Advertisement

Conservation Genetics

, Volume 19, Issue 3, pp 701–712 | Cite as

Use of single nucleotide polymorphisms identifies backcrossing and species misidentifications among three San Francisco estuary osmerids

  • Alyssa Benjamin
  • İsmail K. Sağlam
  • Brian Mahardja
  • James Hobbs
  • Tien-Chieh Hung
  • Amanda J. Finger
Research Article

Abstract

Two threatened osmerid species native to the San Francisco Estuary (SFE)—Delta Smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus) and Longfin Smelt (Spirinchus thaleichthys)—are subject to broad human influence, including significant habitat alteration and the presence of the introduced osmerid, Wakasagi (Hypomesus nipponensis). The identification of these closely related species and their hybrids is difficult in field collected specimens which are subject to damage through handling and may be difficult to identify morphologically, especially when young. In addition, it is known that these three species hybridize, but the extent and effect of hybridization is difficult to quantify and monitor. We developed assays for 24 species-specific single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) that identify whether a sample is a pure species (Delta Smelt, Longfin Smelt, or Wakasagi), a first generation (F1) hybrid, or a backcross. We used this SNP panel to genetically identify wild osmerids collected in Yolo Bypass from 2010 to 2016 and detected nine Delta Smelt × Wakasagi F1 hybrids and two Wakasagi × (Delta Smelt × Wakasagi) backcross hybrids; all assayed hybrids had Wakasagi as the maternal parent. The backcrossing into Wakasagi suggests that hybridization may only occur in one direction and thus preclude introgression to Delta Smelt. We also found substantial morphological field misidentifications (32.7%) in the Yolo Bypass samples resulting in more Wakasagi and fewer Delta Smelt than previously recorded when based on morphology. The SNP panel described in this study constitutes a valuable resource for monitoring hybridization in the SFE and assigning species identifications with accuracy and efficiency.

Keywords

Hybridization SNP RADseq Delta Smelt Hypomesus transpacificus San Francisco Estuary 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Rene Reyes (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation), Luke Ellison (FCCL), Naoaki Ikemiyagi (DWR), Jared Frantzich (DWR), Brian Schreier (DWR) as well as past and present staff of the Yolo Bypass Fish Monitoring Program for collection of field specimens. We thank Luke Ellison and the FCCL crew for providing Delta Smelt by Longfin Smelt hybrids. We also thank Bernie May and three anonymous reviewers for helpful comments that improved the manuscript. This research was funded by the California Department of Water Resources (Contract #4600011196).

Supplementary material

10592_2018_1048_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (181 kb)
Supplementary material 1—Supplemental methods (PDF 180 KB)
10592_2018_1048_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (343 kb)
Supplementary material 2—Alignment statistics (raw read number, number of raw alignments, number of properly paired alignments and number of alignments after duplicate removal) for each sequenced DSM, LFS, and WKS individual. (PDF 343 KB)
10592_2018_1048_MOESM3_ESM.pdf (33 kb)
Supplementary material 3—Principal component analysis based on genotype probabilities from 129,687 SNPs summarizing genetic variation and distinctiveness of the three species. (PDF 32 KB)
10592_2018_1048_MOESM4_ESM.pdf (246 kb)
Supplementary material 4—Diagnostic sites between DSM, WKS, and LFS identified by RADseq. (PDF 245 KB)

