Genetic and Phenetic Dynamics of Steelhead Recolonization Above Dams: Green River Study Gary Winans CB Division Jon Baker, Frank Orth Assoc. (Formerly, CB Div.)

We are interested in Resident fish and the potential “hybridization” of Resident trout and Anadromous Steelhead

Our Research Interests: Character evolution in isolated populations Non-smolting lifestyle (PSL, behavioral, & metabolic) Body and fin designs Body coloration Evolutionarily-neutral genetic markers

During their 90 years of isolation, REZ fish will be different…due to natural selection(non-smolting physiology, non-downstream behavior, growth, time of spawning, etc.) random genetic changes outplanting

NOAA is interested in mykiss populations sequestered behind dams O. mykiss is endangered under the ESA When dams are removed, what will be the role of Resident trout? Who will produce naturally occurring recruits?

Our Research Interests: Character evolution in isolated populations Non-smolting lifestyle (PSL, behavioral, & metabolic) Body and fin designs Body coloration Evolutionarily-neutral genetic markers

N Green River Rm 68Rm 84 HH Dam hatchery wild residual RBT

N Green River- Genetic data Rm 68 Rm 84 HH Dam Hatchery = Wild=77 Residents=81 Calif. Trout = Cedar R. Wilds = 50

N Green River- Genetic data Rm 68 Rm 84 HH Dam Hatchery = Wild=77 Residents=81 Calif. Trout = Cedar R. Wilds = 50 “Nearest Neighbor” “Hatchery Outplants”

mSAT Loci Ocl1 Ogo4 Omy7 INRA One  14 Ots100 Ots4 Oke4 Oki23 Omy1011 Omy77 Ssa289 Ssa407 Ssa408

Microsatellite markers—simple sequence repeats CA “102” “100” “96” “94” CA - Allele designations typically related to fragment size

Mean Heterozygosity Mean No. of Alleles per Locus 3=Hatchery 2=Native 1=Resident Diversity at 13 mSAT loci

Mean Heterozygosity per locus Mean No. of Alleles per Locus 4=Cal. Trout 3=Hatchery 2=Native 1=Resident

0.1 Cal Trout 1 Cal Trout 2 Cedar River Hatch 2 Hatch 1 Resident 1 Native 1 Native 2 Resident 2 Resident 3 Nei’s D

N Green River- Morphology data Rm 68 Rm 84 HH Dam Hatchery = Wild=20 Residents=20 Calif. Trout Cedar R. Wilds “Hatchery outplants” “Nearest Neighbor”

Thin Plate Spline/Relative Warps Each fish is represented by a set of landmarks Each fish is compared to a consensus outline; a similarity value generated A similarity matrix is assesed by a PCA Producing the relative warps (RWs)

Neg RW1; elongate nose, deeper head; deeper trunk; v. shortened CP Shape differences: resident vs. consensus Resident

Head LL Dorsal Split Mid LL Dorsal Split Tail Dorsal Split

Resident MID_D_PARR Count Proportion per Bar Hatchery MID_D_PARR Count Proportion per Bar Hatchery MID_D_PARR Count Proportion per Bar Native MID_D_PARR Count Proportion per Bar

Parr Mark Analysis PCA PCA3 2=below 1=above t=4.16, P=0.0

Below-Elwha Dam Above-Elwha Dam Lateral Line Parr Above 9.9 vs. Below 9.1 *** Mean=9.15 Mean=8.95 Mean=9.6 Mean=10.5 Mean=9.4

Further Analyses Hardy-Weinberg Disequilibrium Bootstrap D values Rare alleles F statistics Contingency tables PCA of allele frequencies MM--ontogenetic influences MM--PCA of truss-network characters

Resident fish above the dam are not genetically dissimilar from “Native” late-run fish below the dam Resident fish are different from hatchery fish Juvenile resident fish have different body shapes and parr mark patterns

Did we find a unique gene pool (a Gem) above the HH dam? Is there evidence that there is a population of ‘residualized’ steelhead above HH dam? Can we use these mSATs to recognize resident x steelhead crosses?

Is there a general pattern in genetic and phenetic variability in resident fish vs. downstream steelhead? Green River: (Internal Grant seed money) Elwha River: (NOAA Restoration $) Lewis River: PacifiCorp $

Elwha Dam Glines Canyon Dam

Neg RW2