1 / 10

A Brief Summary of the Final Report, February 2010 by

Genetic Assessment of Kern River Rainbow Trout. A Brief Summary of the Final Report, February 2010 by Bjorn Erickson, Molly Stephens and Bernie May Genomic Variation Laboratory University of California at Davis.

keisha
Download Presentation

A Brief Summary of the Final Report, February 2010 by

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. Genetic Assessment of Kern River Rainbow Trout A Brief Summary of the Final Report, February 2010 by Bjorn Erickson, Molly Stephens and Bernie May Genomic Variation Laboratory University of California at Davis

  2. Goal: to design and implement genetic markers that could identify samples of KRRT that had been the least affected by introduced rainbow trout strains. Charles B. Hudson painting from life of a male fish, 18.5 inches long, weighing 3.5 lbs, taken in Kern River, July 19, 1904.

  3. Native Strains: Kern River rainbow California golden Little Kern golden Non-native strains: Hatchery rainbow trout (reference strains) Rainbow Trout Strains Evaluated in the Study

  4. Genetic Markers • SNP (single nucleotide polymorphism) markers were well suited to the task • SNPs are diagnostic or nearly diagnostic for the different strains of interest • SNPs allow for accurate detection of mixing between different strains of trout

  5. Findings • 21 samples from Upper Kern analyzed • 5 reference samples analyzed • 3 are best examples of “pure” KRRT • 5 more also found to be “pure” KRRT, but further analysis needed

  6. 3 separate types of statistical analysis used • to be conservative in estimates of introgression (hybridization) • to avoid overestimating the prevalence of “pure” KRRT in our samples

  7. The 3 best examples of “pure” KRRT are: • High in the watershed • Separated from the main stem Kern River • Have no hatchery rainbow trout markers

  8. Further Analysis Needed! This study does not give any information about the genetic diversity or population structure of these populations.

  9. Further genetic work needed: • A complete evaluation of the conservation value of the “pure” populations of KRRT. * If genetic diversity is extremely low, there may be limited ability of a population to adapt to changing habitat conditions, and limited desirability as a source to be planted in other locations or as a broodstock.

  10. Further genetic work needed: 2. More thorough estimates of present-day gene-flow to understand the levels of mixing among populations *Necessary for making decisions for future management, especially involving translocation or broodstock development.

More Related