Conservation Genetics

, Volume 14, Issue 1, pp 11–20 | Cite as

Genetic characterization and management of the endangered Mohave tui chub

Research Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

The Mohave tui chub (Siphateles bicolor mohavensis) is the only fish native to the Mojave River, California. The fish were displaced by introduced arroyo chubs (Gila orcutti) throughout most of their range, starting in the 1930s. Two potentially relictual populations and two transplanted populations were genetically characterized using 12 microsatellite DNA loci, along with contemporary cyprinid populations in the Mojave River. We found only un-hybridized Mohave tui chubs in the refuge populations, and only un-hybridized arroyo chubs in the Mojave River. The two largest Mohave tui chub populations (Lake Tuendae and China Lake) exhibit similar, comparatively high genetic variation. Another large population (Camp Cady) with low genetic diversity shows the effect of a bottleneck of ten individuals during the historic founding event. The fourth population (MC Spring) has the fewest alleles, lowest heterozygosity, and is the most divergent, suggesting that genetic drift from a persistently low effective population size has reduced genetic diversity since its apparent isolation in 1934. We recommend instituting artificial gene flow to rebuild genetic variation in Camp Cady from both Lake Tuendae and China Lake, and the establishment of new populations with founders from both Lake Tuendae and China Lake. Additionally, we comment on the infeasibility of restoring populations of Mohave tui chub in their historic habitats.

Keywords

Tui chub Microsatellite DNA Translocation Mojave River Hybridization Conservation 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Mandi Finger and Emily Rastello for their assistance with the data collection, and to John Pedroia and Neil Clipperton for their technical support. We thank Lacey Greene, Robert Fulton, and Susan Williams for their assistance in sampling Mohave tui chubs, and Debra Hughson for nonstop encouragement, support, and facilitating logistics and permits. Jeff Seigel at Los Angeles County Museum of Natural history generously identified whole fish specimens and shared tissue samples. Kathleen Knox prepared the map figure. We also thank Peter Moyle, Mark Schwartz, Amy Welsh, Craig Stockwell, Carole Conway, Mandi Finger, Rachel Schwartz, Michael Davis, Einar Eg Nielsen, and two anonymous reviewers for their critical and insightful comments on the manuscript.

Supplementary material

10592_2012_410_MOESM1_ESM.doc (124 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 124 kb)

