than the null model of a single coalescent species. If there is evidence for overlooked species inside the phylogenetic tree, the threshold model is tested for the observed data to estimate the boundary between intra- and interspecific branching patterns. The Bayesian tree was uploaded into the R (R Core Team, 2013) software package ‘SPLITS’ (Species Limits by Threshold Statistics) (
The bPTP is another phylogeny-based method. The bPTP incorporates the number of substitutions in the model of speciation and assumes that the probability that a substitution gives rise to a speciation event follows a Poisson distribution. The branch lengths of the input tree are supposed to be generated by two independent classes of the Poisson events, one corresponding to speciation and the other to coalescence. Additionally, the bPTP adds Bayesian support values (BS) for the delimited species (
The 28S rRNA nuclear phylogeny was reconstructed for Dikerogammarus haemobaphes, D. bispinosus Martynov, 1925, and D. villosus using the Maximum Likelihood method and the Tamura 3-parameter model selected through BIC as a best fitting model (
To reveal the historical demography of D. haemobaphes, we used the Extended Bayesian Skyline Plot (eBSP) (
We have also examined the current demographic status of the lineage A and three GDUs of lineage B of D. haemobaphes in Arlequin 3.5 (
The haplotype diversity was assessed by calculating the allelic richness (Ar), and the private allelic richness (PAr), where haplotypes equaled to alleles, corrected for a common sampling size using a rarefaction approach (
We used 19 sites along the Central Corridor to test for a positive correlation between genetic differentiation and the distance between sites (isolation-by-distance, IBD). Besides, the data from these sites were used to check whether diversity (haplotype diversity, nucleotide diversity, Ar, PAr, see Table
In the dataset composed of 433 sequences, we identified 15 haplotypes of 16S (302 bp) and 27 haplotypes of COI (598 bp). The concatenation of both fragments (900 bp) resulted in the recognition of 39 mtDNA haplotypes derived from different combinations of the 16S and COI haplotypes (Suppl. material
All the COI sequences, represented by 27 haplotypes, were uploaded into the Barcode of Life Data System (BOLD), resulting in two Barcode Index Numbers (BINs) obtained (Fig.
Time-calibrated phylogeny of Dikerogammarus haemobaphes and the results of different species delimitation methods. Maximum clade credibility chronogram was inferred from a strict molecular clock model based on the COI + 16S data set of D. haemobaphes. The numbers given next to the respective main nodes indicate Bayesian posterior probabilities (> 0.5) and ML bootstrap values (> 50%). B1-4 represent the geo-demographic units within the lineage B. BIN – Barcode Index Number (BIN) System, ABGD haplotypes – Automatic Barcode Gap Discovery based on haplotypes, ABGD sequences – Automatic Barcode Gap Discovery based on all sequences, GMYC – Generalized Mixed Yule Coalescent, bPTP – Bayesian Poisson Tree Processes.
Automatic Barcode Gap Discovery (ABGD) was performed on two data sets (i) 27 sequences, each representing one of the 27 COI haplotypes and (ii) 433 sequences, representing all individuals sequenced. The first analysis indicated the existence of two MOTUs (lineages A, B), divergent by the 0.183 maximum K2P distance, that may be interpreted as two potential cryptic species (Fig.
The GMYC analysis also rejected the null model of the D. haemobaphes sequences representing a single species. The single threshold method of lineage identification allowed to recognize five entities: lineage A and lineage B, the latter further divided into four sub-lineages (Fig.
All the five methods used for species delimitation are congruent at recognizing the lineage A as distinct from any other MOTU. Given the extremely high K2P-distance (max 0.183) between lineage A and all the others, we can conclude the presence of cryptic diversity within D. haemobaphes. In addition, since this lineage is restricted only to the native range, we do not use it in tracking the demon shrimp invasion in Europe. Lineage B was recognized by BINs and, partially, by ABGD as one MOTU, while other methods subdivided it into smaller groups. Given the weak phylogenetic support for these sublineages and lack of congruent delimitation results (Fig.
The phylogeny reconstruction based on the 28S rRNA confirmed the separation of D. villosus and D. bispinosus from D. haemobaphes, as well as the clear separation of lineages A and B, further supporting the presence of two cryptic species within D. haemobaphes (Fig.
Maximum Likelihood tree of Dikerogammarus spp. based on the 28S rRNA gene. Sequences representing D. haemobaphes lineage A, each of the geo-demographic units (GDU B1-4) within D. haemobaphes lineage B as well as D. bispinosus and D. villosus were used. The evolutionary history was inferred by using the Maximum Likelihood method and the Tamura 3-parameter model. All positions with less than 95% site coverage were eliminated. Bootstrap test was applied with 500 replicates. Information about the D. bispinosus sequence may be found in public BOLD dataset: DHAEMOBA. Dikerogammarus villosus and Pontogammarus robustoides sequences were retrieved from GenBank.
The Bayesian phylogenetic reconstruction indicated the existence of two main lineages, A and B (Fig.
The results of eBSP analysis indicated that the size of populations within the lineage A remained stable between 80 and 20 ka, followed by a slight decrease from 20 to 15 ka and a large decrease during the last 10 ka (Fig.
