Ichthyological Research

, Volume 60, Issue 2, pp 149–158 | Cite as

Restitution of vimba (Vimba vimba, Cyprinidae) in Poland: genetic variability of existing and restored populations

  • Danijela Popovic
  • Hanna Panagiotopoulou
  • Mariusz Kleszcz
  • Mateusz Baca
  • Robert Rutkowski
  • Tomasz Heese
  • Piotr Weglenski
  • Anna StankovicEmail author
Full Paper


Until 1960s, vimba was found abundantly in Polish rivers and was an important species for the fishing industry. Overfishing, water pollution and dam constructions brought most of the vimba populations close to extinction. We analyzed the genetic variability of several remnant vimba populations in the Vistula and Oder river basins. The 305-bp fragment encompassing the 5′-end of the mtDNA control region was sequenced in a total of 202 wild specimens derived from six populations. Six different haplotypes were distinguished. The population of Barycz River was found to be the most polymorphic and was chosen as a source of breeding material for the vimba restitution program. In the years 2000–2008 fishes from this river were caught, spawned in captivity and released to the same river. The number of fishes returning to the Barycz River spawning grounds was monitored in the following years. In 2008, it was almost 70 times higher than the number of fishes recorded in 2003, when the lowest population size was observed. The haplotype and nucleotide diversities of the restored population were similar to those of the original population.


Vimba Species restitution Genetic polymorphism Population structure 



We want to thank J. Wolnicki, J. Blachuta, J. Kusnierz, M. Klich, J. Lojko and R. Pender for providing fish samples and M. Koper and P. Borsuk for their advice and comments. We are very grateful for English proofreading and corrections made by Philip Harris. This work was carried out with the support of the project financing agreements POIG.02.02.00-14-024/08-00 and by the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education through grants N311 033 32/2323 and N N304 027234 and with use of the CePT infrastructure financed by the EU. We thank three anonymous reviewers for valuable suggestions. The authors declare that all experiments presented in this study comply with the current laws of Poland.

Supplementary material

10228_2012_326_MOESM1_ESM.docx (19 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 19 kb)
10228_2012_326_MOESM2_ESM.docx (89 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 88 kb)


