Conservation Genetics

, Volume 11, Issue 1, pp 103–114 | Cite as

Rangewide microsatellite phylogeography of the endangered tidewater goby, Eucyclogobius newberryi (Teleostei: Gobiidae), a genetically subdivided coastal fish with limited marine dispersal

  • Dent A. Earl
  • Kristina D. Louie
  • Carolyne Bardeleben
  • Camm C. Swift
  • David K. Jacobs
Research Article


The federally endangered tidewater goby, Eucyclogobius newberryi, is the most locally differentiated vertebrate with marine dispersal on the California Coast. It inhabits seasonally closed estuaries along the California coast; a habitat heavily impacted by anthropogenic filling and artificial opening, and exhibits varied metapopulation behavior as a consequence of hydrologic variation and anthropogenic impact. We describe 19 taxon-specific microsatellite loci, and assess genetic variation across the taxon range relative to genetic subdivision. A highly divergent southern clade, with reduced genetic variation, now confined to Northern San Diego County, appears to merit status as a separate species. The mid-coast is subdivided into regional groups with overall similarity to, and minor differences from previous mitochondrial sequence based clades. The northernmost region, although locally differentiated, forms a star phylogeny with limited geographic structure which we attribute to dispersal during Pleistocene/Holocene sea-level rise followed by increasing isolation during the Holocene. Bottleneck/founder events are evident in some habitats thought to have experienced (anthropogenic) extirpation. Further work with more, and larger, samples will be required to assess local and regional differences. Analytical methods employed include Analysis of Molecular Variance (AMOVA), Neighbor-Joining, Bayesian/STRUCTURE analysis and Principle Components Analysis (PCA).


Endangered Estuary Metapopulation Phylogeography Tidewater goby 



We thank Kevin Lafferty and Todd Haney for assistance in collection. Use of Dr. Robert K. Wayne’s equipment and laboratory is greatly appreciated as is the advice of Dr. Thomas B. Smith, Robert K. Wayne, Dr. Klaus-Peter Koepfli, Dr. John Pollinger and Dr. Katy Semple Delany. Chris Winchell and Ryan Ellingson provided comments on the text and moral support. Bridgett vonHoldt provided comments on the text, advice, technical and moral support. Comments of two anonymous reviewers are greatly appreciated.

Supplementary material

10592_2009_8_MOESM1_ESM.docx (78 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 79 kb)