Multilocus extended Bayesian Skyline Plots for four lineages / geo-demographic units (GDU) of Dikerogammarus haemobaphes. Solid lines indicate the median posterior effective populations size through time; dotted lines indicate the 95% highest posterior density interval for each estimate.
Within the lineage B, the GDU B1 from the Durugöl (Duruşu) liman in Turkey experienced slight growth from 80 ka till 50 ka. Later, the population remained stable. On the contrary, the widespread and invasive clade GDU B2 retained stable size till ca. 2.5 ka, and after that experienced accelerated growth. The Dniester population (GDU B3) was stable until ca. 10 ka; later steady but slow growth can be observed. There were not enough sequences of GDU B4 to perform the eBSP analysis.
Mismatch analysis showed that neither demographic nor spatial expansion model could be rejected for the lineage A or for any GDU of the lineage B (Table
Historical demography based on concatenated mtDNA sequences (COI and 16S) from the lineage A and the Geo-Demographic Units (GDU) within the lineage B in the native region of Dikerogammarus haemobaphes. For details about locations, see Table
Lineage/area | Locations | Spatial | Demographic | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Harp | p | SSD | p | Harp | p | SSD | p | D | p | Fs | p | ||
Dikerogammarus haemobaphes Lineage A (BIN ADB9467) | |||||||||||||
Lineage A | 2, 3, 4, 5/5A, 12 | 0.113 | 0.342 | 0.007 | 0.207 | 0.113 | 0.340 | 0.007 | 0.333 | −0.597 | 0.337 | −0.218 | 0.405 |
Dikerogammarus haemobaphes Lineage B (BIN AAX9262) | |||||||||||||
GDU-B3 | 5/5A, 6, 7/7A, 8, 9 | 0.069 | 0.265 | 0.002 | 0.283 | 0.069 | 0.269 | 0.002 | 0.448 | −0.887 | 0.242 | −3.621 | 0.041 |
GDU-B2 | 11/11A, 13, 14 | 0.076 | 0.431 | 0.019 | 0.204 | 0.076 | 0.343 | 0.023 | 0.155 | 0.215 | 0.618 | 0.572 | 0.647 |
GDU-B1 | 1 | 0.067 | 0.475 | 0.004 | 0.497 | 0.067 | 0.429 | 0.004 | 0.586 | −1.923 | 0.013 | −8.472 | 0.000 |
The analysis of mtDNA haplotype distribution across the distribution range of the demon shrimp clearly showed the two invasion routes to Central and Western Europe (Fig.
The highest diversity within the D. haemobaphes lineage B expressed by the number of mtDNA haplotypes (12) as well as by the highest private allelic richness was observed in the Durugöl (Duruşu) liman (Ar = 4.03 and PAr = 4.03, respectively) (Table
In the invaded range, the number of haplotypes was the highest in the Oder River (station 31/31A, six haplotypes) followed by the station 24 in the Bug River with four haplotypes recorded (Table
No loss of allelic richness was observed along the Central Corridor, ca. 2500 km from the source population to the furthest locality studied, as the highest value of this parameter was observed in the Bug River (station 24, Ar = 3.31) in Poland, ca. 1960 km from the source area (Table
A slight decrease, although not statistically significant, in haplotype diversity (R2 = 0.006, r (17) = −0.07; p = 0.76), nucleotide diversity (R2 = 0.018, r (17) = −0.13; p = 0.59), allelic richness (R2 = 0.001, r (17) = −0.02; p = 0.92), private allelic richness (R2 = 0.131, r (17) = −0.36; p = 0.13) were observed along the Central Corridor of invasion (starting in the source of the corridor at the Dnieprovski Liman locality 11A, belonging to the native range of the species) (Fig.
A plot of pairwise Fst/(1-Fst) versus pairwise linear distance of 19 populations of D. haemobaphes encompassing source populations for the Central Corridor and Central Corridor itself. Plot of: Haplotype diversity (B), nucleotide diversity (C), allelic richness (D) and private allelic richness (E) within 19 populations of D. haemobaphes along source populations for the Central Corridor and Central Corridor itself (see Suppl. material
The Ponto-Caspian region appears to be one of the main donors of alien aquatic species invading Central and Western Europe as well as North America (
We observed the presence of two highly divergent lineages among the individuals of the demon shrimp (Fig.
Dikerogammarus haemobaphes was originally described from the brackish waters of the Caspian Sea, while
The results of eBSP analyses indicate a recent (less than 20 ka) substantial decrease in the effective population size within the lineage A that may explain its rarity and lack of invasion potential. Such demographic decline is hard to explain, but it may be associated with the late Pleistocene/early Holocene marine transgression and subsequent salinity rise in consequence of reconnection of the former Pontic Lake to the Mediterranean Sea that made up the present Black Sea (
The divergence pattern within the D. haemobaphes lineage B in its native range is shallow but reflected, to some extent, by the geographic distribution of GDUs. For example, GDU B4 found exclusively in the Moskva River (Caspian Basin) apparently diverged from the others at about 750 ka (Fig.
The eBSP analysis showed different historical demographic patterns in the remaining geo-demographic units. In the case of GDU B1, restricted to the Durugöl Liman, the effective population size remained relatively stable. The two GDUs found in the North Black Sea basin (B2 and B3) seem to experience demographic growth in the last couple of thousands of years. These results stay in contrast with the ones obtained for D. villosus; in this case, the post-Pleistocene demographic boost was observed in all the studied lineages of the species (
The distribution of mtDNA haplotypes along the expansion routes clearly points out to the Dnieper River as a donor of invaders for the Central Corridor and, subsequently, for Western Europe. It is supported by the haplotype composition of the studied populations, with haplotypes, such as the most common haplotype 17, unique for the Dniester, Dnieper, Bug, Vistula, Oder and all along the Mittellandkanal in Germany but absent from the Danube and from the Alpine lakes. In the UK we found only haplotype 17, which suggests that the Central Corridor was also the most probable source for the introduction of D. haemobaphes to the UK.
In contrast, the Danubian expansion route is characterized by only two haplotypes, haplotype 14 that is shared with the Central Corridor and the private haplotype 32. Such poor haplotype diversity in the Southern Corridor is hard to explain. Already in the 1950s, the demon shrimp was reported from the middle Danube above Györ in Hungary, and in 1994, it was found as high as the Danube-Main canal in Germany (
Interestingly, while the demon shrimp was a successful invader reaching Western Europe via the Central Corridor, the killer shrimp expanded to this area via the Southern Corridor. The population of D. villosus from the lower Dnieper expanded its range along the Central Corridor only to central Poland (
The Southern Corridor seems to be the most probable source from which demon shrimp colonized the three studied lakes: the large lowland Balaton Lake in Hungary, as well as the two submontane Alpine lakes – the Traunsee in Austria and the Starnbergersee in Germany. The lake Balaton is connected to the Danube by the Sió canal, allowing different organisms to spread, and the presence of alien species was reported from the lake already since the 1930s (
The small sample of D. haemobaphes from the Moskva River in Russia, also situated outside the native range of studied species (ca. 3000 km up from the Volga delta), seems to be a sister group to all the other GDUs within lineage B found in the Black Sea as well as in Central and Western Europe (Fig.
The divergence of the Black and the Caspian Sea populations was observed in the cases of several Ponto-Caspian crustaceans (
Although a weak signal of IBD was recorded, all other measures expressing changes in the level of genetic diversity along the Central Corridor of the invasion were not significant, showing no bottleneck effect associated with the invasion of D. haemobaphes along the invasion corridor. The detected isolation by distance may come from the fact that a relatively high number (four) of private haplotypes existed at some sites in the invaded area (Fig.
In conclusion, our results further confirm that the geological history of the Ponto-Caspian region stimulated divergence and speciation in the local freshwater and oligohaline organisms. Some of the resulting closely related lineages cannot be separated morphologically and, at the present stage, have to be treated as cryptic ones. Some of them, such as the lineage A of D. haemobaphes, remained in the area of origin, while others, such as the lineage B, successfully conquered new areas. The colonization of Western Europe by the demon shrimp followed mainly the Central Corridor, while another successful invader, the killer shrimp, used the Southern Corridor predominantly. These differences may be explained by interspecific competition with the killer shrimp (
The study was partially funded by the Committee on Scientific Research (3P04F01322), Polish Ministry for Science and Higher Education grants: sampling (NN304081535, NN304350139, NN303579439), molecular analysis (NN304350139) and partially by the statutory funds of the Department of Invertebrate Zoology and Hydrobiology of University of Lodz. Tomasz Rewicz and Tomasz Mamos were supported by the Scholarship of the Polish National Agency for Academic Exchange (NAWA) at Bekker Programme (TR project nb. PPN/BEK/2018/1/00162, TM project nb. PPN/BEK/2018/1/00225). The authors thank Peter Borza, Bartosz Janic, Ewa Janowska, Radomir Jaskuła, Krzysztof Jażdżewski, Alicja Konopacka, Sergiy Kudrenko, Marek Michalski, Mykola Ovcharenko, Maciej Podsiadło, Alexander Prokin, Agnieszka Rewicz, Mikhail Son and Oleksandr Usov for their help in collecting the material for this study. Alicja Konopacka is acknowledged for identifying some material for this study. Drew Constable (National Hydroecology Team, Environment Agency UK) is greatly appreciated for providing the demon shrimp sample from the UK. We express our gratitude to the two anonymous reviewers and the editor, Adam Petrusek, for providing useful comments that allowed us to improve our work.
Table S1
Data type: calculations
Explanation note: Molecular diversity measures calculated for the populations in the native range (mostly Dnieper River) (N) and along the invasion corridor (I, Central Corridor) of Dikerogammarus haemobaphes.
Table S2
Data type: GenBank data
Explanation note: GenBank accession numbers for all three studied genes and the presentation of haplotypes recognized for 16S, COI and concatenated data.
Table S3
Data type: distribution
Explanation note: The distribution of recognized haplotypes (concatenated 16S and COI sequences).