Morphological Variation Among Populations of the Federally Endangered Duskytail Darter, Etheostoma...
-
Upload
felicity-logan -
Category
Documents
-
view
217 -
download
0
Transcript of Morphological Variation Among Populations of the Federally Endangered Duskytail Darter, Etheostoma...
Morphological Variation Among Populations of the Federally Endangered Duskytail Darter,
Etheostoma (Catonotus) percnurum
Rebecca E. Blanton1, Robert E. Jenkins2, and Henry L. Bart, Jr.1
1Dept. Ecology and Evolutionary Biology,
Tulane University, New Orleans, LA2Dept. Biology, Roanoke College, Salem, VA
Taxonomic History
• Formerly Etheostoma flabellare, Fantail Darter– First recognized as distinct species
• R. E. Jenkins 1976
– Diagnosed and described by Jenkins in 1994 • Freshwater Fishes of Virginia (Jenkins and Burkhead 1994)
– E. percnurum – Duskytail Darter
• Reduced caudal barring relative to other closely related taxa
E. percnurum E. flabellare
Classification: Catonotus
E. squamiceps group “spottails” 10
spp.
E. virgatum group “barcheeks”
7 spp.
E. flabellare group “fantails” 3
spp.
Egg clustering Female with broad, flat, non-bifurcate genital papilla
3 black spots on caudal peduncle
“Egg Mimics” pronounced on second dorsal
Female inverted for entire spawning event
Nape, prepectoral area unscaled
Enlarged golden knobs
(egg mimics) on first dorsal
Bar pattern (egg mimics) on cheek
Blue, red in male fins
Distribution
Modified from Jenkins and Burkhead 1994 = historically extirpated population
Morphological Variation
• Noted by Jenkins (Jenkins and Burkhead 1994)
– Differences in squamation and color • Substantial between Copper Cr. and others
• Examined further by Eisenhour and Burr (2000)– Found differences in:
• squamation and shape• egg and ova counts• nest size preference
– Hypothesized Big South Fork population was independent evolutionary unit
Question
• Noted morphological variation along with high degree of isolation of populations– Suggests each is likely on its own evolutionary
trajectory
• Are disjunct populations morphologically diagnosable, warranting species-level recognition??
Objectives
• Examine morphological variation:– Determine taxonomic status of each population
– Describe species that warrant recognition
– Address conservation issues that may result from recognition of additional taxa
Methods
Methods
• Specimens – Borrowed from museums and universities
• Variation examined using:– Meristics– Morphometrics – Pigmentation
• Intra and Inter-population variation
Methods
• MERISTICS:– 26 counts
• Largely followed Hubbs and Lagler (1958), Page (1983), and Jenkins and Burkhead (1994)
– 194 specimens examined from 6 populations and 2 drainages
• Males and females > 30 mm SL
– Tested for sexual dimorphism• Males and females combined
Methods
• MERISTIC DATA ANALYSIS:– Univariate: Frequency distributions
– Multivariate: PCA (SYSTAT 5.2.1)• 16 of 26 variables used for all individuals• Factor scores plotted in Cricket Graph III• Variables with component loadings >.50 were considered
most important
Methods
• MORPHOMETRICS– Comparisons of body shape based on:
• Truss protocol (Bookstein et al., 1985) using 19 interlandmark distances
• 12 additional length/depth measurements (Hubbs and Lagler 1958)
E. percnurum_Copper Cr.
Methods
• MORPHOMETRIC ANALYSIS– Multivariate sheared PCA (Swofford; SAS 8.2)
• 12 variables and 123 individuals
– Univariate comparisons• Measurements standardized with Standard Length
– Males and females analyzed separately • Nuptial and non-nuptial males examined separately
– Included individuals > 35mm SL
Methods • PIGMENTATION:
– Limited data due to lack of nuptial and live individuals– Data examined for 4 pigmentation variables
• Jenkins previously examined other color and pigmentation
characters of nuptial males (Jenkins and Burkhead 1994)
• ANALYSIS – Univariate (frequency distributions, means)
– Descriptive comparisons
Results
MERISTICS
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
PC 1
Copper Creek
Little River
Abrams Creek
South Fork Holston River
Citico Creek
Big South Fork
Copper Cr.
Citico Cr.
Little R.
Big SouthFork
AbramsCr.
South ForkHolston R.
PC
2PCA: Meristics
Fewer:Pored Lateral LineBelly ScalesHigher:Caudal Fin Rays
Higher:Transverse ScalesCaudal Peduncle ScalesScales Along D1 Base
Squamation Along D1
0%100% 50%
Little R.
Big South Fk.
Citico Cr.
Abrams Cr.Copper Cr.
Results
MORPHOMETRICS
ResultsMorphometrics
• No variation between females from different populations
• Substantial overlap between non-nuptial males from different populations
• Nuptial males with high degree of body shape variation between populations
PC
3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
PC 2
Little River
Copper Creek
Clinch River
Citico Creek
Big South Fork
Big SouthFork
Copper Cr.Little R.
Citico Cr.
Sheared PCA: Nuptial Males
Longer: Pectoral Fin Length Anal Fin Height
Shorter:First Dorsal HeightSecond Dorsal Height Caudal Fin LengthLonger:Pelvic insertion to Anal Fin insertion
Results
PIGMENTATION
Means for Pigmentation Variables
Drainage/System N x Range SD x Range SD x Range SD
Cumberland R. DrainageBig South Fork 27 11.74 10-14 0.90 7.11 7-8 0.32 5.41 0-8 1.67
Tennessee R. DrainageCopper Creek -Clinch R. 92 12.34 10-15 1.12 7.00 5-8 0.35 5.80 3-10 1.96
Little R. 30 11.51 0-15 3.74 7.00 7-8 0.28 5.77 4-8 1.31
Citico Creek-Little Tenn. R. 13 9.15 0-13 5.25 5.54 0-8 3.18 4.92 0-7 2.29
Lateral Bars Saddles Caudal Bands
*No. caudal spots also examined but showed no variation
Other Pigmentation DifferencesLittle R. vs. Copper Cr. Nuptial Males
• Pelvic fins best pigmented in Copper Cr.
• Rays of D2 more prominently marbled in Little R.– Rays uniformly dusky in Copper Cr.
• Tessellations on Caudal Fin more intense in Little R.– Tessellations lost in Copper Cr.
Conclusions
• Substantial morphological variation among four extant populations
• Status of extirpated populations unclear due to low number of existing specimens– Abram Creek and South Fork Holston River
• Grouped with closest geographic counterparts
Conclusions
• Do any populations warrant species recognition?– Little River E. percnurum diagnosed with % scale cover
along D1 base • also show distinct variation in morphometrics, and
pigmentation
– Others diagnosed with combination of characters:• Citico Creek – meristics and pigmentation
• Big South Fork – measurements
– Data needed for additional nuptial males
• Copper Creek –combination of characters
Conclusions
• Each population should be recognized:– Independent evolutionary units/species
• Conservation efforts should be structured to conserve all populations– not just to maintain diversity, but because all are
important independent units in the E. percnurum lineage
Future Questions and Work
• Examine additional nuptial males from Citico Creek and Big South Fork– Live and nuptial males for better pigmentation comparisons
• Diagnose and Describe
• Relationships within the E.flabellare group of Catonotus– Are E. percnurum spp. monophyletic?– Is there high levels of genetic structure within populations
similar to that observed for its supposed sister taxon, E.flabellare?
• If so, important information for proper management and conservation
Hap 2
Hap 1
Hap 1
Hap 4
Hap 27
Hap 28
Hap 5
Hap 6
Hap 6
Hap 6
Hap 7
NC
Yadkin R.
NC
SC
Ararat R.5 (20%)6 (60%)7 (20%)
Stoney Cr.2 (100%)
Johnson Cr.1 (40%)4 (20%)
27 (20%)28 (20%)
19 rmi.
7 rmi.
22 rmi.
ND2 Haplotype Locality Relationships
Etheostoma flabellare
Acknowledgements
• Institutions for loan of specimens:– INHS– UMMZ– University of Tennessee– Tulane Museum Natural History– Southern Illinois University Carbondale– American Museum Natural History– National Museum Natural History
• Tulane University for facilities and equipment
Questions
Classification
• Order: Perciformes– Family: Percidae
• Genus: Etheostoma– Subgenus: Catonotus
Etheostoma percnurumDuskytail Darter
Habitat
Big South Fork, TN
Citico Creek, TN
Conservation Status
• Upon Description:– Jenkins called for federal protection
• Relict distribution• Extirpation of two populations• Threats to habitat and water quality
• Listed 1993 as Federally Endangered (Biggins 1993)
– Recovery Plan developed 1994 (Biggins and Shute)
Drainage/System N x SD x SD x SD x SD
Cumberland R. DrainageBig South Fork 13 0.332 0.02 0.099 0.01 0.134 0.02 0.194 0.02
Tennessee R. DrainageCopper Creek -Clinch R. 21 0.317 0.02 0.100 0.01 0.148 0.01 0.208 0.01
Little R. 23 0.314 0.02 0.117 0.01 0.150 0.01 0.212 0.02
Citico Creek-Little Tenn. R. 4 0.315 0.02 0.105 0.01 0.135 0.01 0.208 0.02
P2 to Anal D1H D2H CFL
Means of variables that loaded heavily on sheared PC 3
*Measurements standardized using SL
ResultsMeristics
• Copper Creek and Citico Creek E. percnurum can be distinguished from one another based on meristics - no overlap in variation– Both also show high degree of meristic differences
from Little R. and Big South Fork individuals
• Little River and Big South Fork individuals with high degree of meristic similarity– Little River diagnosible based on scalation along
D1 base