References

  1. Aasen GA, Sweetnam DA, Lynch LM (1998) Establishment of the Wakasagi, Hypomesus nipponensis, in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary. Calif Fish Game 84(1):31–35Google Scholar
  2. Ali OA, O’Rourke SM, Amish SJ, Meek MH, Luikart G, Jeffres C, Miller MR (2015) RAD capture (Rapture): flexible and efficient sequence-based genotyping. Genetics 202:389–400.  https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.115.183665 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Allendorf FW, Leary RF, Spruell P, Wenburg JK (2001) The problems with hybrids: setting conservation guidelines. Trends Ecol Evol 16(11):613–622.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(01)02290-X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Amish SJ, Hohenlohe PA, Painter SA, Leary RF, Muhlfeld C, Allendorf FW, Luikart G (2012) RAD sequencing yields a high success rate for westslope cutthroat and rainbow trout species-diagnostic SNP assays. Mol Ecol Resour 12:653–660.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-0998.2012.03157.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Beerkircher L, Arocha F, Barse A, Prince E, Restrepo V, Serafy J, Shivji M (2009) Effects of species misidentification on population assessment of overfished white marlin Tetrapturus albidus and roundscale spearfish T. georgii. Endanger Species Res 9:81–90.  https://doi.org/10.3354/esr00234 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game) (2009) A status review of the longfin smelt (Spirinchus thaleichthys) in California. Report to the fish and game commissionGoogle Scholar
  7. CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife) (2017) State and federally listed endangered and threatened animals of California. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, The Natural Resources Agency, North HighlandsGoogle Scholar
  8. Cohen AN, Carlton JT (1998) Accelerating invasion rate in a highly invaded esturary. Science 279:555–557.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.279.5350.555 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Elphick CS (2008) How you count counts: the importance of methods research in applied ecology. J Appl Ecol 45:1313–1320.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2008.01545.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Finstad S, Baxter R (2016) 2015 Status and trends report for pelagic fishes of the upper San Francisco Estuary. Interag Ecol Program Newsl 29(2):12–27Google Scholar
  11. Fisch KM, Mahardja B, Burton RS, May B (2014) Hybridization between DSM and two other species within the family Osmeridae in the San Francisco SFE. Conserv Genet 15:489–494.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10592-013-0555-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Frantzich J, Ikemiyagi N, Conrad JL (2013a) 2010–2011 Yolo Bypass fisheries monitoring status and trends report. Interag Ecol Program Newsl 26(1):45–52Google Scholar
  13. Frantzich J, Rojas L, Ikemiyagi N, Conrad JL (2013b) 2011–2012 Yolo Bypass fisheries monitoring status and trends report. Interag Ecol Program Newsl 26(3):16–24Google Scholar
  14. Fumagalli M, Vieira FG, Korneliussen TS, Linderoth T, Huerta-Sanchez E, Albrechtsen A, Nielsen R (2013) Quantifying population genetic differentiation from next-generation sequencing data. Genetics 195(3):979–992.  https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.113.154740 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Fumagalli M, Vieira FG, Linderoth T, Nielsen R (2014) ngsTools: methods for population genetics analyses from next-generation sequencing data. Bioinformatics 30(10):1486–1487.  https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btu041 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Hohenlohe PA, Amish SJ, Catchen JM, Allendorf FW, Luikart G (2011) Next-generation RAD sequencing identifies thousands of SNPs for assessing hybridization between rainbow and westslope cutthroat trout. Mol Ecol Resour 11:117–122.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-0998.2010.02967.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Hull JM, Fish AM, Keane JT, Mori SR, Sacks BN, Hull AC (2010) Estimation of species identification error: implications for raptor migration counts and trend estimation. J Wildl Manag 74(6):1326–1334.  https://doi.org/10.2193/2009-255 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ikemiyagi N, Carlson H, Frantzich J, Schreier B (2014) 2012–2013 Yolo Bypass fisheries monitoring status and trends report. Interag Ecol Program Newsl 27(1):29–38Google Scholar
  19. Ikemiyagi N, Tung A, Frantzich J, Mahardja B, Schreier B (2015) 2013–2014 Yolo Bypass fisheries monitoring status and trends report. Interag Ecol Program Newsl 28(2):16–24Google Scholar
  20. Ivanova NV, Zemlak TS, Hanner R, Hebert PDN (2007) Universal primer cockails for fish DNA barcoding. Mol Ecol Notes 7:544–548.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-8286.2007.01748.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kellner K, Swihart (2014) Accounting for imperfect detection in ecology: a quantitative review. PLoS One 9(10):1–8.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0111436 Google Scholar
  22. Kirsch J, Marshall M, Smith L (2014) Fish identification accuracy and implications to monitoring within the San Francisco Estuary, CA. Interag Ecol Program Newsl 27(2):37–43Google Scholar
  23. Kopelman NM, Mayzel J, Jakobsson M, Rosenberg NA, Mayrose I (2015) Clumpak: a program for identifying clustering modes and packaging population structure inferences across K. Mol Ecol Resourc 15(5):1179–1191.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.12387 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Korneliussen TS, Albrechtsen A, Nielsen R (2014) ANGSD: analysis of next generation sequencing data. BMC Bioinform 15:356.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12859-014-0356-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Laikre L, Schwartz MK, Waples RS, Ryman N (2010) Compromising genetic diversity in the wild: unmonitored large-scale release of plants and animals. Trends Ecol Evol 25:520–529.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2010.06.013 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Li H (2013) Aligning sequence reads, clone sequences and assembly contigs with BWA-MEM. arXiv:1303.3997v1 [q-bio.GN]Google Scholar
  27. Li H, Durbin R (2010) Fast and accurate long-read alignment with Burrows-Wheeler transform. Bioinformatics 26(5):589–595.  https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btp698 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Mac Nally R, Thomson JR, Kimmerer WJ, Feyrer F, Newman KB, Sih A, Bennett WA, Brown L, Fleishman E, Culberson SD, Castillo G (2010) Analysis of pelagic species decline in the upper San Francisco Estuary using multivariate autoregressive modeling (MAR). Ecol Appl 20(5):1417–1430.  https://doi.org/10.1890/09-1724.1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Mahardja B, Ikemiyagi N, Farruggia MJ, Agundes J, Frantzich J, Schreier B (2016) 2014–2015 Yolo Bypass fisheries monitoring status and trends report. Interag Ecol Program Newsl 29(2):32–40Google Scholar
  30. May B (1996) Identification of smelt species and their interspecific hybrids in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary by allozyme analysis. Interag Ecol Program Newsl 9(3):9–10Google Scholar
  31. Moyle PB (2002) Inland fishes of California. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  32. Moyle PB, Brown LR, Durand JR, Hobbs JA (2016) Delta Smelt: life history and decline of a once-abundant species in the San Francisco Estuary. San Franc Estuary Watershed Sci 14(2):1–30.  https://doi.org/10.15447/sfews.2016v14iss2art6 Google Scholar
  33. Newman KB (2008) Sample design-based methodology for estimating Delta Smelt abundance. San Franc Estuary Watershed Sci 6(3):1–18Google Scholar
  34. Nielsen R, Korneliussen T, Albrechtsen A, Li Y, Wang J (2012) SNP calling, genotype calling, and sample allele frequency estimation from new-generation sequencing data. PLoS ONE 7(7):e37558.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0037558 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. Pritchard JK, Stephens M, Donnelly P (2000) Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data. Genetics 155(2):945–959PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. Pujolar JM, Jacobsen MW, Als TD, Frydenberg J, Magnussen E, Jonsson B, Jiang X, Cheng L, Bekkevold D, Maes GE, Bernatchez L, Hansen MM (2014) Assessing patterns of hybridization between North Atlantic eels using diagnostic single-nucleotide polymorphisms. Heredity 112:627–637.  https://doi.org/10.1038/hdy.2013.145 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. Rosenberg NA (2004) DISTRUCT: a program for the graphical display of population structure. Mol Ecol Notes 4:137–138.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1471-8286.2003.00566.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sağlam İK, Baumsteiger J, Smith MJ, Linares-Casenave J, Nicholas NL, O’Rourke SM, Miller MR (2016) Phylogenetics supports an ancient common origin of two scientific icons: Devils Hole and Devils Hole pupfish. Mol Ecol 25:3962–3973.  https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.13732 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Schwartz MK, Luikart G, Waples RS (2007) Genetic monitoring as a promising tool for conservation and management. Trends Ecol Evol 22(1):25–33.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2006.08.009 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Shea CP, Peterson JT, Wisniewski JM, Johnson NA (2011) Misidentification of freshwater mussel species (Bivalvia:Unionidae): contributing factors, management implications, and potential solutions. Am Benthol Soc 30(2):446–458.  https://doi.org/10.1899/10-073.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sommer T, Armor C, Baxter R, Breuer R, Brown L, Chotkowski M, Culberson S, Feyrer F, Gingras M, Herbold B, Kimmerer W, Mueller-Solger A, Nobriga M, Souza K (2007) The collapse of pelagic fishes in the upper San Francisco Estuary. Fisheries 32(6):270–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Stephens MR, Clipperton NW, May B (2009) Subspecies-informative SNP assays for evaluating introgression between native golden trout and introduced rainbow trout. Mol Ecol Resour 9:339–343.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-0998.2008.02407.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Sweetnam D (1995) Field identification of Delta Smelt and Wakasagi. Interag Ecol Program Newsl 8(2):1–3Google Scholar
  44. Tempel T (2016) Smelt larva survey summary. Interag Ecol Program Newsl 29(2):43–45Google Scholar
  45. Trenham PC, Shaffer HB, Moyle PB (1998) Biochemical identification and assessment of population subdivision in morphologically similar native and invading smelt species(Hypomesus) in the Sacramento San Joaquin estuary, California. Trans Am Fish Soc 127:417–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Twyford AD, Ennos RA (2012) Next-generation hybridization and introgression. Heredity 108:179–189.  https://doi.org/10.1038/hdy.2011.68 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. USFWS (1993) Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: determination of threatened status for the DSM. US Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Federal RegisterGoogle Scholar
  48. Wang JCS (2007) Spawning, early life stages, and early life histories of the osmerids found in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta of California. Tracy fish facility studies California, vol 38. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, DenverGoogle Scholar
  49. Wang J, Hess L (2000) Similarities between hatchery reared Delta Smelt and wild Wakasagi from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Interag Ecol Program Newsl 13(1):49–51Google Scholar
  50. Wang JCS, Lynch L, Bridges B, Grimaldo L (2005) Using morphometric characteristics to identify the early life stages of two sympatric osmerids (Delta Smelt and Wakasagi, Hypomesus transpacificus and H. nipponensis) in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California. Tracy Fish Facility Studies. Vol 30, U. S. Bureau of Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Region and Denver Technical Service CenterGoogle Scholar
  51. Wayne RK, Shaffer HB (2016) Hybridization and endangered species protection in the molecular era. Mol Ecol 25:2680–2689.  https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.13642 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Animal ScienceUniversity of California-DavisDavisUSA
  2. 2.Ecological Sciences Research Laboratories, Department of BiologyHacattepe UniversityAnkaraTurkey
  3. 3.California Department of Water ResourcesWest SacramentoUSA
  4. 4.Department of Wildlife, Fish, and Conservation BiologyUniversity of California-DavisDavisUSA
  5. 5.Department of Biological and Agricultural EngineeringUniversity of California-DavisDavisUSA

Personalised recommendations