Conservation Genetics

, 9:531 | Cite as

Population structure and genetic diversity of black redhorse (Moxostoma duquesnei) in a highly fragmented watershed

  • Scott M. Reid
  • Chris C. Wilson
  • Nicholas E. Mandrak
  • Leon M. Carl
Research Article


Dams have the potential to affect population size and connectivity, reduce genetic diversity, and increase genetic differences among isolated riverine fish populations. Previous research has reported adverse effects on the distribution and demographics of black redhorse (Moxostoma duquesnei), a threatened fish species in Canada. However, effects on genetic diversity and population structure are unknown. We used microsatellite DNA markers to assess the number of genetic populations in the Grand River (Ontario) and to test whether dams have resulted in a loss of genetic diversity and increased genetic differentiation among populations. Three hundred and seventy-seven individuals from eight Grand River sites were genotyped at eight microsatellite loci. Measures of genetic diversity were moderately high and not significantly different among populations; strong evidence of recent population bottlenecks was not detected. Pairwise FST and exact tests identified weak (global FST =  0.011) but statistically significant population structure, although little population structuring was detected using either genetic distances or an individual-based clustering method. Neither geographic distance nor the number of intervening dams were correlated with pairwise differences among populations. Tests for regional equilibrium indicate that Grand River populations were either in equilibrium between gene flow and genetic drift or that gene flow is more influential than drift. While studies on other species have identified strong dam-related effects on genetic diversity and population structure, this study suggests that barrier permeability, river fragment length and the ecological characteristics of affected species can counterbalance dam-related effects.


Dams Habitat fragmentation Moxostoma Genetic diversity Population structure 



The study was supported by Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Endangered Species Recovery Fund (WWF Canada and Environment Canada), Federal Interdepartmental Recovery Fund, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, and Industrial NSERC and Ontario Graduate scholarships awarded to S. Reid. Field sampling was assisted by P. Addison, J. Barnucz, A. Edwards, H. Gignac, N. Koutrilides and J. MacLeod. D. Gillette provided valuable assistance during laboratory data collection. Earlier versions of the manuscript were improved by comments provided by A. Dextrase and two anonymous reviewers.


  1. Allendorf FW (1986) Genetic drift and the loss of alleles versus heterozygosity. Zoo Biol 5:181–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allendorf FW, Ryman N (2002) The role of genetics in PVA. In: Beissinger SR, McCullough DR (eds) Population viability analysis. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 50–85Google Scholar
  3. Belkhir K, Castric V, Bonhomme F (2002) IDENTIX, a software to test for relatedness in a population using permutation methods. Mol Ecol Notes 2:611–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Biotactic (2006) Fish movement at the Springbank Dam during open flow conditions: pre-construction baseline monitoring. Prepared for the City of London and the Upper Thames River Conservation AuthorityGoogle Scholar
  5. Bohonak AJ (2002) IBD (Isolation By Distance): a program for analysis of distance. J Hered 93:153–154PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bowman ML (1970) Life history of the black redhorse, Moxostoma duquesnei (Leseur), in Missouri. Trans Am Fish Soc 99:546–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bunt CM, van Poorten BT, Wong L (2001) Denil fishway utilization patterns and passage of several warmwater species relative to seasonal, thermal and hydraulic dynamics. Ecol Freshwater Fish 10:212–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Castric V, Bernatchez L (2004) Individual assignment tests reveals differential restriction to dispersal between salmonids despite no increase of genetic distances with distance. Mol Ecol 13:1299–1312PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cavalli-Sforza LL, Edwards WWF (1967) Phylogenetic analysis: models and estimation procedures. Evolution 32:550–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ciofi C, Beaumnont MA, Swingland IR, Bruford MW (1999) Genetic divergence and units for conservation in the Komodo dragon Varanus komodoensis. Proc Royal Soc London B-Biol Sci 266:2269–2274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) (2004) COSEWICs assessment process and criteria. Available from
  12. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) (2005) COSEWIC assessment and status update report on the black redhorse Moxostoma duquesnei in Canada. Available from
  13. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) (2006) Canadian species at risk. Available from
  14. Cornuet JM, Luikart G (1996) Description and power analysis of two tests for detecting recent population bottlenecks from allele frequency data. Genetics 144:2001–2014PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Crispo E, Hendry AP (2005) Does time since colonization influence isolation by distance? A meta-analysis. Conserv Genet 6:665–682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Debinski DM, Holt RD (2000) Review: a survey and overview of habitat fragmentation experiments. Conserv Biol 14:342–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Denier K, Garza JC, Coey R, Gorman DJ (2007) Population structure and genetic diversity of trout (Onchorynchus mykiss) above and below natural and man-made barriers in the Russian River, California. Conserv Genet 8:437–454 DOI 10.1007/s10592-006-9183-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. DeWoody JA, Avise JC (2000) Microsatellite variation in marine, freshwater and anadromous fishes compared to other animals. J Fish Biol 56:461–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Eley R, Randolph J, Carroll J (1981) A comparison of pre- and post-impoundment fish populations in the Mountain Fork River in southwestern Oklahoma. Proc Oklahoma Acad Sci 61:7–14Google Scholar
  20. Evanno G, Regault S, Goudet J (2005) Detecting the number of clusters of individuals using the software STRUCTURE: a simulation study. Mol Ecol 14:2611–2620PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ewers RM, Didham RK (2006) Confounding factors in the detection of species responses to habitat fragmentation. Biol Rev 81:117–142PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Frankham R (1996) Relationship of genetic variation to population size in wildlife. Conserv Biol 10:1500–1508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Frankham R, Ballou JD, Brisoce DA (2002) Introduction to conservation genetics. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  24. Gaggiotti OE, Lange O, Rassmann K, Glidden C (1999) A comparison of two indirect methods for estimating gene flow using microsatellite data. Mol Ecol 8:1513–1520PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Garza JC, Williamson EG (2001) Detection of reduction in population size using data from microsatellite loci. Mol Ecol 10:305–318PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Goudet J (2001) FSTAT, a program to estimate and test gene diversities and fixation indices (version 2.9.3). Available from
