Figure legends
Figure 1. (a, b) Sampling details of macroalgae and epibiota. Colors on the map show the sites that were affected by the Akatore earthquake (red) and non-uplift sites to the north and south of the uplifted rock platforms. Location codes are given in the Table S1. (c) An example of devastating consequences of coastal uplift on macroalgal communities in which the intertidal Durvillaea suffered regional extirpation. Photo: C.I.F., Ward Beach, November 2016. (d) The holdfast of intertidal Durvillaea harbors diverse benthic communities and their tight ecological links make the epibionts potentially highly vulnerable to coastal uplift too.
Figure 2. The evolution of spatial genomic sectors along the coast uplifted 900 yr BP in intertidal Durvillaea hosts and their obligate epifauna. Bar plots show optimal K (number of inferred ancestral populations) from sNMF clustering analysis and the ‘uplift’ cluster is shown in red. The sites that were affected by the Akatore earthquake are shown between dashed lines and populations are ordered from north to south in all bar plots (see Fig. S1-6 for more details). Neighbor-joining trees represent the ‘uplift’ populations as separately evolving lineages in the intertidal Durvillaea and their obligate and strictly intertidal epibiota.
Figure 3. Hierarchical co-demographic modelling supports synchronous expansions of four strictly intertidal species in the aftermath of coastal uplift disturbance. (a) Distribution of the time parameter, τ, for co-expansion (τ mode = 953 y BP; τ mean = 791 y BP; τ median = 825 y BP). Results are based on the τ buffer prior of 50 years. (b) Distribution of the proportion of co-expanding species supporting the co-expansion of all four analyzed species (ζ = 1).