  1. Arndt GM, Gessner J, Bartel R (2006) Characteristics and availability of spawning habitat for Baltic sturgeon in the Odra River and its tributaries. J Appl Ichthyol 22:172–181Google Scholar
  2. Backiel T (1985) Fall of migratory fish populations and changes in commercial fisheries in impounded rivers in Poland. In: Alabaster JS (ed) Habitat modification and freshwater fisheries. London Butterworths, London, pp 28–41Google Scholar
  3. Bandelt HJ, Forster P, Röhl A (1999) Median-joining networks for inferring intraspecific phylogenies. Mol Biol Evol 16:37–48Google Scholar
  4. Bontemps S (1971) Certa. PWRiL, WarsawGoogle Scholar
  5. Brzuzan P, Trojnicka E (2004) Genetic variation of the vimba (Vimba vimba L.) populations from the Vistula and Oder River systems. Arch Pol Fish 12:243–246Google Scholar
  6. Charlier J, Palme A, Laikre L, Andersson J, Ryman N (2011) Census (NC) and genetically effective (Ne) population size in a lake-resident population of brown trout Salmo trutta. J Fish Biol 79:2074–2082Google Scholar
  7. Crandall KA, Bininda-Emonds ORP, Mace GM, Wayne RK (2000) Considering evolutionary processes in conservation biology. Trends Ecol Evol 15:290–295Google Scholar
  8. Durand JD, Persat H, Bouvet Y (1999) Phyleography and postglacial dispersion of the chub (Leuciscus cephalus) in Europe. Mol Ecol 8:989–997Google Scholar
  9. Englbrecht CC, Freyhof J, Nolte A, Rassmann K, Schliewen U, Tautz D (2000) Phylogeography of the bullhead Cottus gobio (Pisces: Teleostei: Cottidae) suggests a pre Pleistocene origin of the major central European populations. Mol Ecol 9:709–722Google Scholar
  10. Excoffier L, Lischer HEL (2010) Arlequin suite ver 3.5: a new series of programs to perform population genetics analyses under Linux and Windows. Mol Ecol Res 10:564–567Google Scholar
  11. Excoffier L, Smouse PE, Quattro JM (1992) Analysis of molecular variance inferred from metric distances among DNA haplotypes: application to human mitochondrial DNA restriction data. Genetics 131:479–491Google Scholar
  12. Fay JC, Wu CI (2000) Hitchhiking under positive Darwinian selection. Genetics 155:1405–1413Google Scholar
  13. Frankham R (1995) Effective population size/adult population size ratios in wildlife: a review. Genet Res 66:95–107Google Scholar
  14. Franklin IR (1980) Evolutionary change in small populations. In: Soule ME, Wilcox BA (eds) Conservation biology an evolutionary—ecological perspective. Sinauer, Sunderland, Massachusetts, pp 135–150Google Scholar
  15. Fraser D (2008) How well can captive breeding programs conserve biodiversity? A review of salmonids. Evol Appl 2:1–52Google Scholar
  16. Hänfling B, Dümpelmann C, Bogutskaya NG, Brandl R, Brändle M (2009) Shallow phylogeographic structuring of Vimba vimba across Europe suggests two distinct refugia during the last glaciation. J Fish Biol 75:2269–2286Google Scholar
  17. Hare MP, Nunney L, Schwartz MK, Ruzzante DE, Burford M, Waples RS, Ruegg K, Palstra F (2011) Understanding and estimating effective population size for practical application in marine species management. Cons Biol 25:438–449Google Scholar
  18. Hedrick PW, Hedgecock D, Hamelberg S (1995) Effective population size in winter-run chinook salmon. Cons Biol 9:615–624Google Scholar
  19. IUCN (2008) IUCN Red List categories and criteria. IUCN Species Survival Commission. IUCN, Gland/CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  20. Kleszcz M, Wolnicki J (2002) Kontrolowany rozród certy Vimba vimba (L.) w dorzeczu Odry. In: Okoniewski Z, Brzuska E (eds) Wylęgarnia 2001–2002. IRŚ, Olsztyn, Poland, pp 63–68Google Scholar
  21. Kleszcz M, Matura M, Witkowski A (2001) Vimba Vimba vimba (L)—successful attempt of artificial vimba reproduction and its restitution in the middle part of the Oder River drainage system. Kom Ryb 1:15–17Google Scholar
  22. Korol R, Szyjkowska U (2003) Quality of Polish rivers during last 40 years. Aura 10:15–18Google Scholar
  23. Kusnierz J, Borsuk P, Kamiński R, Koper M, Myszkowski L, Popović D, Stanković A, Wolnicki J (2006) Low genetic variability among the lake minnow Eupallasella perenurus (Cypriniformes, Cyprinidae) populations in Poland. Fish Manag Ecol 13:131–134Google Scholar
  24. Laikre L (2010) Genetic diversity is overlooked in international conservation policy implementation Conserv Genet 11:349–354Google Scholar
  25. Leaniz GC, Fleming IA, Einum S, Verspoor E, Jordan WC, Consuegra S, Aubin-Horth N, Lajus D, Letcher BH, Youngson AF, Webb J H, Vøllestad LA, Villanueva B, Ferguson A, Quinn TP (2007) A critical review of adaptive genetic variation in Atlantic salmon: implications for conservation. Biol Rev 82:173–211Google Scholar
  26. Luikart G, Ryman N, Tallmon DA, Schwartz MK, Allendorf FW (2010) Estimation of census and effective population sizes: the increasing usefulness of DNA-based approaches. Cons Gen 11:355–373Google Scholar
  27. Lusk S, Luskova V, Halačka K, Šlechtova V, Šlechta V (2005) Characteristics of remnant Vimba vimba population in the upper part of the Dyje River. Folia Zool 54:389–404Google Scholar
  28. Nei M (1987) Molecular evolutionary genetics. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  29. Nunney L, Elam DR (1994) Estimating the effective population-size of conserved populations. Cons Biol 8:175–184Google Scholar
  30. Otto SP (2000) Detecting the form of selection from DNA sequence data. Trends Genet 16:526–529Google Scholar
  31. Palsbøll PJ, Bérubé M, Allendorf FW (2007) Identification of management units using population genetic data. Trends Ecol Evol 22:11–16Google Scholar