  27. Hanfling B, Weetman D (2006) Concordant genetic estimators of migration reveal anthropogenically enhanced source-sink population structure in the river sculpin, Cottus gobio. Genetics 173:1487–1501PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hedrick PW (2000) Genetics of populations, 2nd edn. Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Sudbury, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  29. Heggenes J, Roed KH (2006) Do dams increase genetic diversity in brown trout (Salmo trutta)? Microgeographic differentiation in a fragmented river. Ecol Freshwater Fish 15:366–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hernandez-Martich JD, Smith MH (1997) Downstream geneflow and genetic structure of Gambusia holbrooki (eastern mosquitofish) populations. Heredity 79:295–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hildebrand RH (2003) The roles of carrying capacity, immigration and population synchrony on persistence of stream resident cutthroat trout. Biol Conserv 110:257–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hutchinson DW, Templeton AR (1999) Correlation of pairwise genetic and geographic distance measures: inferring the relative influences of gene flow and drift on the distribution of genetic variability. Evolution 53:1898–1914CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jager HI (2006) Chutes and ladders and other game we play with rivers. I. Simulated effects of upstream passage on white sturgeon. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 63:165–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jager HI, Chandler JA, Lepla KB, Van Winkle W (2001) A theoretical study of river fragmentation by dams and its effects on white sturgeon populations. Environ Biol Fish 60:347–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jenkins RE, Burkhead NM (1993) Freshwater fishes of Virginia. American Fisheries Society, BethesdaGoogle Scholar
  36. Knaepkens G, Bruyndancx L, Eens M (2004) Assessment of residency and movement of the endangered bullhead (Cottus gobio) in two Flemish rivers. Ecol Freshwater Fish 13:317–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kott E, Jenkins RE, Humphreys G (1979) Recent collections of the black redhorse, Moxostoma duquesnei, from Ontario. Can Field Nat 93:63–66Google Scholar
  38. Kott E, Rathmann N (1985) Distribution and fecundity of black redhorse sucker (Moxostoma duquesnei) in the upper Grand River basin. Wilfred Laurier University Research Paper No. 8575Google Scholar
  39. Kwak TJ, Skelly TM (1992) Spawning habitat, behaviour and morphology as isolating mechanisms of the golden redhorse, Moxostom erythrurum, and the black redhorse, M. duquesnel, two synoptic fishes. Environ Biol Fish 34: 1027–1137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Latch EK, Dharmarajan G, Glaubitz JC, Rhodes OE Jr (2006) Relative performance of Bayesian clustering software for inferring population substructure and individual assignment at low levels of population differentiation. Conserv Genet 7:295–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lippe C, Dumont P, Bernatchez L (2004) Isolation and identification of 21 microsatellite loci in copper redhorse (Moxostoma hubbsi; Catostomidae) and their variability in other catostomids. Mol Ecol Notes 4:638–641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lippe C, Dumont P, Bernatchez L (2006) High genetic diversity and no inbreeding in the endangered copper redhorse, Moxostoma hubbsi (Catostomidae, Pisces): the positive sides of a long generation time. Mol Ecol 15:1769–1780PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Meldgaard T, Nielson EE, Loeschcke V (2003) Fragmentation by weirs in a riverine system: a study of genetic variation in time and space among populations of European grayling (Thymallus thymallus) in a Danish river system. Conserv Genet 4:735–747CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. NatureServe (2005) NatureServe explorer: an online encyclopedia of life. Version 3.0. Available for the Internet URL
  45. Neraas LP, Spruell P (2001) Fragmentation of riverine systems: the genetic effects of dams on bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) in the Clark Fork River system. Mol Ecol 10:1153–1164PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Page RDM (1996) TREEVIEW: an application to display phylogenetic trees on personal computers. Comp Appl Biosci 12: 357–358PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Park SDE (2001) Trypanotolerance in West African cattle and the population genetic effects of selection. Dissertation, University of DublinGoogle Scholar
  48. Patriarche MH, Campbell RS (1958) The development of the fish population in a new flood control reservoir in Missouri, 1948 to 1954. Trans Am Fish Soc 87:240–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Peakall R, Smouse PE (2006) GENALEX 6: genetic analysis in Excel. Population genetic software for teaching and research. Mol Ecol Notes 6: 288–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Pearse DE, Crandall KA (2004) Beyond FST: analysis of population genetic data for conservation. Conserv Genet 5:585–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Piry S, Luikart G, Cornuet J (1999) BOTTLENECK: a computer program for detecting recent reductions in effective population size using allele frequency data. J Hered 90:502–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Poff NL, Hart DD (2002) How dams vary and why it matters for the emerging science of dam removal. Bioscience 52:659–668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Portt C, Coker G, Barrett K (2006) Recovery strategy for fish species at risk in the Grand River in Canada [Proposed]. Species at risk act recovery strategy series. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, OttawaGoogle Scholar
  54. Pritchard JK, Stephens M, Donnelly P (2000) Inference of population structure from multilocis genotype data. Genetics 155:945–959PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Queller DC, Goodnight KF (1989) Estimating relatedness using genetic markers. Evolution 43:258–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Quinn JW, Kwak TJ (2003) Fish assemblage change in an Ozark River after impoundment: a long-term perspective. Trans Am Fish Soc 132:110–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Raymond M, Rousset F (1995) GENEPOP (version 1.2): population genetics software for exact test and ecumenicism. J Hered 86:248–249Google Scholar