References

  1. Baerwald M, May B (2004) Characterization of microsatellite loci for five members of the minnow family Cyprinidae found in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and its tributaries. Mol Ecol Notes 4:385–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Belkhir K, Borsa P, Chikhi L, Raufaste N, Bonhomme F (2003) GENETIX version 4.04, logiciel sous WindowsTM pour la genetique des populations. Laboratoire Genome, Populations, Interactions: CNRS UMR 5000, Universite de Montpellier II, MontpellierGoogle Scholar
  3. Bonnell ML, Selander RK (1974) Elephant Seals: Genetic variation and near extinction. Science 184:908–909CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Castleberry DT, Cech JJ (1986) Physiological responses of a native and an introduced desert fish to environmental stressors. Ecology 67:912–918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cavalli-Sforza LL, Edwards AWF (1967) Phylogenetic analysis: models and estimation procedures. Evolution 21:550–570Google Scholar
  6. Chen Y, Childs MR, Keeler-Foster C (2011) Evaluation of woundfin augmentation efforts in the Virgin River by estimation of admixture proportions. Trans Am Fish Soc 140:598–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chen Y, Parmenter S, May B (2007) Introgression between Lahontan and endangered Owens tui chubs, and apparent discovery of a new tui chub in the Owens Valley, California. Conserv Genet 8:221–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chen Y, Reid S, May B (2009) Genetic relationships of tui chub populations in the northwestern Great Basin and conservation implications for the Cow Head Tui Chub. Conserv Genet 10:101–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chesser RK (1983) Isolation by distance: relationship to the management of genetic resources. In: Schoenwald-Cox CM, Chambers SM, MacBryde B, Thomas L (eds) Genetics and Conservation. Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Co., Menlo Park, pp 66–77Google Scholar
  10. Conant S (1988) Saving endangered species by translocation: are we tinkering with evolution? Bioscience 38:254–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Crain PK, Corcoran DM (2000) Age and growth of tui chub in Eagle Lake, California. Calif Fish Game 86:149–155Google Scholar
  12. Echelle AA (1991) Conservation genetics and genetic diversity in freshwater fishes of western North America. In: Minckley WL, Deacon JE (eds) Battle against Extinction: Native Fish Management in the American West. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp 141–153Google Scholar
  13. Eigenmann CH, Eigenmann RS (1890) Additions to the fauna of San Diego. Proc Calif Acad Sci 3:1–24Google Scholar
  14. El Mousadik A, Petit RJ (1996) High level of genetic differentiation for allelic richness among populations of the argan tree [Argania spinosa (L.) Skeels] endemic to Morocco. Theor Appl Genet 92:832–839CrossRefGoogle 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 14:2611–2620PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Excoffier L, Laval G, Schneider S (2005) ARLEQUIN (version 3.0): An integrated software package for population genetics data analysis. Evol Bioinform Online 1:47–50Google Scholar
  17. Falush D, Stephens M, Pritchard JK (2003) Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data: linked loci and correlated allele frequencies. Genetics 164:1567–1587PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Franklin IR (1980) Evolutionary change in small populations. In: Soule ME, Wilcox BA (eds) Conservation Biology: An Evolutionary-Ecology Perspective. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, pp 135–149Google Scholar
  19. Garron KA (2006) Population status of the endangered Mohave tui chub (Siphateles bicolor mohavensis) at Lake Tuendae, Zzyzx, California. MA thesis, California State University, FullertonGoogle Scholar
  20. Girard C (1856) Researches upon the cyprinid fishes inhabiting the fresh waters of the United States west of the Mississippi Valley, from specimens in the musuem of the Smithsonian Institution. Proc Acad Nat Sci Phila 8:165–213Google Scholar
  21. Glaubitz JC (2004) CONVERT (version 1.2): A user-friendly program to reformat diploid genotypic data for commonly used population genetic software packages. Mol Ecol Notes 4:309–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Goudet J (1995) FSTAT version 1.2: a computer program to calculate F-statistics. J Hered 86:485–486Google Scholar
  23. Grayson DK (1993) The desert’s past: a natural history of the Great Basin. Smithsonian Institution Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  24. Harris PM (2001) Systematic studies of the genus Siphateles (Ostariophysi: Cyprinidae) from western North America. PhD dissertation, Oregon State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  25. Hedrick PW (1983) Genetics of Populations. Science Books International, BostonGoogle Scholar
  26. Hoover F, St. Amant JA (1983) Results of Mohave Chub, Gila bicolor mohavensis, relocations in California and Nevada. Calif Fish Game 69:54–56Google Scholar
  27. Hubbs CL, Miller RR (1943) Mass hybridization between two genera of cyprinid fishes in the Mohave Desert, California. Pap Mich Acad Sci Arts Lett 28:343–378Google Scholar
  28. Hubbs CL, Miller RR (1948) Correlation between fish distribution and hydrographic history in the desert basins of western United States. In: The Great Basin, with emphasis on glacial and postglacial times. Bull Univ Utah 38:17–166Google Scholar
  29. Hughson D, Woo D (2004) Report on a workshop to revisit the Mohave tui chub recovery plan and a management action plan. National Park Service unpublished report. Mojave National Preserve, BarstowGoogle Scholar
