Advertisement

Conservation Genetics

, Volume 19, Issue 6, pp 1379–1392 | Cite as

Role of drainage and barriers in the genetic structuring of a tessellated darter population

  • Peter EuclideEmail author
  • J. Ellen Marsden
Research Article

Abstract

While population genetic structuring is easily identified, the causes of the structure can be difficult to determine. Habitat fragmentation in aquatic systems has often been identified as a major source of increased population structure and decreased genetic diversity in fish, including benthic resident species such as darters. However, these findings are often not replicated across natural and manmade barriers and come from endangered or threatened populations where the genetic structure is likely already compromised due to small population size. To evaluate the factors involved in structuring a healthy darter population, we genotyped 506 tessellated darters from 18 sites in three different river drainages and one large lake. Sites were all in the same watershed but separated from one another by one or more of three different types of barriers: dams, natural fall lines and causeways. We found that while diversity and allele frequency varied largely by drainage, within drainage variation was minimal even across multiple barriers. No single barrier type appeared to be more formidable than any other. Our results indicate that healthy populations of darters may naturally be structured by drainage, but likely disperse across barriers enough to retain drainage-wide homogeneity.

Keywords

Habitat fragmentation Microsatellite Genetic diversity Dams Streams 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Dr. Matthew Wargo and Dr. Steven Keller for the use of their laboratories for processing samples. We also would like to thank our field technician, Bethany Alger, and the captain Steve Cluett and crew, Brad Roy for help collecting darter samples. Special thanks to Alan Howard, University of Vermont for help with statistical support. Finally, we would like to thank anonymous reviewers whose suggestions helped to improve the final manuscript. This study was supported by funds made available by Senator Patrick Leahy through the Great Lakes Fishery Commission and the USGS Vermont Water Resources and Lakes Study Center.

Supplementary material

10592_2018_1107_MOESM1_ESM.docx (7.4 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 7558 KB)

