TY - JOUR
T1 - Genetic diversity maintained in comparison of captive-propagated and wild populations of lampsilis fasciola and ptychobranchus fasciolaris (Bivalvia: Unionidae)
AU - Vantassel, Nichelle M.
AU - Morris, Todd J.
AU - Wilson, Christopher G.
AU - Zanatta, David T.
N1 - Funding Information:
Stipend support for N.M.V. was in part provided by the Central Michigan University Earth and Ecosystem Science Ph.D. program. Funding for this project came from the Canadian Freshwater Species at Risk Research Network (SARNET) through Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (OMNRF) Fish Culture Section provided in-kind financial support for the captive-reared juveniles. Field and laboratory assistance was provided by Tyler Beyett and Jamie Bucholz (CMU), Kelly McNichols-O’Rourke and Meg Sheldon (DFO), and DFO OMNRF staff. Care of captive-reared mussels was provided by Angela Tooley and the staff at MNRF White Lake Fish Culture Station. Field collections were made under Fisheries and Oceans Canada Species at Risk permits 15-PCAA-00009 and 18-PCAA-00006 to T.J.M. The temporary housing of gravid females by the MNRF was done under Fisheries and Oceans Canada Species at Risk permit 15-PCAA-00040 to Kevin Loftus. This article is contribution No. 153 of the Central Michigan University Institute for Great Lakes Research.
Funding Information:
Stipend support for N.M.V. was in part provided by the Central Michigan University Earth and Ecosystem Science Ph.D. program. Funding for this project came from the Canadian Freshwater Species at Risk Research Network (SARNET) through Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (OMNRF) Fish Culture Section provided in-kind financial support for the captive-reared juveniles. Field and laboratory assistance was provided by Tyler Beyett and Jamie Bucholz (CMU), Kelly McNichols-O?Rourke and Meg Sheldon (DFO), and DFO OMNRF staff. Care of captive-reared mussels was provided by Angela Tooley and the staff at MNRF White Lake Fish Culture Station. Field collections were made under Fisheries and Oceans Canada Species at Risk permits 15-PCAA-00009 and 18-PCAA-00006 to T.J.M. The temporary housing of gravid females by the MNRF was done under Fisheries and Oceans Canada Species at Risk permit 15-PCAA-00040 to Kevin Loftus. This article is contribution No. 153 of the Central Michigan University Institute for Great Lakes Research.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021, Canadian Science Publishing. All rights reserved.
PY - 2021
Y1 - 2021
N2 - We compared the genetic diversity and structure of wild versus captive-propagated at-risk species of freshwater mussels in Canada, Lampsilis fasciola (wavy-rayed lampmussel; WRL) and Ptychobranchus fasciolaris (kidneyshell; KS), using microsatellite-generated genotypes. No significant differences were detected using Kruskal–Wallis tests that compared the genetic diversity metrics of wild and captive-propagated WRL (from 12 mothers) and KS (from seven mothers). After effective population size (Ne ) was estimated, considerable overlap was found in the estimated Ne between wild and captive populations of both species. Pairwise FST and Dest values among wild WRL, hatchery-raised WRL juveniles, and across different time periods (2008–2018) were generally low (FST = 0.007–0.043, Dest = 0.005–0.282). Pairwise FST and Dest for KS were not significant and low (0.012, 0.017). When comparing captive-reared offspring with the wild population, STRUCTURE analysis revealed strong support for a single genetic population. With at least seven females contributing to brood stock, genetic diversity was maintained. Further research is needed to assess the male contribution to each glochidial brood as well as the variability of genetic diversity in individual glochidial broods.
AB - We compared the genetic diversity and structure of wild versus captive-propagated at-risk species of freshwater mussels in Canada, Lampsilis fasciola (wavy-rayed lampmussel; WRL) and Ptychobranchus fasciolaris (kidneyshell; KS), using microsatellite-generated genotypes. No significant differences were detected using Kruskal–Wallis tests that compared the genetic diversity metrics of wild and captive-propagated WRL (from 12 mothers) and KS (from seven mothers). After effective population size (Ne ) was estimated, considerable overlap was found in the estimated Ne between wild and captive populations of both species. Pairwise FST and Dest values among wild WRL, hatchery-raised WRL juveniles, and across different time periods (2008–2018) were generally low (FST = 0.007–0.043, Dest = 0.005–0.282). Pairwise FST and Dest for KS were not significant and low (0.012, 0.017). When comparing captive-reared offspring with the wild population, STRUCTURE analysis revealed strong support for a single genetic population. With at least seven females contributing to brood stock, genetic diversity was maintained. Further research is needed to assess the male contribution to each glochidial brood as well as the variability of genetic diversity in individual glochidial broods.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85115968894&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1139/cjfas-2020-0373
DO - 10.1139/cjfas-2020-0373
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85115968894
SN - 0706-652X
VL - 78
SP - 1312
EP - 1320
JO - Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences
JF - Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences
IS - 9
ER -