  30. Jayko AS, Forester RM, Yount J, Kaufmann D, McGeehin J, Phillips F, Mahan S (2008) Late Pleistocene lakes, Panamint Valley, California. In Reheis MC, Hershler R, Miller DM (eds) Late cenozoic drainage history of the southwestern Great Basin and Lower Colorado River region: Geologic and Biotic Perspective: Geol Soc Am, Special Paper 439, pp 150–184Google Scholar
  31. Johnson HE, Mills LS, Wehausen JD, Stephenson TR, Luikart G (2011) Translating effects of inbreeding depression on component vital rates to overall population growth in endangered bighorn sheep. Conserv Biol 25:1240–1249PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. May B, Rodzen J, Agresti J (1997) Genetic purity and subspecific status of the Mohave tui chub. Final report submitted to the Department of Navy, San Bruno, Agreement N68711-97-LT-70025Google Scholar
  33. McLachlan JS, Hellmann JJ, Schwartz MW (2007) A framework for debate of assisted migration in an era of climate change. Conserv Biol 21:297–302PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Meredith E, May B (2002) Microsatellite loci in the Lahontan tui chub, Gila bicolor obesa, and their utilization in other chub species. Mol Ecol Notes 2:156–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Miller RR (1938) Description of an isolated population of the freshwater minnow Siphateles mohavensis from the Mohave River basin, California. Pomona Coll J Entomol Zool 30:65–67Google Scholar
  36. Miller RR (1969) Conservation of fishes in the Death Valley system in California and Nevada. Calif-Nev Wildl Trans 1969:107–122Google Scholar
  37. Mills LS, Allendorf FW (1996) The one-migrant-per generation rule in conservation and management. Conserv Biol 10:1509–1518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mock KE, Latch EK, Rhodes OE Jr (2004) Assessing losses of genetic diversity due to translocation: long-term case histories in Merriam’s turkey (Meleagris galllopavo merriami). Conserv Genet 5:631–645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Moyle PB (2002) Inland fishes of California. University of California Press, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  40. Moyle PB, Williams JE (1990) Biodiversity loss in the temperate zone: Decline of the native fish fauna of California. Conserv Biol 4:275–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Piry S, Luikart G, Cornuet JM (1999) BOTTLENECK: A computer program for detecting recent reductions in the effective population size using allele frequency data. J Hered 90:502–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pritchard JK, Stephens M, Donnelly P (2000) Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data. Genetics 155:945–959PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Roy SM, Geffen E, Smith D, Ostrander EA, Wayne RK (1994) Patterns of differentiation and hybridization in North American wolflike canids, revealed by analysis of microsatellite loci. Mol Biol Evol 11:553–570PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Sigler WF, Sigler JW (1987) Fishes of the Great Basin: A Natural History. University of Nevada Press, RenoGoogle Scholar
  45. Snyder JO (1918) The fishes of Mohave River, California. Proc US Natl Mus 54:297–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Soltz DL, Naiman RJ (1978) The natural history of native fishes in the Death Valley system. Nat His Mus Los Angel Cty Sci Ser 30:1–76Google Scholar
  47. Stockwell CA, Mulvey M, Vinyard GL (1996) Translocations and the preservation of allelic diversity. Conserv Biol 10:1133–1141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Storfer A (1999) Gene flow and endangered species translocations: a topic revisited. Biol Conserv 87:173–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tautz D (1989) Hypervariability of simple sequences as a general source for polymorphic markers. Nucleic Acids Res 17:6463–6471PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1984) Recovery Plan for the Mohave tui chub Gila bicolor mohavensis. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, PortlandGoogle Scholar
  51. Uyeno T, Miller RR (1963) Summary of late Cenozoic freshwater records for North America. Occas Pap Mus Zool Univ Mich 631:1–34Google Scholar
  52. Van Oosterhout C, Hutchinson WF, Wills DPM, Shipley P (2004) MICRO-CHECKER: Software for identifying and correcting genotype errors in microsatellite data. Mol Ecol Notes 4:535–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Vicker CE (1973) Aspects of the life history of the Mojave tui chub, Gila bicolor mohavensis (Snyder) from Soda Lake, California. MA thesis, California State University, FullertonGoogle Scholar
  54. Waples RS, Do C (2008) LDNE: a program for estimating effective population size from data on linkage disequilibrium. Mol Ecol Res 8:753–756CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Weber JL, May PE (1989) Abundant class of human DNA polymorphisms which can be typed using the polymerase chain reaction. Am J Hum Genet 44:388–396PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Weir BS, Cockerham CC (1984) Estimating F-statistics for the analysis of population structure. Evolution 38:1358–1370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Williams JE, Johnson JE, Hendrickson DA, Contreras-Bladeras S, Williams JD, Navarro-Mendoza M, McAllister DE, Deacon JE (1989) Fishes of North America endangered threatened, or of special concern: 1989. Fisheries 14:2–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wilson AS, Marra PP, Fleischer RC (2012) Temporal patterns of genetic diversity in Kirtland’s warblers (Dendroica kirtlandii), the rarest songbird in North America. BMC Ecol 12:8. doi: 10.1186/1472-6785-12-8 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Genomic Variation Laboratory, Department of Animal ScienceThe University of CaliforniaDavisUSA
  2. 2.Zhejiang Ocean UniversityZhoushanPeople’s Republic of China
  3. 3.California Department of Fish and GameBishopUSA

Personalised recommendations