References

  1. Akaike H (1992) Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. In: Kotz S, Johnson NL (eds) Breakthroughs in statistics. Springer, New York, pp 610–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Austin JD, Jelks HL, Tate B et al (2011) Population genetic structure and conservation genetics of threatened Okaloosa darters (Etheostoma okaloosae). Conserv Genet 12:981–989.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10592-011-0201-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beneteau CL, Mandrak NE, Heath DD (2007) Characterization of eight polymorphic microsatellite DNA markers for the greenside darter, Etheostoma blennioides (Percidae). Mol Ecol Notes 7:641–643.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-8286.2006.01661.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beneteau CL, Mandrak NE, Heath DD (2009) The effects of river barriers and range expansion of the population genetic structure and stability in greenside darter (Etheostoma blennioides) populations. Conserv Genet 10:477–487.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10592-008-9627-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beneteau CL, Walter RP, Mandrak NE, Heath DD (2012) Range expansion by invasion: genetic characterization of invasion of the greenside darter (Etheostoma blennioides) at the northern edge of its distribution. Biol Invasions 14:191–201.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-011-9996-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Besnier F, Glover KA (2013) ParallelStructure: a R package to distribute parallel runs of the population genetics program STRUCTURE on multi-core computers. PLoS ONE.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0070651 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Bessert ML, Orti G (2008) Genetic effects of habitat fragmentation on blue sucker populations in the upper Missouri River (Cycleptus elongatus Lesueur, 1918). Conserv Genet 9:821–832.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10592-007-9401-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cano J, Shikano T, Kuparinen A, Merila J (2008) Genetic differentiation, effective population size and gene flow in marine fishes: implications for stock management. J Integr F Sci 5:1–10Google Scholar
  9. Chick JH, Pegg MA, Koel TM (2006) Spatial patterns of fish communities in the Upper Mississippi river system: assessing fragmentation by low-head dams. River Res Appl 22:413–427.  https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.912 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clemento AJ, Anderson EC, Boughton D et al (2009) Population genetic structure and ancestry of Oncorhynchus mykiss populations above and below dams in south-central California. Conserv Genet 10:1321–1336.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10592-008-9712-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dammeyer NT, Phillips CT, Bonner TH (2013) Site fidelity and movement of Etheostoma fonticola with implications to endangered species management. Trans Am Fish Soc 142:1049–1057.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00028487.2013.793612 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. DeWoody AJ, Fletcher DE, Wilkins SD, Avise JC (2000) Parentage and nest guarding in the tessellated darter (Etheostoma olmstedi) assayed by microsatellite markers. (Perciformes: Percidae) Copeia 2000:740–747Google Scholar
  13. Do C, Waples RS, Peel D et al (2014) NeEstimator v2: re-implementation of software for the estimation of contemporary effective population size (Ne) from genetic data. Mol Ecol Resour 14:209–214.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.12157 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Fahy WE (1954) The life history of the northern greenside darter, Etheostoma blennioides blennioides Rafinesque. J Elisha Mitchell Sci Soc 70:139–205Google Scholar
  15. Frankham R (2008) Effective population size/adult population size ratios in wildlife: a review. Genet Res 89:491–503.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0016672308009695 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gabel JM, Dakin EE, Freeman BJ, Porter BA (2008) Isolation and identification of eight microsatellite loci in the Cherokee darter (Etheostoma scotti) and their variability in other members of the genera Etheostoma, Ammocrypta, and Percina. Mol Ecol Resour 8:149–151.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-8286.2007.01903.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Gelman A (2008) Scaling regression inputs by dividing by two standard deviations. Stat Med 27:2865–2873.  https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.3107 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. George AL, Neely DA, Mayden RL (2010) Comparative conservation genetics of two endangered darters, Percina rex and Percina jenkinsi. Southeast Fishes Counc Proc 52:1–12Google Scholar
  19. Gouskov A, Vorburger C (2016) River fragmentation and fish population structure: a comparison of three Swiss midland rivers. Freshw Sci 35:689–700.  https://doi.org/10.1086/685658 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Haddad NM, Brudvig LA, Clobert J et al (2015) Habitat fragmentation and its lasting impact on Earth’s ecosystems. Sci Adv 1:e1500052–e1500052.  https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1500052 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Hedrick PW (1999) Perspective: highly variable loci and their interpretation in evolution and conservation. Evolution 53:313.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2640768 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Hedrick PW (2005a) A standardized genetic differentiation measure. Evolution 59:1633–1638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hedrick PW (2005b) Genetics of populations, 3rd edn. Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Inc, SudburyGoogle Scholar
