Analysis of microsatellite DNA resolves genetic structure and diversity of chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in California's Central Valley

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences

Volumn 57, Issue 5, 2000, Pages 915-927

  Banks, Michael A ^a   Rashbrook, Vanessa K ^a   Calavetta, Marco J ^a,b   Dean, Cheryl A ^a   Hedgecock, Dennis ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS   (United States)

^b Hitachi Genetic Systems   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

GENETIC STRUCTURE; GENETIC VARIATION; SALMONID;

CALIFORNIA; CENTRAL VALLEY; UNITED STATES;

ONCORHYNCHUS TSHAWYTSCHA; SALMONIDAE;

EID: 0033910611     PISSN: 0706652X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1139/cjfas-57-5-915     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Allendorf, F.W., and Phelps, S.R. 1981. Use of allelic frequencies to describe population structure. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 38: 1507-1514.
2. Banks, M.A., and Eichert, W. 2000. WHICHRUN (version 3.2): a computer program for population assignment of individuals based on multilocus genotype data. J. Hered. 91: 87-89.
3. Banks, M.A., Blouin, M.S., Baldwin, B.A., Rashbrook, V.K., Fitzgerald, H.A., Blankenship, S.M., and Hedgecock, D. 1999. Isolation and inheritance of novel microsatellites in chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). J. Hered. 90: 281-288.
4. Bartley, D., Gall, G.A.E., Bentley, B., Brodziak, J., Gomulkiewicz, R., and Mangel, M. 1992. Geographic variation in population genetic structure of chinook salmon from California and Oregon. Fish. Bull. U.S. 90: 77-100.
5. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 1998. A status review of the spring-run chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in the Sacramento River drainage. Candidate Species Status Rep. 98-01.
6. Campion, D.E., and Johnston, J.M. 1985. Electrophoretic evidence for admixture of native and nonnative rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri) in the Yakima River, Washington, (USA). Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 114: 782-793.
7. Cavalli-Sforza, L.L., and Edwards, A.W.F. 1967. Phylogenetic analysis: models and estimation procedures. Evolution, 32: 550-570.
8. Colson, I., and Goldstein, D.B. 1999. Evidence for complex mutations at microsatellite loci in Drosophila. 152: 617-627.
9. Cope, O.B., and Slater, D.W. 1957. Role of Coleman Hatchery in maintaining a king salmon run. U.S. Dep. Inter. Fish Wildl. Serv. Res. Rep. 47. pp. 1-22.
10. Estoup, A., Rousset, F., Michalakis, Y., Cornuet, J.-M., Adriamanga, M., and Guyomard, R. 1998. Comparative analysis of microsatellite and allozyme markers: a case study investigating microgeographic differentiation in brown trout (Salmo trutta). Mol. Ecol. 7: 339-353.
11. Felsenstein, J. 1993. PHYLIP (Phyologeny Inference Package), version 3.57c. Department of Genetics, University of Washington, Box 357360, Seattle, WA 98105, U.S.A.
12. Fisher, F.W. 1994. Past and present status of Central Valley chinook salmon. Conserv. Biol. 8: 870-873.
13. Fontaine, P.M., and Dodson, J.J. 1999. An analysis of the distribution of juvenile Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) in nature as a function of relatedness using microsatellites. Mol. Ecol. 8: 189-198.
14. Goodnight, K.F., and Queller, D.C. 1999. Computer software for performing likelihood tests of pedigree relationship using genetic markers. Mol. Ecol. 8: 1231-1234.
15. Healey, M.C. 1991. The life history of chinook salmon. In Pacific life histories. Edited by C. Groot and L. Margolis. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver, B.C. pp. 39-52.
16. Hedrick, P.W. 1999. Perspective: highly variable genetic loci and their interpretation in evolution and conservation. Evolution, 53: 313-318.
17. Hillis, D.M., and Bull, J.J. 1993. An empirical test of bootstrapping as a method for assessing confidence in phylogenetic analysis. Syst. Biol. 42: 182-192.
18. Kim, J.T., Parker, K.M., and Hedrick, P.W. 1999. MHC differentiation in Sacramento River chinook salmon. Genetics, 151: 1115-1122.
19. McConnell, S.K.J., Ruzzante, E.D., O'Reilly, P.T., Hamilton, L., and Wright, J.M. 1997. Microsatellite loci reveal highly significant genetic differentiation among Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) stocks from the east coast of Canada. Mol. Ecol. 6: 1075-1089.
