Post on 21-Jan-2016
description
Genetic and Phenetic Dynamics of Steelhead Recolonization Above
Dams: Green River Study
Gary Winans CB DivisionJon Baker, Frank Orth Assoc. (Formerly, CB Div.)
We are interested in Resident fish
and the potential “hybridization” of Resident trout and Anadromous Steelhead
Our Research Interests: Character evolution in isolated populations
• Non-smolting lifestyle (PSL, behavioral, & metabolic)
• Body and fin designs
• Body coloration
• Evolutionarily-neutral genetic markers
During their 90 years of isolation, REZ fish will be different…due to
• natural selection (non-smolting physiology, non-downstream behavior, growth, time of spawning, etc.)
• random genetic changes
• outplanting
NOAA is interested in mykiss populations sequestered behind
dams
• O. mykiss is endangered under the ESA • When dams are removed, what will be the role
of Resident trout?• Who will produce naturally occurring recruits?
Our Research Interests: Character evolution in isolated populations
• Non-smolting lifestyle (PSL, behavioral, & metabolic)
• Body and fin designs
• Body coloration
• Evolutionarily-neutral genetic markers
N
Green River
Rm 68 Rm 84
HH Dam
hatchery
wildresidual
RBT
RBT
RBT
RBT
RBT
N
Green River-Genetic data
Rm 68 Rm 84
HH Dam
Hatchery= 50 + 50
Wild=77 Residents=81
Calif. Trout= 50 + 50
Cedar R. Wilds = 50
N
Green River-Genetic data
Rm 68 Rm 84
HH Dam
Hatchery= 50 + 50
Wild=77 Residents=81
Calif. Trout= 50 + 50
Cedar R. Wilds = 50
“NearestNeighbor”
“Hatchery Outplants”
mSAT Loci
• Ocl1
• Ogo4
• Omy7 INRA
• One14
• Ots100
• Ots4
• Oke4
• Oki23
• Omy1011
• Omy77
• Ssa289
• Ssa407
• Ssa408
Microsatellite markers—simple sequence repeats
CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA
CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA
CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA
CA CA CA CA CA CA
“102”
“100”
“96”
“94” CA
- Allele designations typically related to fragment size
0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85Mean Heterozygosity
8
9
10
11
12
13
Mea
n N
o. o
f Alle
les
per
Locu
s
3=Hatchery2=Native1=Resident
Diversity at 13 mSAT loci
0
5
10
15
Me
an
No
. of A
llele
s p
er
Lo
cus
4=Cal. Trout3=Hatchery2=Native1=Resident
0.50 0.63 0.73 0.90
0.1
Cal Trout 1Cal Trout 2
Cedar RiverHatch 2Hatch 1Resident 1
Native 1
Native 2
Resident 2
Resident 3
Nei’s D
N
Green River-Morphology data
Rm 68 Rm 84
HH Dam
Hatchery= 20 + 20
Wild=20 Residents=20
Calif. Trout
Cedar R. Wilds
“Hatchery outplants”
“NearestNeighbor”
Thin Plate Spline/Relative Warps
• Each fish is represented by a set of landmarks
• Each fish is compared to a consensus outline; a similarity value generated
• A similarity matrix is assesed by a PCA
• Producing the relative warps (RWs)
-0.05-0.04
-0.03-0.02
-0.010.00
0.010.02
0.030.04
0.05
RW1
-0.04
-0.03
-0.02
-0.01
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05R
W4
3=Native2=Hatchery1=Resident
-0.05-0.04
-0.03-0.02
-0.010.00
0.010.02
0.030.04
0.05
RW1
-0.04
-0.03
-0.02
-0.01
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05R
W4
2=Below1=Above
RW Analysis of Body Shape
Neg RW1; elongate nose, deeper head; deeper trunk; v. shortened CP
Shape differences: resident vs. consensus Resident
Head LLDorsalSplit
Mid LLDorsalSplit
TailDorsalSplit
Resident
0 1 2 3 4 5
MID_D_PARR
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Cou
nt
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Proportion per B
ar
Hatchery 1
0 1 2 3 4 5
MID_D_PARR
0
5
10
15
Cou
nt
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Proportion per B
ar
Hatchery 2
0 1 2 3 4 5
MID_D_PARR
0
5
10
15
Cou
nt
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
Proportion per B
ar
Native
0 1 2 3 4 5
MID_D_PARR
0
5
10
15
Cou
nt
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
Proportion per B
ar
-2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5PCA1
-2
-1
0
1
2
3P
CA
3
3=hatchery2=wild1=residents
Parr Mark Analysis
-2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5PCA1
-2
-1
0
1
2
3P
CA
3
2=below1=above
t=4.16, P=0.0
1
7
8
9
10
11
121315
2
7
8
9
10
11
121315
5
7
8
910
11
12
13
15
6
7
8
9
10
11121315
7
7
8
9
1011
121315
Below-Elwha Dam Above-Elwha Dam
Lateral Line Parr
Above 9.9 vs.Below 9.1 ***
Mean=9.15
Mean=8.95
Mean=9.6 Mean=10.5
Mean=9.4
Further Analyses• Hardy-Weinberg• Disequilibrium• Bootstrap D values• Rare alleles• F statistics• Contingency tables• PCA of allele frequencies• MM--ontogenetic influences• MM--PCA of truss-network characters
• Resident fish above the dam are not genetically dissimilar from “Native” late-run fish below the dam
• Resident fish are different from hatchery fish
• Juvenile resident fish have different body shapes and parr mark patterns
• Did we find a unique gene pool (a Gem) above the HH dam?
• Is there evidence that there is a population of ‘residualized’ steelhead above HH dam?
• Can we use these mSATs to recognize resident x steelhead crosses?
•Is there a general pattern in genetic and phenetic variability in resident fish vs. downstream steelhead?
Green River: (Internal Grant seed money)Elwha River: (NOAA Restoration $)Lewis River: PacifiCorp $
Elwha Dam
Glines Canyon Dam
Neg RW2