Advertisement

Conservation Genetics Resources

, Volume 4, Issue 3, pp 681–687 | Cite as

Fifty-nine microsatellite markers for hybrid classification studies involving endemic Florida Mottled Duck (Anas fulvigula fulvigula) and invasive Mallards (A. platyrhynchos)

  • Seifu Seyoum
  • Michael D. TringaliEmail author
  • Ronald R. Bielefeld
  • Jamie C. Feddersen
  • Richard J. BenedictJr
  • Andrew T. Fanning
  • Brandon L. Barthel
  • Caitlin Curtis
  • Cecilia Puchulutegui
  • Alicia C. M. Roberts
  • Vicki L. Villanova
  • Emily C. Tucker
Technical Note

Abstract

Endemic Florida Mottled Duck (Anas fulvigula fulvigula) appear to be hybridizing introgressively with domesticated Mallards (A. platyrhynchos), which are frequently released or escape captivity and have established feral populations throughout Florida. To investigate this possible conservation threat, we isolated and characterized 59 polymorphic loci from an enriched Florida Mottled Duck microsatellite library and performed cross-amplification assays with Mallard specimens. Average numbers of alleles per locus were 6.0 (ranging 2–23) and 5.6 (ranging 2–15) for A. fulvigula and A. platyrhynchos, respectively; estimates of observed/expected heterozygosity were 0.54/0.63 and 0.52/0.64. Markers developed in this study will be used in conjunction with existing markers to robustly classify hybrids and to assess and monitor the genetic dynamics of introgression between these waterfowl species.

Keywords

Florida Mottled Duck Anas fulvigula Mallard Anas platyrhynchos Microsatellite markers Hybridization 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was supported and funded by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission; substantial funding was also provided by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (Region 4). We gratefully acknowledge A. Engilis and I. Engilis for their assistance and expertise. This study would not have been possible without the efforts of J. Millikin, K. Wiley, D. Blood, J. McGrady, S. Rockwood, J. Albury, E. Harmon, M. McMunigal, and B. Walker, who collected many of the study specimens. We also thank the many hunters at T.M Goodwin WMA and Stormwater Treatment Areas 1 W and 5, who donated tissues and specimens, and staff members at Walt Disney World, who assisted with captures on their property.

References

  1. Belkhir K, Borsa P, Chikhi L, Raufaste N, Bonhomme F (2000) GENETIX, Windows™ software for population genetics. Laboratoire Génome, Populations, Interactions CNRS UMR 5000, Université Montpellier II, Montpellier (France)Google Scholar
  2. Bielefeld RR, Brasher MG, Moorman TE, Gray PN (2010) Mottled Duck (Anas fulvigula), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/081
  3. Boecklen WJ, Howard DJ (1997) Genetic analysis of hybrid zones: numbers of markers and power of resolution. Ecology 78:2611–2616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Marchuk D, Drumm M, Saulino A, Collins FS (1990) Construction of vectors, a rapid and general system for direct cloning of unmodified PCR products. Nucleic Acids Res 19:1154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. McCracken KG, Johnson WP, Sheldon FH (2001) Molecular population genetics, phylogeography, and conservation biology of the Mottled duck (Anas fulvigula). Conserv Genet 2:87–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Rice WR (1989) Analyzing tables of statistical tests. Evolution 43:223–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Rosenberg NA, Li LM, Ward R, Pritchard JK (2003) Informativeness of genetic markers for inference of ancestry. Am J Hum Genet 73:1402–1422PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Rousset F (2008) Genepop’007: a complete reimplementation of the Genepop software for Windows and Linux. Mol Ecol Resour 8:103–106PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Sorensen MD, Tetrault JS, Harrigan RJ (2007) Development of additional genetic markers to differentiate mottled ducks from mallards and hybrids in Florida. Final Report to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. March 25, 2007. Department of Biology, Boston University, Boston, MA. p 20Google Scholar
  10. St John J, Quinn TW (2008) Rapid capture of DNA targets. Biotechniques 44:259–264PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Vähä JP, Primmer CR (2006) Efficiency of model-based Bayesian methods for detecting hybrid individuals under different hybridization scenarios and with different numbers of loci. Mol Ecol 15:63–72PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Van Oosterhout C, Hutchinson WF, Wills DPM, Shipley P (2004) MICRO-CHECKER: software for identifying and correcting genotyping errors in microsatellite data. Mol Ecol Notes 4:535–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Williams CL, Fedynich AM, Pence DB, Rhodes OE Jr (2005a) Evaluation of allozyme and microsatellite variation in Texas and Florida Mottled ducks. Condor 107:155–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Williams CL, Brust RC, Fendley TT, Tiller GR Jr, Rhodes OE Jr (2005b) A comparison of hybridization between Mottled duck and Mallard in Florida and South Carolina using microsatellite DNA analysis. Conserv Genet 6:445–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Seifu Seyoum
    • 1
  • Michael D. Tringali
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ronald R. Bielefeld
    • 2
  • Jamie C. Feddersen
    • 3
  • Richard J. BenedictJr
    • 4
  • Andrew T. Fanning
    • 4
  • Brandon L. Barthel
    • 1
  • Caitlin Curtis
    • 1
  • Cecilia Puchulutegui
    • 1
  • Alicia C. M. Roberts
    • 1
  • Vicki L. Villanova
    • 1
  • Emily C. Tucker
    • 1
  1. 1.Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation CommissionSt. PetersburgUSA
  2. 2.Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation CommissionSebastianUSA
  3. 3.Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation CommissionFellsmereUSA
  4. 4.Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation CommissionTallahasseeUSA

Personalised recommendations