1 / 27

Morphometric variation in June sucker brood stock

Morphometric variation in June sucker brood stock. Eric Mattson, Jeff Wesner, and Mark Belk Department of Biology Brigham Young University. Background. http://www.junesuckerrecovery.org/abou.html. June sucker ( Chasmistes liorus ) Federally endangered Only occurs in Utah Lake

hilda
Download Presentation

Morphometric variation in June sucker brood stock

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Morphometric variation in June sucker brood stock Eric Mattson, Jeff Wesner, and Mark Belk Department of Biology Brigham Young University

  2. Background http://www.junesuckerrecovery.org/abou.html June sucker (Chasmistesliorus) Federally endangered Only occurs in Utah Lake One of two native suckers in Utah Lake (June and Utah sucker) Focus of ongoing recovery: Habitat enhancement Supplementation through stocking

  3. Background http://www.junesuckerrecovery.org/abou.html June sucker (Chasmistesliorus) Federally endangered Only occurs in Utah Lake One of two native suckers in Utah Lake (June and Utah sucker) Focus of ongoing recovery: Habitat enhancement Supplementation through stocking

  4. Objectives Describe distinct morphology between June and Utah suckers Compare morphology and survival among captive brood stocks Which brood stocks best represent June sucker morphotypes?

  5. June and Utah suckers are distinguished by mouth shape Morphology Utah sucker June sucker

  6. June and Utah suckers are distinguished by mouth shape Wide gap Thin lip Wide mouth Morphology Narrow gap Thick lip Narrow mouth Utah sucker June sucker

  7. Morphology varies widely, but is also heritable (Belk and Schaalje 2010) Wild June Wild Utah Wild June x x x Wild Utah Wild June Wild Utah Morphology Offspring Offspring Offspring Compare shape using geometric morphometrics

  8. Significant differences in shape among pure June sucker, pure Utah sucker, and hybrids Wild June Wild Utah Wild June x x x Wild Utah Wild June Wild Utah Morphology J x J J x J J x U Offspring Offspring Offspring U x U U x U Compare shape using geometric morphometrics Belk and Schaalje 2010

  9. Significant differences in shape among pure June sucker, pure Utah sucker, and hybrids Wild June Wild Utah Wild June x x x Wild Utah Wild June Wild Utah Morphology 2006, Hatchery brood stock J x J J x J J x U Offspring Offspring Offspring 2006, Strawberry Res 2004, Utah Lake U x U U x U Compare shape using geometric morphometrics Belk and Schaalje 2010

  10. Significant differences in shape among pure June sucker, pure Utah sucker, and hybrids Wild June Wild Utah Wild June x x x Wild Utah Wild June Wild Utah Morphology Captive June sucker brood stock J x J J x J J x U Offspring Offspring Offspring U x U U x U Compare shape using geometric morphometrics Belk and Schaalje 2010

  11. Significant differences in shape among pure June sucker, pure Utah sucker, and hybrids Wild June Wild Utah Wild June x x x Wild Utah Wild June Wild Utah Morphology Captive June sucker brood stock J x J J x J J x U Offspring Offspring Offspring Average of multiple genetically distinct brood lots GOAL: Describe shape variation across all 22 lots U x U U x U Compare shape using geometric morphometrics Belk and Schaalje 2010

  12. Collected larvae from Fisheries Experiment Station Raised juveniles from 20/22 brood lots (3 cages per brood lot, 30 fish per cage)) Mesocosms in Utah Lake (natural environment) July-Sept 2010/2011, larval to juvenile development 2010 – 15 lots 2011 – 5 lots Methods

  13. Measured survival and growth Used geometric morphometrics on landmarked fish to characterize shape variation of mouth and head Methods

  14. p < 0.0001 Survival

  15. Growth - Length

  16. Growth - Weight

  17. 2010 lots 2011 lots June sucker (Lake) Utah sucker (Lake) Morphology

  18. “June” morphotype “hybrid” morphotype “Utah” morphotype June sucker (Lake) Utah sucker (Lake) Morphology

  19. “June” morphotype “hybrid” morphotype “Utah” morphotype June sucker (Lake) Utah sucker (Lake) Morphology

  20. “June” morphotype “hybrid” morphotype “Utah” morphotype June sucker (Lake) Utah sucker (Lake) Morphology

  21. “June” morphotype “hybrid” morphotype “Utah” morphotype June sucker (Lake) Utah sucker (Lake) Morphology

  22. “June” morphotype “hybrid” morphotype “Utah” morphotype June sucker (Lake) Utah sucker (Lake) Morphology

  23. “June” morphotype “hybrid” morphotype “Utah” morphotype Growth

  24. “June” morphotype “hybrid” morphotype “Utah” morphotype Survival a Utah phenotype + low survival a,b b

  25. “June” morphotype “hybrid” morphotype “Utah” morphotype Survival a Utah phenotype + low survival a,b b

  26. Conclusions Survival and morphology vary significantly among June sucker brood lots, indicating heritable differences among lots Observed a range of shape variation among lots from “June” to “Utah” morphotypes Some brood lots have low survival and exhibit “Utah” sucker morphotypes. Should we stock these lots? Human driven habitat loss in habitat in Utah Lake may encourage hybridization between June and Utah sucker? (sensuVonlanthen et al. Nature 2012 – similar result with Whitefish).

  27. Acknowledgements June Sucker Recovery Program Brittany Gale, Matthew Terry, Anthony de Angelo, Eric Billman, Ryan Quinton, Veronica Sivo, Brent Hutchinson, Mason Segura, Doug Routledge, Brian Hale

More Related