20. Morris, D.B., Richard, K.R., and Wright, J.M. 1996. Microsatellites from rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and their use for genetic study of salmonids. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 53: 120-126.
21. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1994. Endangered and threatened species; status of Sacramento River winter-run chinook salmon. Fed. Register 59(No. 2): 440-450.
22. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1998. Endangered and threatened species; west coast chinook salmon; listing status change; proposed rule. Fed. Register 63(No. 45): 11482.
23. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1999. Endangered and threatened species; threatened status for two chinook salmon evolutionary significant units (ESUs) in California. Fed. Register 64(No. 179): 50394-50415.
24. Nehlsen, W. 1994. Salmon stocks at risk: beyond 214. Conserv. Biol. 8: 867-869.
25. Nei, M. 1972. Genetic distance between populations. Am. Nat. 106: 283-292.
26. Nei, M. 1987. Molecular evolutionary genetics. Columbia University Press, New York.
27. Nelson, R.J., and Beacham, T.D. 1999. Isolation and cross species amplification of microsatellite loci useful for study of Pacific salmon. Anim. Genet. 30: 228-229.
28. Nielsen, J.L., Tupper, D., and Thomas, W.K. 1994. Mitochondrial DNA polymorphism in unique runs of chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) from the Sacramento - San Joaquin River basin. Conserv. Biol. 8: 882-884.
29. Nielsen, E.E., Hansen, M.M., and Loeschcke, V. 1999. Genetic variation in time and space: microsatellite analysis of extinct and extant populations of Atlantic salmon. Evolution, 53: 261-268.
30. Olsen, J.B., Seeb, L.W., Bentzen, P., and Seeb, J. 1998. Genetic interpretation of broad-scale microsatellite polymorphism in odd-year pink salmon. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 127: 535-350.
31. O'Reilly, P.T., Herbinger, C., and Wright, J.M. 1998. Analysis of parentage determination in Atlantic salmon. Anim. Genet. 29: 363-370.
32. Paetkau, D., Waits, L., Clarkson, P., Craighead, L., and Strobeck, C. 1997. An empirical evaluation of genetic distance statistics using microsatellite data from bear (Ursidae) populations. Genetics, 147: 1943-1957.
33. Page, R.D.M. 1996. TREEVIEW: an application to display phylogenetic trees on personal computers. Comp. Appl. Biosci. 12: 357-358.
34. Raymond, M., and Rousset, F. 1995. GENEPOP (version 1.2): population genetics software for exact tests and ecumenicism. J. Hered. 86: 248-249.
35. Saitou, N., and Nei, M. 1987. The neighbor-joining method: a new method for reconstructing phylogenetic trees. Mol. Biol. Evol. 4: 406-425.
36. Scribner, K.T., Gust, J.R., and Fields, R.L. 1996. Isolation and characterization of novel salmon microsatellite loci: cross-species amplification and population genetic applications. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 53: 833-841.
37. Small, M.P., Beacham, T.D., Withler, R.E., and Nelson, R.J. 1998. Discriminating coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) populations within the Fraser River, British Columbia, using microsatellite DNA markers. Mol. Ecol. 7: 141-155.
38. Sneath, P.H.A., and Sokal, R.R. 1973. Numerical taxonomy. Freeman Press, San Francisco, Calif.
39. Tessier, N., and Bernatchez, L. 1999. Stability of population structure and genetic diversity across generations assessed by microsatellites among sympatric populations of landlocked Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.). Mol. Ecol. 8: 169-179.
40. Waples, R.S. 1995. Evolutionary significant units and the conservation of biological diversity under the Endangered Species Act. Am. Fish. Soc. Symp. 17: 8-27.
41. Waples, R.S., and Smouse, P.E. 1990. Gametic disequilibrium analysis as a means of identifying mixtures of salmon populations. Am. Fish. Soc. Symp. 7: 439-458.
42. Wright, J.M., and Bentzen, P. 1996. Microsatellites - genetic markers of the future. Rev. Fish Biol. Fish. 4: 384-388.
43. Yoshiyama, R.M., Gerstung, E.R., Fisher, F.W., and Moyle, P.B. 1996. Historical and present distribution of chinook salmon in the Central Valley drainage of California. Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: final report to Congress. In Assessments, commissioned reports, and background information. Center for Water and Wildlife Resources, University of California at Davis, Davis, Calif. pp. 309-362.
44. Yoshiyama, R.M., Fisher, F.W., and Moyle, P.B. 1998. Historical abundance and decline of chinook salmon in the Central Valley region of California. N. Am. J. Fish. Manage. 18: 487-521.