  1. Ahnelt H, Göschl J, Dawson MN, Jacobs DK (2004) Geographical variation in the cephalic lateral line canals of Eucyclogobius newberryi (Teleostei: Gobiidae) and its comparison with molecular phylogeography. Folia Zoologica 53:385–398Google Scholar
  2. Barlow M (2002) Phylogeographic structure of the tidewater goby, Eucyclogobius newberryi (Teleostei: Gobiidae), in the San Francisco Bay area and Ventura County: implications for Conservation Management. A thesis submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Master of Arts in Biology, University of California at Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  3. Bernatchez L (1995) A role for molecular systematics in defining evolutionary significant units (ESU) in fishes. In: Nielsen JL (ed) Evolution and the aquatic ecosystem: defining unique units in population conservation. Am Fish Soc Symp 17, Bethesda, MD, pp 114–132Google Scholar
  4. Boutin-Ganache I, Raposo M, Raymond M, Deschepper CF (2001) M13-tailed primers improve the readability and usability of microsatellite analyses performed with two different allele-sizing methods. Biotechniques 31:25–28Google Scholar
  5. Burton RS (1998) Intraspecific phylogeography across the Point Conception biogeographic boundary. Evolution 52:734–745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clemento A, Anderson EC, Boughton D, Girman D, Garza JC (2008) Population genetic structure and ancestry of Oncorhynchus mykiss populations above and below dams in south-central California. Conserv Genet. Online First, doi: 10.1007/s10592-008-9712-0
  7. Coats R, Swanson M, Williams DP (1989) Hydrologic analysis for coastal wetland restoration. Environ Manage doi: 13:715-727.10.1007/BF01868311
  8. Coyne JA, Orr HA (2004) Speciaton. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MAGoogle Scholar
  9. Dawson MN, Staton JL, Jacobs DK (2001) Phylogeography of the tidewater goby, Eucyclogobius newberryi (Teleostei, Gobiidae), in coastal California. Evolution 55:1167–1179. doi: 10.1111/j.0014-3820.2001.tb00636.x PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Dawson MN, Louie KD, Barlow M, Jacobs DK, Swift CC (2002) Comparative phylogeography of sympatric sister species Clevelandia ios & Eucyclogobius newberryi (Teleostei, Gobiidae), across the California Transition Zone. Mol Ecol 11:1065–1075. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-294X.2002.01503.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Dawson M, Waples R, Bernardi G (2006) Phylogeography. In: Allen LG, Pondella DJ, II, Horn MH (eds) The ecology of marine fishes: California and adjacent waters. UC Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  12. Duvernell DD, Turner BT (1998) Evolutionary genetics of Death Valley pupfish populations: mitochondrial DNA sequence variation and population structure. Mol Ecol 7:279–288. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-294X.1998.00347.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Echelle AA, Carson EW, Echele AF et al (2005) Historical biogeography of the new-world pupfish genus Cyprinodon (Teleostei: Cyprinodontidae). Copeia 2005:320–339. doi: 10.1643/CG-03-093R3
  14. Edmands S (2001) Phylogeography of the intertidal copepod Tigriopus californicus reveals substantially reduced population differentiation at northern latitudes. Mol Ecol 10:1743–1750. doi: 10.1046/j.0962-1083.2001.01306.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Evanno G, Regnaut S, Goudet J (2005) Detecting the number of clusters of individuals using the software STRUCTURE: a simulation study. Mol Ecol 14:2611–2620. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2005.02553.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Excoffier L, Laval G, Schneider S (2005) Arlequin ver. 3.0: an integrated software package for population genetics data analysis. Evol Bioinform Online 1:47–50PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Hall CA (2002) Nearshore marine paleoclimatic regions, increasing zoogeographic provinciality, molluscan extinctions, and paleoshorelines, California: Late Oligocene (27 Ma) to Late Pliocene (2.5 Ma). Geol Soc Am Spec Pap 357:1–489Google Scholar
  18. Hayes SA, Bond MH, Hanson CV, Freund EV, Smith JJ, Anderson EC, Amman AJ, MacFarlane RB (2008) Steelhead growth in a small California watershed: upstream and estuarine rearing patterns. Trans Am Fish Soc 137:114–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jacobs DK, Haney TA, Louie KD (2004) Genes, diversity, and geologic process on the Pacific coast. Annu Rev Earth Planet Sci 32:601–652. doi: 10.1146/ CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jacobs DK, Louie KD, Earl DA et al (2005) Genetics of Eucyclogobius newberryi in Mission Creek Santa Barbara: a regional metapopulation analysis using mitochondrial control region sequence and microsatellites. Final Report Prepared for US Army Corps of Engineers. 19 August 2005Google Scholar
  21. Jakobsson M, Rosenberg N (2007) CLUMPP: a cluster matching and permutation program for dealing with label switching and multimodality in analysis of population structure. Bioinformatics 23(14):1801–1806. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btm233 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Jensen JL, Bohonak AJ, Kelley ST (2005) Isolation by distance, web service. BMC Genetics 6: 13. v.3.15 Accessed 15 July 2009
  23. Jones KC, Levine KF, Banks JD (2002) Characterization of 11 polymorphic tetranucleotide microsatellites for forensic applications in California elk (Cervus elaphus canadensis). Mol Ecol Notes 2:425–427. doi: 10.1046/j.1471-8286.2002.00264.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lafferty KD, Page CJ (1997) Predation on the endangered tidewater goby, Eucyclogobius newberryi, by the introduced African clawed frog, Xenopus laevis, with notes on the frog’s parasites. Copeia 1997:589–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lafferty KD, Swift CC, Ambrose RF (1999a) Postflood persistence and recolonization of endangered tidewater goby populations. North Am J Fish Manag 19:618–622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lafferty KD, Swift CC, Ambrose RF (1999b) Extirpation and recolonization in a metapopulation of an endangered fish, the tidewater goby. Conserv Biol 13:1447–1453. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.1999.98016.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Langella O (1999) POPULATIONS 1.2.30 Population genetic software. Accesed 15 July 2009
  28. MATLAB (2008) The MathWorks. Natick, MAGoogle Scholar
  29. Mayr E (1995) Species, classification, and evolution. In: Arai R, Kato M, Doi Y (eds) Biodiversity and evolution. National Science Museum Foundation, pp 3–12Google Scholar
  30. Mendonca H, Smith J, Brinegar C (2001) Isolation and characterization of four microsatellite loci in the tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi). Mar Biotechnol 3:91–95CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. National Marine Fisheries Service (2007) Federal recovery outline for the distinct population segment of southern California coast steelhead. National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Regional Office, Santa Barbara, CA, 56 ppGoogle Scholar
  32. Nei M, Tajima F, Tateno Y (2003) Accuracy of estimated phylogenetic trees from molecular data. II. Gene frequency data. J Mol Evol 19:153–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nielsen JL, Gan C, Wright J, Thomas WK (1994) Phylogeographic patterns in California steelhead as determined by mtDNA and microsatellite analyses. California Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries Investigations Reports 35, pp 90–92Google Scholar
  34. Pritchard JK, Wen W (2004) Documentation for structure software. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  35. Pritchard JK, Stephens M, Donnelly P (2000) Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data. Genetics 155:945–959PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Rathbun G (1991) Status of declining aquatic reptiles, amphibians, and fishes in the lower Santa Rosa Creek, Cambria, California. Report to Greenspace; A land trust, Cambria, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  37. Raymond M, Rousset F (1995) GENEPOP (Version 1.2): population genetics software for exact tests and ecumenicism. J Hered 86:248–249Google Scholar
  38. Ryder OA (1986) Species conservation and systematics: the dilemma of subspecies. Trends Ecol Evol 1:9–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Swenson RO (1999) The ecology, behavior, and conservation of the tidewater goby, Eucyclogobius newberryi. Environ Biol Fish 55:99–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Swift CC, Nelson JL, Maslow C, Stein T (1989) Biology and distribution of the tidewater goby, Eucyclogobius newberryi (Pisces: Gobiidae) of California. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles: Contributions in Science 404, pp 1–19Google Scholar
  41. Swift CC, Haglund TR, Ruiz M, Fisher RN (1993) The status and distribution of the freshwater fishes of southern California. Bull South Calif Acad Sci 92:101–167Google Scholar
  42. US Fish and Wildlife Service (2005) Recovery plan for the tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberry). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. vi + 199 ppGoogle Scholar
  43. Waples RS (1991) Pacific Salmon. Oncorhynchus spp., and the definition of species under the Endangered Species Act. Mar Fish Rev 53:11–22Google Scholar
  44. Zedler JB (1996) Coastal mitigation in southern California: the need for a regional restoration strategy. Ecol Appl 6:84–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dent A. Earl
    • 1
  • Kristina D. Louie
    • 1
  • Carolyne Bardeleben
    • 1
  • Camm C. Swift
    • 2
  • David K. Jacobs
    • 1
  1. 1.Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyUCLASouth Los AngelesUSA
  2. 2.Entrix, Inc.VenturaUSA

Personalised recommendations