  24. Helfman GS (2007) Fish conservation: a guide to understanding and restoring global aquatic biodiversity and fishery resources. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  25. Jelks HL, Walsh SJ, Burkhead NM et al (2008) Conservation status of imperiled North American freshwater and diadromous fishes. Fisheries 33:372–407.  https://doi.org/10.1577/1548-8446-33.8.372 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jombart T (2008) Adegenet: a R package for the multivariate analysis of genetic markers. Bioinformatics 24:1403–1405.  https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btn129 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. Jombart T, Devillard S, Balloux F (2010) Discriminant analysis of principal components: a new method for the analysis of genetically structured populations. BMC Genet 11:94.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2156-11-94 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Junker J, Peter A, Wagner CE et al (2012) River fragmentation increases localized population genetic structure and enhances asymmetry of dispersal in bullhead (Cottus gobio). Conserv Genet 13:545–556.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10592-011-0306-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Juracek KE, Eng K, Carlisle DM, Wolock DM (2017) Streamflow alteration and habitat ramifications for a threatened fish species in the Central United States. River Res Appl 33:993–1003.  https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.3148 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Keenan K, McGinnity P, Cross TF et al (2013) diveRsity: an R package for the estimation and exploration of population genetics parameters and their associated errors. Methods Ecol Evol 4:782–788.  https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12067 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Knaepkens G, Bervoets L, Verheyen E, Eens M (2004) Relationship between population size and genetic diversity in endangered populations of the European bullhead (Cottus gobio): implications for conservation. Biol Conserv 115:403–410.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(03)00156-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kuehne RA, Barbour RW (2015) The American Darters. The University Press of Kentucky, LexingtonGoogle Scholar
  33. Lamphere BA, Blum MJ (2012) Genetic estimates of population structure and dispersal in a benthic stream fish. Ecol Freshw Fish 21:75–86.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0633.2011.00525.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Leclerc É, Mailhot Y, Mingelbier M, Bernatchez L (2008) The landscape genetics of yellow perch (Perca flavescens) in a large fluvial ecosystem. Mol Ecol 17:1702–1717.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2008.03710.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Ligon FK, Dietrich WE, Trush WJ (1995) Downstream ecological effects of dams: a geomophic perspective. Bioscience 45:183–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Magoulick DD, Lynch DT (2015) Occupancy and abundance modeling of the endangered Yellowcheek darter in Arkansas. Copeia 103:433–439.  https://doi.org/10.1643/CE-14-116 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Marsden JE, Langdon RW (2012) The history and future of Lake Champlain’s fishes and fisheries. J Great Lakes Res 38:19–34.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jglr.2011.09.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. McBride M, Hession WC, Rizzo DM (2008) Riparian reforestation and channel change: a case study of two small tributaries to Sleepers River, northeastern Vermont, USA. Geomorphology 102:445–459.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.GEOMORPH.2008.05.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. McLaughlin RL, Porto L, Noakes DL et al (2006) Effects of low-head barriers on stream fishes: taxonomic affiliations and morphological correlates of sensitive species. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 63:766–779.  https://doi.org/10.1139/f05-256 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mclaughlin RL, Smyth ERB, Castro-Santos T et al (2013) Unintended consequences and trade-offs of fish passage. Fish Fish 14:580–604.  https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Meeuwig MH, Guy CS, Kalinowski ST, Fredenberg WA (2010) Landscape influences on genetic differentiation among bull trout populations in a stream-lake network. Mol Ecol 19:3620–3633.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2010.04655.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Meldgaard T, Nielsen EE, Loeschcke V (2003) Fragmentation by weirs in a riverine system: a study of genetic variation in time and space among populations of European grayling (Thymallus thymallus) in a Danish river system. Conserv Genet 4:735–747CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Olsen JB, Kinziger AP, Wenburg JK et al (2016) Genetic diversity and divergence in the fountain darter (Etheostoma fonticola): implications for conservation of an endangered species. Conserv Genet 17:1393–1404.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10592-016-0869-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Peacock MM, Gustin MS, Kirchoff VS et al (2016) Native fishes in the Truckee River: are in-stream structures and patterns of population genetic structure related? Sci Total Environ 563–564:221–236.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.04.056 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Porto LM, McLaughlin RL, Noakes DLG (1999) Low-head barrier dams restrict the movements of fishes in two Lake Ontario streams. N Am J Fish Manag 19:1028–1036.  https://doi.org/10.1577/1548-8675(1999)019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pritchard JK, Stephens M, Donnelly P (2000) Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data. Genetics 155:945–959.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0379-0738(94)90222-4 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  47. R Core Team (2015) R: a language and enviornment for satistical computing. The R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  48. Richardson JL, Brady SP, Wang IJ, Spear SF (2016) Navigating the pitfalls and promise of landscape genetics. Mol Ecol 25:849–863.  