| Literature DB >> 24665337 |
Thomas E Dowling1, Thomas F Turner2, Evan W Carson2, Melody J Saltzgiver1, Deborah Adams1, Brian Kesner3, Paul C Marsh4.
Abstract
Time-series analysis is used widely in ecology to study complex phenomena and may have considerable potential to clarify relationships of genetic and demographic processes in natural and exploited populations. We explored the utility of this approach to evaluate population responses to management in razorback sucker, a long-lived and fecund, but declining freshwater fish species. A core population in Lake Mohave (Arizona-Nevada, USA) has experienced no natural recruitment for decades and is maintained by harvesting naturally produced larvae from the lake, rearing them in protective custody, and repatriating them at sizes less vulnerable to predation. Analyses of mtDNA and 15 microsatellites characterized for sequential larval cohorts collected over a 15-year time series revealed no changes in geographic structuring but indicated significant increase in mtDNA diversity for the entire population over time. Likewise, ratios of annual effective breeders to annual census size (N b /N a) increased significantly despite sevenfold reduction of N a. These results indicated that conservation actions diminished near-term extinction risk due to genetic factors and should now focus on increasing numbers of fish in Lake Mohave to ameliorate longer-term risks. More generally, time-series analysis permitted robust testing of trends in genetic diversity, despite low precision of some metrics.Entities:
Keywords: age structure; census size; effective number of breeders; genetic diversity; genetic monitoring
Year: 2013 PMID: 24665337 PMCID: PMC3962295 DOI: 10.1111/eva.12125
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evol Appl ISSN: 1752-4571 Impact factor: 5.183
Results from amova analysis of mtDNA haplotype frequencies for razorback sucker from Lake Mohave, Arizona and Nevada, for each of the years represented.
| Year | # of collections | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1997 | 13 | 338 | 0.088 | <0.0001 | −0.021 | 0.845 | 0.110 | <0.0001 |
| 1998 | 19 | 484 | 0.043 | <0.0001 | −0.002 | 0.512 | 0.045 | <0.0001 |
| 1999 | 13 | 291 | 0.039 | <0.0001 | −0.012 | 0.715 | 0.050 | 0.001 |
| 2000 | 16 | 366 | 0.049 | <0.0001 | −0.009 | 0.758 | 0.058 | <0.0001 |
| 2001 | 10 | 230 | 0.102 | <0.0001 | −0.001 | 0.522 | 0.103 | 0.001 |
| 2002 | 14 | 344 | 0.020 | 0.015 | −0.004 | 0.651 | 0.024 | 0.016 |
| 2003 | 14 | 370 | 0.060 | <0.0001 | 0.023 | 0.069 | 0.037 | 0.004 |
| 2004 | 24 | 559 | 0.147 | <0.0001 | 0.010 | 0.240 | 0.138 | <0.0001 |
| 2005 | 17 | 437 | 0.059 | <0.0001 | 0.001 | 0.380 | 0.058 | <0.0001 |
| 2006 | 23 | 571 | 0.062 | <0.0001 | 0.000 | 0.430 | 0.063 | <0.0001 |
| 2007 | 13 | 308 | 0.043 | <0.0001 | −0.012 | 0.740 | 0.054 | <0.0001 |
| 2008 | 24 | 576 | 0.057 | <0.0001 | 0.004 | 0.275 | 0.053 | <0.0001 |
| 2009 | 21 | 515 | 0.097 | <0.0001 | −0.019 | 0.994 | 0.113 | <0.0001 |
| 2010 | 19 | 478 | 0.042 | <0.0001 | −0.006 | 0.761 | 0.047 | <0.0001 |
| 2011 | 19 | 469 | 0.011 | 0.059 | 0.000 | 0.51 | 0.011 | 0.074 |
Figure 1Mean haplotypic richness (A) and mean gene diversity (B) calculated from mtDNA haplotype data for razorback sucker from Lake Mohave, Arizona and Nevada. Data for 1997–2003 are provided in Dowling et al. (2005), with 2004–2011 provided in Table S1. Mean allelic richness (C) and mean gene diversity (D) calculated from microsatellite data for razorback sucker from Lake Mohave, Arizona and Nevada.
Mean and ranges of allelic richness (AR) and gene diversity from 15 microsatellite loci for razorback sucker from Lake Mohave, Arizona and Nevada, for each of the years represented.
| Year | Gene diversity | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | Range | Mean | Range | |
| 1997 | 17.3 | 2.0–34.9 | 0.758 | 0.171–0.955 |
| 1998 | 16.6 | 2.0–33.9 | 0.745 | 0.150–0.959 |
| 1999 | 16.5 | 2.0–35.8 | 0.748 | 0.104–0.957 |
| 2000 | 17.0 | 2.0–36.0 | 0.723 | 0.132–0.963 |
| 2001 | 17.1 | 2.0–33.0 | 0.745 | 0.112–0.960 |
| 2002 | 16.7 | 2.0–35.0 | 0.750 | 0.172–0.962 |
| 2003 | 16.8 | 2.0–34.9 | 0.755 | 0.171–0.958 |
| 2004 | 16.2 | 2.0–35.0 | 0.730 | 0.112–0.959 |
| 2005 | 16.6 | 2.0–34.9 | 0.736 | 0.146–0.959 |
| 2006 | 16.7 | 2.0–33.9 | 0.736 | 0.08–0.955 |
| 2007 | 16.4 | 2.0–35.9 | 0.745 | 0.187–0.962 |
| 2008 | 17.2 | 2.0–35.9 | 0.747 | 0.157–0.959 |
| 2009 | 16.7 | 2.0–34.0 | 0.758 | 0.192–0.963 |
| 2010 | 16.2 | 2.0–32.9 | 0.752 | 0.226–0.961 |
| 2011 | 17.1 | 2.0–32.9 | 0.754 | 0.165–0.957 |
Figure 2Annual estimates of the number of reproductively capable wild razorback sucker (Nwild – gray triangles) and repatriated fish (Nat large – open squares) in Lake Mohave, Arizona and Nevada, over a 14-year time series. The total annual census size (Na – closed circles) is the sum of Nwild and Nat large. Estimates of Nwild and Nat large and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) (error bars) are based on mark–capture–recapture data.
Annual census sizes (Na), estimates of the effective number of breeders (Nb) based on microsatellites, and effective number of female breeders (Nbf) based on mtDNA data. Parentheses indicate lower-and upper-bound 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each estimate.
| Year | Microsatellites – | MtDNA – | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tempo | ||||||
| 1997 | 7532 (5359, 9997) | 1609 (867, 7408) | 711 (398, 3362) | 1072 (565, 7388) | 1136 (528, ∞) | 876 (291, 4341) |
| 1998 | 7427 (4910, 10 927) | 1364 (814, 3644) | 291 (165, 1180) | 882 (512, 2822) | 966 (465, ∞) | 1149 (335, 32 493) |
| 1999 | 4910 (3263, 7147) | 934 (644, 1600) | 143 (94, 277) | ∞ (1398, ∞) | 1261 (429, ∞) | 711 (215, 4582) |
| 2000 | 4978 (3426, 7885) | 769 (550, 1243) | 165 (98, 528) | 326 (251, 456) | 1006 (398, ∞) | 921 (250, ∞) |
| 2001 | 4224 (2748, 6986) | 832 (572, 1435) | 250 (148, 903) | 520 (373, 833) | 536 (291, 1989) | 398 (130, ∞) |
| 2002 | 3012 (1779, 5525) | 1162 (720, 2758) | 291 (165, 1113) | 688 (459, 1320) | 2334 (666, ∞) | 733 (237, ∞) |
| 2003 | 2323 (1405, 4109) | 943 (621, 1828) | 246 (112, ∞) | 1188 (618, 10 040) | 1551 (702, ∞) | 1203 (353, 9634) |
| 2004 | 979 (526, 1999) | 4377 (1337, ∞) | 1341 (367, ∞) | ∞ (1901, ∞) | 15 647 (1475, ∞) | 13 832 (943, ∞) |
| 2005 | 2200 (883, 5301) | 1909 (934, 5311) | 608 (282, ∞) | 814 (469, 2678) | 5566 (984, ∞) | 2320 (528, ∞) |
| 2006 | 1366 (741, 3387) | 1314 (764, 3867) | 389 (232, 1274) | 1390 (269, ∞) | 2817 (845, ∞) | 1574 (331, ∞) |
| 2007 | 984 (614, 1738) | 19 054 (1775, ∞) | 429 (188, ∞) | 852 (515, 2268) | 2146 (724, ∞) | 2597 (496, ∞) |
| 2008 | 1364 (888, 2474) | 514 (402, 711) | 107 (54, ∞) | 3876 (860, ∞) | 1189 (630, 4390) | 773 (264, 2119) |
| 2009 | 1183 (679, 2763) | 1587 (881, 6219) | 840 (425, 34 487) | 821 (491, 2295) | 747 (443, 1824) | 581 (228, 1498) |
| 2010 | 524 (270, 1326) | 3970 (1355, ∞) | 5494 (671, ∞) | 12 391 (1393, ∞) | 1677 (630, ∞) | 1395 (429, 14 405) |
Results are matched to the year to which the estimates apply following Waples (2005).
Annual census size is the sum of wild and ‘at large’ repatriated fish, see text for more details.
mlne is the pseudo-likelihood estimator of Wang (2001).
TempoFS is the moments-based estimator of Jorde and Ryman (2007).
ldne is the linkage-disequilibrium-based method of Waples and Do (2008).
Fc is the moments-based estimator of Nei and Tajima (1981).
Figure 3Annual estimates of Na or Naf (solid black line), Nb, and Nbf plotted by sample year for razorback sucker in Lake Mohave, Arizona and Nevada. Panel (A) is mlne estimates based on microsatellites, panel (B) ldne estimates based on microsatellites, and panel (C) is mlne based on mtDNA. The dashed line is harmonic mean Na calculated between sample years i and i + 1 (Ña(i, i+1)). Error bars are 95% CLs. The infinity symbol represents an estimate equal to infinity. Likewise, an error bar with an upward arrow represents an upper 95% CL equal to infinity.
Figure 4Deviations of observed and median Ñb/Na or Ñbf/Naf plotted by time. The dashed line indicates null expectation, that is, that observed and median values are identical. Two combined estimators (using the method of Waples and Do 2010, appendix A) are depicted (for simplicity), and both show significant departure from a random sequence of ratios across time (with 4 runs, 7 observations below and 7 above the median, P < 0.035 in both cases). Ratios greater than 1 were included runs tests, but are depicted on the figure at an arbitrary maximum value of 1.2 to simplify presentation. Observed values are always below the median prior to 2003, and nearly always above the median value later in the time series.