Conservation Genetics

, Volume 17, Issue 6, pp 1393–1404 | Cite as

Genetic diversity and divergence in the fountain darter (Etheostoma fonticola): implications for conservation of an endangered species

  • Jeffrey B. Olsen
  • Andrew P. Kinziger
  • John K. Wenburg
  • Cara J. Lewis
  • Catherine T. Phillips
  • Kenneth G. Ostrand
Research Article


The endangered fountain darter Etheostoma fonticola is found only in the Comal and San Marcos rivers in the Guadalupe River basin in central Texas, USA. Comal River fountain darters were believed to be extirpated following a severe drought in the 1950s and were reintroduced in the early 1970s using 457 darters from the San Marcos River. In this study we used 23 microsatellite loci to describe and evaluate the genetic diversity, population structure and effective population size (N e) of fountain darters. We also evaluated the genetic effect of the Comal River reintroduction and the influence of low-head dams (dams) on dispersal in both rivers. Bayesian analysis of individual genotypes and Analysis of Molecular Variation supported two distinct populations concordant with the two rivers. Estimates of N e were much smaller (<10 %) than census size (N c) in both rivers but did not indicate the populations are at risk of an immediate and rapid loss of genetic diversity. Coalescent-based estimates of the genetically effective number of founders (Nf) for the Comal River averaged about 49 darters and, together with the indices of genetic diversity and the bottleneck test (heterozygosity excess) results, were consistent with a founder event following the reintroduction in the Comal River. Finally, our results regarding the influence of dams on fountain darter dispersal were equivocal and did not support a conclusion. We recommend this issue be examined further as part of the fountain darter recovery program.


Fountain darter Genetic diversity Endangered species Reintroduction Effective founder number 



This project was partially funded by the Edwards Aquifer Recovery Implementation Program. Additional thanks to anonymous for valuable suggestions regarding the composition of this manuscript. The findings and conclusions in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Supplementary material

10592_2016_869_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (35 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 34 kb)
10592_2016_869_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (50 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (PDF 50 kb)
10592_2016_869_MOESM3_ESM.pdf (116 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (PDF 116 kb)


  1. Anderson EC, Slatkin M (2007) Estimation of the number of individuals founding colonized populations. Evolution 61(4):972–983CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Austin J, Jelks H, Tate B, Johnson A, Jordan F (2011) Population genetic structure and conservation genetics of threatened Okaloosa darters (Etheostoma okaloosae). Conserv Genet 12:981–989CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baxter RM (1977) Environmental effects of dams and impoundments. Ann R Ecol Syst 8:255–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beneteau C, Mandrak N, Heath D (2009) The effects of river barriers and range expansion of the population genetic structure and stability in Greenside Darter (Etheostoma blennioides) populations. Conserv Genet 10:477–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brune GM (2002) Springs of Texas. Texas A&M University Press, College StationGoogle Scholar
  6. Cornuet JM, Luikart G (1996) Description and power analysis of two tests for detecting recent population bottlenecks from allele frequency data. Genetics 144:2001–2014PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Dammeyer NT, Phillips CT, Bonner TH (2013) Site fidelity and movement of Etheostoma fonticola with implications to endangered species management. Trans Am Fish Soc 142:1049–1057CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Do C, Waples RS, Peel D, Macbeth GM, Tillett BJ, Ovenden JR (2014) NEESTIMATOR v2: re-implementation of software for the estimation of contemporary effective population size (Ne) from genetic data. Mol Ecol Res 14:209–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [ESA] Endangered Species Act of 1973, Pub. L. No. 93- 205, 87 Stat. 884 (Dec. 28, 1973)Google Scholar
  10. Excoffier L, Laval G, Schneider S (2005) Arlequin ver. 3.0: An integrated software package for population genetics data analysis. Evol Bioinform Online 1:47–50Google Scholar
  11. Fitzpatrick SW, Crockett H, Funk WC (2014) Water availability strongly impacts population genetic patterns of an imperiled Great Plains endemic fish. Conserv Genet 15:771–788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fluker BL, Kuhajda BR, Lang NJ, Harris PM (2010) Low genetic diversity and small long-term population sizes in the spring endemic watercress darter, Etheostoma nuchale. Conserv Genet 11:2267–2279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Frankham R (1995) Effective population size/adult population ratios in wildlife: a review. Genet Res 66:95–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Frankham R, Ballou JD, Briscoe DA (2002) Introduction to conservation genetics. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Goudet J (2001) FSTAT, a program to estimate and test gene diversities and fixation indices (version 2.9.3).
  16. Haponski AE, Marth TA, Stepien CA (2007) Genetic divergence across a low-head dam: a preliminary analysis using logperch and greenside darters. J Great Lakes Res 33(SI2):117–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Haponski AE, Bollin TL, Jedlicka MA, Stepien CA (2009) Landscape genetic patterns of the rainbow darter Etheostoma caeruleum: a catchment analysis of mitochondrial DNA sequences and nuclear microsatellites. J Fish Biol 75:2244–2268CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Hauser L, Adcock GJ, Smith PJ, Bernal Ramírez JH, Carvalho GR (2002) Loss of microsatellite diversity and low effective population size in an overexploited population of New Zealand snapper (Pagrus auratus). Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99:11742–11747CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Hundertmark K, Van Daele L (2010) Founder effect and bottleneck signatures in an introduced, insular population of elk. Conserv Genet 11:139–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jarne P, Lagoda JL (1996) Microsatellites, from molecules to populations and back. Trends Ecol Evol 11:424–429CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Kalinowski ST (2005) HP-RARE 1.0: a computer program for performing rarefaction on measures of allelic richness. Mol Ecol Notes 5:187–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kern EW, Hotchkiss RH, Ames DP (2015) Introducing a low-head dam fatality database and internet information portal. JAWRA 51(5):1453–1459Google Scholar
  23. Kinziger AP, Nakamoto RJ, Anderson EC, Harvey BC (2011) Small founding number and low genetic diversity in an introduced species exhibiting limited invasion success (speckled dace, Rhinichthys osculus). Ecol Evol 1:73–84CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Leberg PL (1990) Influence of genetic variability on population growth: implications for conservation. J Fish Biol 37(suppl A):193–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lessard JL, Hayes DB (2003) Effects of elevated water temperature on fish and macroinvertebrate communities below small dams. River Res Appl 19:721–732CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ligon FK, Dietrich WE, Trush WJ (1995) Downstream ecological effects of dams. Bioscience 45:183–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Linam GW, Mayes KB, Saunders KS (1993) Habitat utilization and population size estimate of fountain darters Etheostoma fonticola in the Comal River, Texas. Texas J Sci 45:341–348Google Scholar
  28. Lowe WH, Allendorf FW (2010) What can genetics tell us about population connectivity? Mol Ecol 19:3038–3051CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. McCraney WT, Goldsmith G, Jacobs DK, Kinziger AP (2010) Rampant drift in artificially fragmented populations of the endangered tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi). Mol Ecol 19:3315–3327CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Peery MZ, Kirby R, Reid BN, Stoelting R, Doucet-Bëer E, Robinson S, Vásquez-Carrillo C, Pauli JN, Palsbøll PJ (2012) Reliability of genetic bottleneck tests for detecting recent population declines. Mol Ecol 21:3403–3418CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Pritchard JK, Stephans M, Donnelly P (2000) Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data. Genetics 155:945–959PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. Rice WR (1989) Analyzing tables of statistical tests. Evol 43:223–225Google Scholar
  33. Robinson J, Simmons J, Williams A, Moyer G (2013) Population structure and genetic diversity in the endangered bluemask darter (Etheostoma akatulo). Conserv Genet 14:79–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rosenberg NA (2004) Distruct: a program for the graphical display of population structure. Mol Ecol Notes 4:137–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rousset F (2008) Genepop ‘007: a complete reimplementation of the Genepop software for Windows and Linux. Mol Ecol Res 8:103–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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 Manag 25:975–992CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schenck JR, Whiteside BG (1976) Distribution, habitat preference, and population size estimate of Etheostoma fonticola. Copeia 4:697–703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schwartz MK, Luikart G, Waples RS (2007) Genetic monitoring as a promising tool for conservation and management. Trends Ecol Evol 22:25–33CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Sterling K, Reed D, Noonan B, Warren M Jr (2012) Genetic effects of habitat fragmentation and population isolation on Etheostoma raneyi (Percidae). Conserv Genet 13:859–872CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Stockwell CA, Vinyard GL (2000) Life history variation in recently established populations of western mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis). West N Am Nat 60:273–280Google Scholar
  41. Tiemann JS, Gillette DP, Wildhaber ML, Edds DR (2004) Effects of lowhead dams on riffle-dwelling fishes and macroinvertebrates in a Midwestern river. Trans Am Fish Soc 133:705–717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. US Fish and Wildlife Service (1996) San Marcos and Comal springs and associated aquatic ecosystems (Revised) recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, NM. Accessed 17 Dec 2015
  43. Vähä J, Erkinaro J, Niemela E, Primmer CR (2007) Life-history and habitat features influence the within-river genetic structure of Atlantic salmon. Mol Ecol 16:2638–2654CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Waples RS (2005) Genetic estimates of contemporary effective population size: to what time periods do the estimates apply? Mol Ecol 14:3335–3352CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Weir BS, Cockerham CC (1984) Estimating F-statistics for the analysis of population structure. Evol 38:1358–1370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wofford JEB, Gresswell RE, Banks MA (2005) Influence of barriers to movement on within-watershed genetic variation of coastal cutthroat trout. Ecol Appl 15:628–637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wright S (1943) Isolation by distance. Genetics 28:114–138PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht (outside the USA) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jeffrey B. Olsen
    • 1
  • Andrew P. Kinziger
    • 2
  • John K. Wenburg
    • 1
  • Cara J. Lewis
    • 1
  • Catherine T. Phillips
    • 3
  • Kenneth G. Ostrand
    • 4
  1. 1.Conservation Genetics LaboratoryU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceAnchorageUSA
  2. 2.Department of Fisheries BiologyHumboldt State UniversityArcataUSA
  3. 3.Panama City Fish and Wildlife Conservation OfficeU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServicePanama CityUSA
  4. 4.U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceSan Marcos Aquatic Resources CenterSan MarcosUSA

Personalised recommendations