  58. Reid SM (2006) Timing and characteristics of Moxostoma spawning runs in three Great Lakes rivers. J Freshwater Ecol 21:249–258Google Scholar
  59. Reid SM, Carl LM, Wilson CC, Mandrak NE (2006) Influence of dams and habitat condition on Moxostoma species distribution in the Grand River, Ontario. Environ Biol Fish (in press). DOI 10.1007/s10641-006-9179-0Google Scholar
  60. Rousset F (1997) Genetic differentiation and estimation of gene flow from F-statistics under isolation by distance. Genetics 145:1219–1228PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Ruzzante DE (1997) A comparison of several measures of genetic distance and population structure with microsatellite data: bias and sampling bias. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 55:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Ryman N, Palm S, André C, Carvalho GR, Dahlgren TG, Jorde PE, Laikre L, Larsson L (2006) Power for detecting genetic divergence: differences between statistical methods and marker loci. Mol Ecol 15:231–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Santucci VJ, Gephard SR, Pescitelli SM (2005) Effects of multiple low-head dams on fish, macroinvertebrates, habitat, and water quality in the Fox River, Illinois. N Am J Fish Manage 25:975–992CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Slatkin M (1993) Isolation by distance in equilibrium and non-equilibrium populations. Evolution 47:264–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Smith CG (1977) The biology of three species of Moxostoma (Pisces: Catostomidae) in Clear Creek, Hocking and Fairfield Counties, Ohio, with emphasis on the golden redhorse (Rafinesque). Dissertation, Ohio State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  66. Southam CF, Mills BN, Moultan RJ, Brown DW (1999) The potential impact of climate change in Ontario’s Grand River basin: water supply and demand issues. Can Wat Res J 24:307–330Google Scholar
  67. Swink WD, Jacobs KE (1983) Influence of a Kentucky flood-control reservoir on the tailwater and headwater fish populations. N Am J Fish Manage 3:197–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Takezaki N, Nei M (1996) Genetic distance and reconstruction of phylogenetic trees from microsatellite DNA. Genetics 144:389–399PubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Taylor EB, Stamford MD, Baxter JS (2003) Population subdivision in westslope cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki lewisi) at the northern periphery of its range: evolutionary inferences and conservation implications. Mol Ecol 12:2609–2622PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Thames River Recovery Team (TRRT) (2005) Recovery strategy for the Thames River Watershed, Ontario [Proposed] Species at risk act recovery strategy series. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, OttawaGoogle Scholar
  71. Tranah GJ, Agresti JJ, May B (2001) New microsatellite loci for suckers (Catostomidae): primer homology in Catostomus, Chasmistes and Deltistes. Mol Ecol Notes 1:55–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Vallone PM, Butler JM (2004) AutoDimer: a screening tool for primer-dimer and hairpin structures. BioTechniques 37:226–231PubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. Van Oosterhout C, Hutchinson WF, Wills DPM, Shipley P (2004) MICRO-CHECKER: software for identifying and correcting genotyping errors in microsatellite data. Mol Ecol Notes 4:535–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Waples RS (2002) Definition and estimation of effective population size in the conservation of endangered species. In: Beissinger SR, McCullough DR (eds) Population viability analysis. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 147–168Google Scholar
  75. Waples RS, Gaggiotti O (2006) What is a population? An empirical evaluation of some genetic methods for identifying the number of gene pools and their degree of connectivity. Mol Ecol 15:1419–1439PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Weir BS, Cockerham CC (1984) Estimating F-statistics for the analysis of population structure. Evolution 38:1358–1370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Whitehead A, Anderson SL, Kuivila KM, Roach JL, May B (2003) Genetic variation among interconnected populations of Catostomus occidentalis: implications for distinguishing impacts of contaminants from biogeographic structuring. Mol Ecol 12:2817–2833PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Whiteley AR, Spruell P, Allendorf FW (2004) Ecological and life history characteristics predict population genetic divergence of two salmonids in the same landscape. Mol Ecol 13:3675–3688PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Yamamoto S, Morita K, Koizumi I, Maekawa K (2004) Genetic differentiation of white-spotted charr (Salvelinus leucomaenis) populations after habitat fragmentation: spatial-temporal changes in gene frequencies. Conserv Genet 5:529–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Scott M. Reid
    • 1
  • Chris C. Wilson
    • 2
  • Nicholas E. Mandrak
    • 3
  • Leon M. Carl
    • 4
  1. 1.Watershed Science CentreTrent UniversityPeterboroughCanada
  2. 2.Aquatic Research Section, Ontario Ministry of Natural ResourcesTrent UniversityPeterboroughCanada
  3. 3.Great Lakes Laboratory for Fisheries and Aquatic SciencesFisheries and Oceans CanadaBurlingtonCanada
  4. 4.Great Lakes Science CenterUnited States Geological SurveyAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations