Conservation Genetics

, Volume 3, Issue 3, pp 261–276 | Cite as

Morphological and genetic analysis of the Red Hills roach (Cyprinidae: Lavinia symmetricus)

Abstract

We performed a morphological and phylogeneticanalysis of a recently discovered population ofCalifornia roach (Red Hills roach; Cyprinidae:Lavinia symmetricus) to determine if thedegree of separation of these populationswarrants subspecies status. Previousmorphological analysis by Brown et al. (1992)suggested that L. symmetricus from theRed Hills roach type locality (Horton Creek)were different for Principal DiscriminantScores (based on 15 morphological characters)from neighboring populations. Similarly,recent work by our lab on the phylogenetics ofthe putative subspecies of L. symmetricushas revealed that the Red Hills roach appearsreciprocally monophyletic for assayedmitochondrial DNA markers. In addition toperforming further morphological and geneticanalysis of the Red Hills roach, we increasedour sampling effort in the Red Hills region todetermine the distribution of this undescribedputative subspecies. Our morphological resultsare generally in agreement with Brown et al.(1992) except in regards to Horton Creek. Asignificant difference between the two studiesexists for all Horton Creek multivariateanalyses as well as frequency of a presumablyderived character (chisel lip). Our geneticresults also support our previous findings thatthe Red Hills roach is a diagnosible,genetically distinct population. Thephylogenetic analysis suggests that populationson the other side of a large reservoir wererecently connected via gene flow to the RedHills populations.

California Hesperoleucus PCA mtDNA serpentine 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Avise JC (1975) Protein Divergence and Speciation in California Minnows. PhD thesis, University of California, Davis.Google Scholar
  2. Avise JC (1994) Molecular Markers, Natural History and Evolution. Chapman and Hall, New York.Google Scholar
  3. Brown LR, Moyle PB, Bennett WA, Quelvog BD (1992) Implications of morphological variation among populations of California roach Lavinia symmetricus (Cyprinidae) for conservation policy. Biol. Conserv., 62, 1–10.Google Scholar
  4. Burnaby TP (1966) Growth-invariant discriminant functions and generalized distances. Biometrics, 22, 96–110.Google Scholar
  5. 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, 479–491.Google Scholar
  6. Felsenstein J (1985) Confidence limits on phylogenies: An approach using the bootstrap. Evolution, 39, 783–791.Google Scholar
  7. Grady JM, Quattro JM (1999) Using character concordance to define taxonomic and conservation units. Conserv. Biol., 13, 1004–1007.Google Scholar
  8. JMP Statistics and Graphics Guide (1994) Version 3; SAS Institute Inc. Cary N.C., USA.Google Scholar
  9. Jones WJ, Bernardi G. Phylogenetic relationships among L. symmetricus and L. exilicauda subspecies. Submitted to Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution.Google Scholar
  10. Kimura M (1980) A simple method for estimating evolutionary rates of base substitutions through comparative studies of nucleotide sequences. J. Mol. Evol., 26, 24–33.Google Scholar
  11. Maddison WP, Maddison DR (1992) MacClade 3.05. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA.Google Scholar
  12. Moyle PB (1976) Inland Fishes of California. 1st edn., University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  13. Moyle PB (1996) Potential aquatic diversity management areas. Ch. 57 In: Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final Report to Congress, vol. II, Assessments and Scientific Basis for Management Options. Davis: University of California, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources.Google Scholar
  14. Moyle PB, Cech JJ (2001) Fishes: An Introduction to Ichthyology, 4th edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.Google Scholar
  15. Moyle PB, William JE, Wikramanayake ED (1995) Fish species of special concern of California (2nd edn.). Final Report, Contract No. 21281F.Google Scholar
  16. Murphy GI (1943) Sexual dimorphism in the minnows Hesperoleucus and Rhinichthys. Copeia, 1943, 187–188.Google Scholar
  17. Page RDM, Holmes EC (1998) Molecular Evolution – A Phylogenetic Approach. Blackwell Science, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  18. Posada D, Crandall KR (1998) MODELTEST: testing the model of DNA substitution. Bioinform., 14, 817–818.Google Scholar
  19. Power ME (1990) Effects of fish in river food webs. Science, 250, 811–814.Google Scholar
  20. Rice WR (1989) Analyzing tables of statistical tests. Evolution, 43, 223–225.Google Scholar
  21. Rohlf FJ, Bookstein FL (1987) A comment on shearing as a method for 'size correction'. Syst. Zool., 36, 356–367.Google Scholar
  22. Schneider S, Roessli D, Excoffier L (2000) ARLEQUIN ver 2.000: a software for population genetics data analysis. Department of Anthropology and Ecology, University of Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  23. Swofford DL (1993) PAUP, phylogenetic analysis using parsimony, version 3.1. Illinois Natural History Survey, Champaign.Google Scholar
  24. Swofford DL (1998) PAUP*, phylogenetic analysis using parsimony, version 4.0. Illinois Natural History Survey, Champaign.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Biology DepartmentUniversity of CaliforniaSanta CruzUSA
  2. 2.California Department of Fish and GameSonoraUSA

Personalised recommendations