ArticlePloS one2021
Amphidromous but endemic: Population connectivity of Rhinogobius gigas (Teleostei: Gobioidei).
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Contrasting Patterns of Genetic Isolation Among Diadromous, Landlocked, and Non-Migratory Gobiid Fish Populations.Molecular ecology · 2026Article
- Supplementary description and molecular analysis ofZooKeys · 2026Article
- Genetic isolation of an amphidromous goby species, Luciogobius ryukyuensis, highlights limited gene flow in small island populations.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Characterization and phylogenetic analysis of the mitochondrial genome ofMitochondrial DNA. Part B, Resources · 2025Article
- Whole-genome resequencing reveals genetic differences and the genetic basis of parapodium number in Russian and Chinese Apostichopus japonicus.BMC genomics · 2023Article
- Population genetic diversity and structure ofEcology and evolution · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rhinogobius gigas is an amphidromous fish endemic to eastern Taiwan. Fishes with the diadromous behavior are expected to have a broader distribution range and higher genetic homogeneity despite that some amphidromous fishes with limited distribution are observed and R. gigas is an additional exception with a limited distribution range. Rhinogobius gigas has been documented to be retained inshore near the river plume with a short pelagic larval duration of 30-40 days, which may account for the endemism of this species. The short marine larval stage of R. gigas may imply a population genetic structure and the aim of the present study is to test whether the population genetic structure is present in R. gigas. To test the population genetic structure, fragments of mitochondrial displacement loop and cytochrome c oxidase subunit I were sequenced to provide molecular inference for genetic structure among populations. Sixty-nine haplotypes were identified among 191 R. gigas from 10 populations of eastern Taiwan and the mean haplotype and nucleotide diversities for all samples were 0.956 and 0.0024, respectively, implying a bottleneck followed by a recent population expansion further supported by Fu's Fs (-26.6; p < 0.001) and Tajima's D (-1.5; p = 0.037) values. The phylogenetic analysis revealed lack of genetic structure and the bush-like median joining network without commonly shared haplotypes supports the same scenario. The genetic homogeneity is probably due to the amphidromous life history providing the opportunity for passive larval transportation among the rivers through coastal currents in eastern Taiwan. The endemism to eastern Taiwan may be a consequence of complicated interactions among short pelagic larval duration, interspecific competition and coastal currents.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.