  32. Palstra FP, Ruzzante DE (2008) Genetic estimates of contemporary effective population size: what can they tell us about the importance of genetic stochasticity for wild population persistence? Mol Ecol 17:3428–3447Google Scholar
  33. Petit RJ, El Mousadik A, Pons O (1998) Identifying populations for conservation on the basis of genetic markers. Conserv Biol 12:844–855Google Scholar
  34. Rice WR (1989) Analyzing tables of statistical tests. Evolution 43:223–225Google Scholar
  35. Rozas J, Sanchez-Delbarrio JC, Messeguer X, Rozas R (2003) DnaSP, DNA polymorphism analyses by the coalescent and other methods. Bioinformatics 19:2496–2497Google Scholar
  36. Sambrook J, Frisch EF, Maniatis T (1989) Molecular cloning: a laboratory manual. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Plainview, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  37. Schwartz MK, Luikart G, Waples RS (2007) Genetic monitoring as a promising tool for conservation and management. Trends Ecol Evol 22:25–33Google Scholar
  38. Shrimpton JM, Heath DD (2003) Census vs. effective population size in chinook salmon: large- and small-scale environmental perturbation effects. Mol Ecol 12:2571–2583Google Scholar
  39. Simon RC, McIntyre JD, Hemingsen AR (1986) Family size and effective population size in a hatchery stock of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). Can J Fish Aquat Sci 3:2434–2442Google Scholar
  40. Stewart DC, Middlemas SJ (2006) Population structuring in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar): evidence of genetic influence on the timing of smolt migration in sub-catchment stocks. Ecol Freshw Fish 15:552–558Google Scholar
  41. Stewart DC, Smith GW, Youngson AF (2002) Tributary-specific variation in timing of return of adult Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) to fresh water has a genetic component. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 59:276–281Google Scholar
  42. Swartz ER, Skelton PH, Bloomer P (2009) Phylogeny and biogeography of the genus Pseudobarbus (Cyprinidae): shedding light on the drainage history of rivers associated with the Cape Floristic Region. Mol Phyl Evol 51:75–84Google Scholar
  43. Tajima F (1989) Statistical method for testing the neutral mutation hypothesis by DNA polymorphism. Genetics 123:585–595Google Scholar
  44. Tajima F (1993) Measurement of DNA polymorphism. In: Takahata N, Clark AG (eds) Mechanisms of molecular evolution. Sinauer Associates Inc, Sunderland, MA, pp 37–59Google Scholar
  45. Thompson JD, Gibson TJ, Plewniak F, Jeanmougin F, Higgins DG (1997) The ClustalX windows interface: flexible strategies for multiple sequence alignment aided by qualitanalysis tools. Nucl Acid Res 24:4876–4882Google Scholar
  46. Trzebiatowski R, Narożański A (1973) Przyczynek do badań nad biologią certy (A contribution to studies on the biology of vimba—Vimba vimba vimba (L.) from the Rega River). Acta Ichth Pisc 3:17–27Google Scholar
  47. Turner TF, Richardson LR, Gold JR (1999) Temporal genetic variation of mitochondrial DNA and the female effective population size of red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus) in the northern Gulf of Mexico. Mol Ecol 8:1223–1229Google Scholar
  48. Watterson GA (1975) On the number of segregating sites in genetical models without recombination. Theor Popul Biol 7:256–276Google Scholar
  49. Wiśniewolski W (1987) Industrial fish catches in Vistula, Oder and Warta River from 1953–1978. Rocz Nauk Roln 101:71–114Google Scholar
  50. Witkowski A, Błachuta J, Kotusz J, Heese T (1999) Red list of freshwater fishes in Poland. Chroń Przyr Ojcz 55:5–19Google Scholar
  51. Witkowski A, Bartel R, Kleszcz M (2001) Udane restytucje ryb w Polsce. Rocz Nauk PZW 14 (Supl):83–90Google Scholar
  52. Witkowski A, Bartel R, Kolman R, Wiśniewolski W (2004a) The realization of the program for restituting migratory fishes in the Vistula and Oder River systems. Arch Pol Fish 12 (Suppl 2):309–325Google Scholar
  53. Witkowski A, Kleszcz M, Heese T, Martyniak A (2004b) Certa Vimba vimba (L.) dorzecza Odry: historia, stan aktualny i perspektywy. Arch Pol Fish 12 (Suppl 2):103–115Google Scholar
  54. Witkowski A, Penczak T, Kotusz J, Przybylski M, Kruk A, Błachuta J (2007) Reofilne ryby karpiowate dorzecza Odry. Rocz. Nauk. PZW 20: 5–33Google Scholar
  55. Witkowski A, Kotusz J, Przybylski M (2009) The degree of threat to the freshwater ichthyofauna of Poland: Red list of fishes and lampreys—situation in 2009. Chrońmy Przyr Ojcz 65:33–52Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Ichthyological Society of Japan 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Danijela Popovic
    • 1
  • Hanna Panagiotopoulou
    • 2
  • Mariusz Kleszcz
    • 5
  • Mateusz Baca
    • 6
  • Robert Rutkowski
    • 7
  • Tomasz Heese
    • 8
  • Piotr Weglenski
    • 1
    • 2
  • Anna Stankovic
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    Email author
  1. 1.Centre of New TechnologiesUniversity of WarsawWarsawPoland
  2. 2.Institute of Biochemistry and BiophysicsPolish Academy of ScienceWarsawPoland
  3. 3.Institute of Genetics and Biotechnology, Faculty of BiologyUniversity of WarsawWarsawPoland
  4. 4.The Antiquity of Southeastern Europe Research CenterUniversity of WarsawWarsawPoland
  5. 5.The Hatchery Station of Polish Angling Union “Szczodre”MirkówPoland
  6. 6.Centre for Precolombian StudiesUniversity of WarsawWarsawPoland
  7. 7.Museum and Institute of ZoologyPolish Academy of ScienceWarsawPoland
  8. 8.Koszalin University of TechnologyKoszalinPoland

Personalised recommendations