https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.13527 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Roberts JH, Angermeier PL, Hallerman EM (2013) Distance, dams and drift: what structures populations of an endangered, benthic stream fish? Freshw Biol 58:2050–2064.  https://doi.org/10.1111/fwb.12190 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rosenberg DM, Mccully P, Pringle CM (2000) Global-scale environmental effects of hydrological alterations: introduction. Bioscience 50:746CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Ryman N, Palm S (2006) POWSIM: a computer program for assessing statistical power when testing for genetic differentiation. Mol Ecol Notes 6:600–602.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2006.01378.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Ryman N, Palm S, André C et al (2006) Power for detecting genetic divergence: differences between statistical methods and marker loci. Mol Ecol 15:2031–2045.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2006.02839.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Sefc KM, Payne R, Sorenson M (2007) Genetic differentiation after founder events: an evaluation of FST estimators with empirical and simulated data. Evol Ecol Res 9:21–39Google Scholar
  54. Shaw EA, Lange E, Shucksmith JD, Lerner DN (2016) Importance of partial barriers and temporal variation in flow when modelling connectivity in fragmented river systems. Ecol Eng 91:515–528.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2016.01.030 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Shute JR, Rakes PL, Shute PW (2005) Reintroduction of four imperiled fishes in Abrams Creek, Tennessee. Southeast Nat 4:93–110.  https://doi.org/10.1656/1528-7092(2005)004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sotola VA, Schrey AW, Ragsdale AK et al (2017) Genetic evidence of isolation by distance and impact of impoundments on genetic diversity of riverine channel catfish. Trans Am Fish Soc 146:1204–1211.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00028487.2017.1362471 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sterling KA, Reed DH, Noonan BP, Warren ML (2012) Genetic effects of habitat fragmentation and population isolation on Etheostoma raneyi (Percidae). Conserv Genet 13:859–872.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10592-012-0335-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Storfer A, Murphy MA, Evans JS et al (2007) Putting the “landscape” in landscape genetics. Heredity 98:128–142.  https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.hdy.6800917 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Sundqvist L, Keenan K, Zackrisson M et al (2016) Directional genetic differentiation and relative migration. Ecol Evol 6:3461–3475.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.2096 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  60. Switzer JF, Welsh SA, King TL (2008) Microsatellite DNA primers for the candy darter, Etheostoma osburni and variegate darter, Etheostoma variatum, and cross-species amplification in other darters (Percidae). Mol Ecol Resour 8:335–338.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-8286.2007.01946.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Tonnis BD (2006) Microsatellite DNA markers for the rainbow darter, Etheostoma caeruleum (Percidae), and their potential utility for other darter species. Mol Ecol Notes 6:230–232.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-8286.2005.01203.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Tukey J (1949) Comparing individual means in the analysis of variance. Biometrics 5:99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 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 4:535–538.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-8286.2004.00684.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Vellend M (2003) Island biogeography of genes and species. Am Nat 162:358–365.  https://doi.org/10.1086/377189 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Vellend M (2005) Species diversity and genetic diversity: parallel processes and correlated patterns. Am Nat 166:199–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Vermont National Heritage Inventory (2017) Rare and uncommon animals of vermont. Vermont National Heritage Inventory, BarreGoogle Scholar
  67. Wang L, Lyons J, Kanehl P, Gatti R (1997) Influences of watershed land use on habitat quality and biotic integrity in Wisconsin streams. Fisheries 22:6–12.  https://doi.org/10.1577/1548-8446(1997)022%3C0006:IOWLUO%3E2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Ward RD, Woodwark M, Skibinski DOF (1994) A comparison of genetic diversity levels in marine, freshwater, and anadromous fishes. J Fish Biol 44:213–232.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.1994.tb01200.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Whiteley AR, Hastings K, Wenburg JK et al (2010) Genetic variation and effective population size in isolated populations of coastal cutthroat trout. Conserv Genet 11:1929–1943.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10592-010-0083-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Whiteley AR, Coombs JA, Hudy M, Robinson Z, Colton AR, Nislow KH, Letcher BH, Taylor E (2013) Fragmentation and patch size shape genetic structure of brook trout populations. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 70:678–688.  https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfas-2012-0493 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Winston MR, Taylor CM, Pigg J (1991) Upstream extirpation of four minnow species due to damming of a prairie stream. Trans Am Fish Soc 120:98–105.  https://doi.org/10.1577/1548-8659(1991)120%3C0098:UEOFMS%3E2.3.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Elphick CS (2010) A protocol for data exploration to avoid common statistical problems. Methods Ecol Evol 1:3–14.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-210X.2009.00001.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biology, Marsh Life Science BuildingUniversity of VermontBurlingtonUSA
  2. 2.Rubenstein Ecosystem Science LaboratoryUniversity of VermontBurlingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations