Abstract

Blueback Herring Alosa aestivalis populations throughout the East Coast have declined precipitously since the late 1980s and were listed as a Species of Concern in 2006 by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Natural resource agencies are attempting to restore this species to viable and sustainable levels with fry stockings cultured in hatcheries. To evaluate the long-term contribution of stockings to populations, agencies need an accurate method to track these stocking efforts. Genetic parentage-based tagging is recognized as a feasible means of assessing hatchery contribution of stocked fish to rivers of interest. However, Blueback Herring lack a reliable set of genetic markers to conduct parentage-based tagging. To this end, we analyzed previously described microsatellites as well as new microsatellite markers identified through NextGeneration sequencing to create a suite of 14 Blueback Herring markers useful for parentage-based tagging. The markers were successful in parentage analysis for Blueback Herring collected from the Chowan River, North Carolina. An additional challenge in the management of Blueback Herring is the ability to phenotypically distinguish Blueback Herring from the closely related Alewife Alosa pseudoharengus. Furthermore, recent studies provide evidence that these two species, collectively referred to as river herring, may be hybridizing with one another in some systems. Microsatellite marker AsaC334 can be utilized to discriminate between the two species, as well as to identify their F1 hybrids, thereby providing another genetic tool for hatchery management.

Introduction

Blueback Herring Alosa aestivalis in their native range are found along the Atlantic coast of North America and range from Nova Scotia to Florida. This species is anadromous, spending the majority of their adult lives at sea and returning to freshwater systems to spawn (Bigelow and Schroeder 1953; Loesch 1987). Historically, Blueback Herring play important roles in the ecosystems they transition between, acting as a prey source as well as a transporter of nutrients between freshwater and saltwater. Blueback Herring have also served as a reliable resource for humans as food and fertilizer (Messieh 1977; Loesch 1987; West et al. 2010). Once a thriving commercial fishery, numbers of Blueback Herring have been declining since the late 1980s (NCDMF 2000). In 2006, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) listed Blueback Herring as a Species of Concern (NOAA 2009). Probable reasons for population decline include habitat degradation, overfishing, dam impediments, bycatch, and predation. In an effort to restore Blueback Herring populations to historical levels, several states, including Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and North Carolina, enacted stringent regulations and moratoriums on river herring fisheries as early as the year 2000 (NCDMF 2000). Yet a study conducted by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission in 2012 found populations still depleted throughout their range (Limburg et al. 2012).

Current conservation efforts, including NOAA's River Herring Conservation Plan, emphasize public awareness, collaborative research, and restoration of river herring throughout their native range (NOAA 2016). One method of restoring abundance focuses on fry stockings originating from hatchery-based spawning. A reliable and conclusive method to track the survivability of these fry is vital in evaluating the success of these programs. Tracking methods have traditionally involved physical or chemical tags such as coded-wire tags or oxytetracycline staining of otoliths, respectively. However, these methods face challenges such as tag loss, high cost, and increased mortality (Skalski et al. 2009; Pine et al. 2012). Advances in genetic technologies, along with a subsequent decline in the cost of performing such analyses, make genetic parentage-based tagging (PBT) an appealing alternative (Andreou et al. 2011; Steele et al. 2013).

A critical component of PBT is the correct identification of fish to species when collecting broodfish for spawning and when sampling fish to evaluate hatchery contribution. However, Blueback Herring share many morphological similarities with the closely related Alewife Alosa pseudoharengus, making these two species difficult to distinguish phenotypically (Bigelow and Schroeder 1953; NOAA 2009; Limburg et al. 2012). Blueback Herring and Alewife also share ecological similarities including anadromous life cycles, diet, and spatial distribution (Bigelow and Schroeder 1953; Loesch 1987) and are generally treated as a single unit for management considerations (NOAA 2009) under the umbrella term of “river herring.” In unaltered ecosystems, river herring achieve isolation largely through temporal and spatial spawning differences, with Blueback Herring spawning later in the season in warmer, lotic waters and Alewife preferring cooler, lentic conditions (Loesch 1987). However, the construction of dams and other manmade migration restrictions has increased the likelihood of hybridization between the two species due to enforced spatial overlap, and recent studies have indicated that such hybridization is occurring in the wild (Hasselman et al. 2014; McBride et al. 2014). Moreover, analyses of Blueback Herring and Alewife in North Carolina rivers indicate that spawning runs largely overlap in this area (Walsh et al. 2005; Overton et al. 2012; Potoka 2016), further increasing the possibility of hybridization in these waters.

Given the challenges of phenotypic discrimination, the need for reliable markers capable of genetically distinguishing one species from the other as well as identifying possible hybrids is a priority for future studies and management of river herring (River Herring TEWG 2016). Identification of a species-specific marker within the mitochondrial genome has proven difficult as work by Chapman et al. (1994) and Faria et al. (2006) indicates notable sequence similarities between the mitochondrial genome of these two species, with divergence rates of approximately 2%. We are aware of one nuclear marker, recombination activating gene 2 (rag2), capable of distinguishing between Blueback Herring and Alewife (Berlinsky et al. 2015). Usage of this marker requires polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplification followed by either genetic sequencing or digestion with the Bam HI restriction enzyme. A genetic marker capable of differentiating between river herring in a single assay would be of benefit to researchers interested in studying these species as well as to hatchery management. Moreover, hybridization between these two species warrants the need for multiple markers to ensure confidence in species discrimination.

To address management needs for Blueback Herring, we developed a robust microsatellite marker suite that can be used for reliable PBT. This maker set will allow fisheries managers to evaluate the contribution of Blueback Herring from hatcheries to rivers of interest, examine population structure between bodies of water, identify migration between rivers, and assess genetic diversity levels and effective population size (Buchholz-Sørensen and Vella 2016; Fazzi-Gomes et al. 2017; Ywasaki Lima et al. 2017). We also report that microsatellite marker AsaC334 (Julian and Bartron 2007) may be used to differentiate Blueback Herring from Alewife or their F1 hybrids, allowing researchers to address both parentage and species identification in a single assay.

Materials and Methods

Samples

We collected broodfish from three tributaries of the Chowan River (Bennett's Creek, Dillard's Creek, and Sarem Creek) using a boat-mounted electrofishing unit (Smith-Root 7.5 GPP; 170–1,000 V pulsed direct current; 3.5–4.5A) with one dip-netter used to capture fish during daylight hours. We began broodfish collections as water temperatures approached 12°C and concluded collections when spawning activity appeared to be complete or when we met broodfish collection goals (typically from late March through early April). We determined sex for each Blueback Herring by applying directional pressure to the abdomen and observing the presence of milt or eggs. To account for similarities between Alewife and Blueback Herring, we checked species identification a second time during careful transfer from boat to hauling trailer; and we then took fish to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Edenton National Fish Hatchery or Watha State Fish Hatchery. We collected 451 broodfish in the year 2013, 290 broodfish in 2014, and 49 broodfish in 2015. We collected 50 juvenile fin clips from wild spawned Blueback herring in 2013 during Division of Marine Fisheries routine seine sampling in the Albemarle Sound. We collected a sample of Alewife fin clips from the lower Roanoke River on 16 November 2015, during routine sampling of juvenile American Shad Alosa sapidissima near Plymouth, North Carolina (pulsed direct current; 3.8–4.2A) roughly 30 min after sunset.

We cultured Blueback Herring fry from tank-spawned broodfish at the Edenton National Fish Hatchery in 2013 and 2014 and Watha State Fish Hatchery in 2015. We held Blueback Herring broodfish in a 6-ft-diameter (1.8-m-diam) circular tank supplied with well water (18°C) and collected eggs via external standpipe and filter sock with a mesh size of approximately 200 μm. Upon egg collection, we treated eggs with Fuller's Earth or Tannic Acid and placed them in hatching jars, where fry were allowed to hatch into aquaria (75 L) at 3–4 d after spawn (Evans 2015). We stored fin clips and samples of Blueback Herring fry from each spawning in prelabeled vials containing nondenatured, spectrophotometric-grade ethanol for use as positive controls in PBT.

Microsatellite marker development

In order to identify novel microsatellite markers (Gardner et al. 2011; De et al. 2017), NextGeneration sequencing of one Chowan River Blueback Herring was conducted by the North Carolina State Genomic Sciences Laboratory on an Illumina MiSeq using MiSeq Reagent Kit v3 (600 cycle). We assembled approximately nine million paired-end reads with an average read length of 455 base pairs using QIIME (Caporaso et al. 2010) and fed the resulting file into MSATCOMMANDER (Faircloth 2008) to identify possible microsatellite markers. Many of these markers are likely to be duplicates, so we chose a subset of microsatellites with varying motifs to help ensure selection of unique markers for further testing. We additionally opted for loci containing a large number of repeat units because such microsatellites tend to be more unstable, thus leading to increased variability within the marker (Ellegren 2000; Brohede et al. 2002). In total, we initially tested 24 candidate markers for inclusion in our Blueback Herring microsatellite marker suite. We also selected an additional 16 primer pairs from two published papers (Julian and Bartron 2007; A'Hara et al. 2012) for testing on our samples. We chose markers with the greatest numbers of alleles according to their publications: Ap037, Ap070, Aa004, AsaD055, AsaD030, AsaC249, Ap058, AsaD042, AsaD021, Aa082, Aa074, AsaC334, Ap047, Aa093, AsaC051, and Ap071 (Table 1).

Table 1.

Twenty-two microsatellite markers were tested for use in parentage-based tagging (PBT) of Blueback Herring Alosa aestivalis collected in 2013. For each marker, forward and reverse primer sequences, fluorescent tags used, and references (where applicable) are noted. The final 14 markers selected for PBT are denoted with an asterisk.

Twenty-two microsatellite markers were tested for use in parentage-based tagging (PBT) of Blueback Herring Alosa aestivalis collected in 2013. For each marker, forward and reverse primer sequences, fluorescent tags used, and references (where applicable) are noted. The final 14 markers selected for PBT are denoted with an asterisk.
Twenty-two microsatellite markers were tested for use in parentage-based tagging (PBT) of Blueback Herring Alosa aestivalis collected in 2013. For each marker, forward and reverse primer sequences, fluorescent tags used, and references (where applicable) are noted. The final 14 markers selected for PBT are denoted with an asterisk.

We extracted genomic DNA from samples using the Macherey–Nagel NucleoSpin 96 Tissue kit and processed on an Eppendorf Robotic liquid handler (epMotion 5075) or with the Macherey–Nagel 8 Tissue kit and processed with the Macherey–Nagel vacuum manifold. Extracted DNA was quantified and diluted when necessary to a working concentration of approximately 40 ng/μL. Markers identified through NextGeneration sequencing were initially amplified using a three-primer PCR method described by Schuelke (2000) and briefly analyzed for robust amplification and for consistent allele sizes using GeneMapper 4.0 (ThermoFisher Scientific, Waltham, MA). Six of these markers were selected for further analysis with our Blueback Herring samples: AaAC4, AaAG5, AaAG7, AaAC6, AaACAG1, and AaAGAT2, named according to their species and repeating unit. Genbank accession numbers are KY554778, KY554779, KY554780, KY554781, KY554782, KY565243, respectively (Table 1; Figure S1, Supplemental Material).

The 6 NextGeneration identified markers and the 16 published markers were amplified in 4 multiplex PCR reactions (Table 1) with a 1:10 mixture of Takara ExTaq Premix and Promega GoTaq MasterMix with 1 μL of genomic template per reaction and primers labeled with fluorescent dye. The thermal profile employed an initial denaturation of 95°C for 4 min followed by 5 cycles of 95°C for 15 s, 62°C for 15 s, and 72°C for 30 s; then 30 cycles of 94°C for 30 s, 58°C for 30 s, and 72°C for 30 s with a final elongation step at 72°C for 10 min. One μL of amplified product was run on an ABI 3130XL Genetic Analyzer using ABI GeneScan 600 LIZ Size Standard, and resulting fragment sizes were analyzed using GeneMapper 4.0. Genotyping was run for 451 Blueback Herring broodfish collected from the Chowan River in 2013 and spawned in six separate hatchery tanks, 50 wild-spawned juvenile Chowan River Blueback Herring to use as negative controls, and 41 fry from known breeding tanks to use as positive controls in our PBT test.

Parentage analysis

We analyzed allele frequencies for the 22 described microsatellite markers, including conformity to Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium, and consequent parentage-based tagging using CERVUS 3.0.3 (Kalinowski et al. 2007). This program utilizes a maximum likelihood approach, creating simulations from the data set to assign confidence levels. Simulations assumed 10,000 offspring, 100 candidate parents (with 100% of the parents being sampled), low mistyping error rate (0.001), and low error rate (0.0001). At least three simulations were executed per analysis. Critical delta scores were determined using 95% confidence for the relaxed criterion and 99% for the strict criterion. Parentage analyses were performed without reference to sex determination or spawning tank.

Discriminatory marker for Blueback Herring and Alewife

We amplified one μL of genomic DNA in a 10-μL reaction using Promega GoTaq MasterMix and 0.2 μL of AsaC334 primers (10 μM; F: ATG GTT ATG TGG GCT CTT TAT G, R: GTT CAT CCT GCC AGA TCT AAG G). Cycling conditions for AsaC334 amplification followed the same protocol as that for microsatellite amplification. Sequencing was carried out in 10-μL reactions using 2 μL of PCR product, 0.125 μL BigDye (ABI Prism BigDye Terminator v3.1 Cycle Sequencing Kit), 250 nmoles of both AsaC334F and AsaC334R, and 0.875 μL of BDX64 (Molecular Cloning Laboratories). We ethanol-precipitated sequencing reactions, rehydrated with 11 μL of formamide, and ran them on an ABI 3130XL Genetic Analyzer. Geneious software v 7.1 was used to analyze resulting sequence (Kearse et al. 2012).

Results

Microsatellite markers and parentage-based tagging

After performing allele frequency analysis on the 2013 genotyped samples, we discarded from use in PBT any markers not in Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium or exhibiting null allele probabilities >0.05. We also discarded marker AsaC334 because it did not conform to expected allele sizes in several instances. An additional three markers had observed heterozygosity rates of <0.5. We discarded two of these; however, because microsatellite AaAG5 had a large number of possible secondary alleles (18), we felt sufficient discriminatory power remained to retain this marker in the data set. The newly established suite of 14 markers all conformed to HWE, had null allele frequency estimates of <0.024, and mean observed heterozygosity (Hobs) ranging from 0.482 to 0.914 (Table 2). The mean number of alleles per locus was 18.8, with a mean expected heterozygosity of 0.729, a mean observed heterozygosity of 0.722, and a mean polymorphic information content of 0.702. The combined non-exclusion probability for parent pairs was 6.138 × 10−10 and the combined identity non-exclusion probability was 8.030 × 10−16.

Table 2.

Fourteen markers were selected for final use in parentage-based tagging of Blueback Herring Alosa aestivalis. Allele frequency analysis was run with CERVUS 3.0.3 on the final marker set using all 542 samples collected in the year 2013. Markers were divided into three multiplex panels for amplification. Overall, the marker set shows high variability with a mean number of alleles per locus of 18.8, a mean expected heterozygosity (Hexp) of 0.729, a mean observed heterozygosity (Hobs) of 0.722, and a mean polymorphic information content (PIC) of 0.702. All markers were in Hardy–Weinberg Equilibrium (HWE), and no statistically significant evidence of null alleles (above 0.05) was found. NS = Not Significant [deviation from HWE].

Fourteen markers were selected for final use in parentage-based tagging of Blueback Herring Alosa aestivalis. Allele frequency analysis was run with CERVUS 3.0.3 on the final marker set using all 542 samples collected in the year 2013. Markers were divided into three multiplex panels for amplification. Overall, the marker set shows high variability with a mean number of alleles per locus of 18.8, a mean expected heterozygosity (Hexp) of 0.729, a mean observed heterozygosity (Hobs) of 0.722, and a mean polymorphic information content (PIC) of 0.702. All markers were in Hardy–Weinberg Equilibrium (HWE), and no statistically significant evidence of null alleles (above 0.05) was found. NS = Not Significant [deviation from HWE].
Fourteen markers were selected for final use in parentage-based tagging of Blueback Herring Alosa aestivalis. Allele frequency analysis was run with CERVUS 3.0.3 on the final marker set using all 542 samples collected in the year 2013. Markers were divided into three multiplex panels for amplification. Overall, the marker set shows high variability with a mean number of alleles per locus of 18.8, a mean expected heterozygosity (Hexp) of 0.729, a mean observed heterozygosity (Hobs) of 0.722, and a mean polymorphic information content (PIC) of 0.702. All markers were in Hardy–Weinberg Equilibrium (HWE), and no statistically significant evidence of null alleles (above 0.05) was found. NS = Not Significant [deviation from HWE].

We used these 14 markers to perform PBT on samples collected in 2013. All 41 positive controls matched appropriately at 99% confidence levels to male and female parent pairs spawned in the same tank, and none of the 50 negative controls matched to broodfish. As a further test of this microsatellite panel, we genotyped another 290 broodfish from the year 2014 and 49 broodfish from 2015, along with 50 positive control fry collected exclusively in 2015 (Table S1, Supplemental Material). We tested the 50 fry against a collective data set containing both the 2014 and 2015 broodfish for PBT. The program CERVUS matched all 50 positive control fry to male and female parent pairs collected in 2015 at 99% confidence levels. We identified no parent pairs from the 2014 cohort, as expected.

Discriminatory marker for Blueback Herring and Alewife

One published marker not used for PBT, AsaC334 (Julian and Bartron 2007), did not show expected allele patterns in three 2013 broodfish suspected of being Alewife. These fish showed alleles not normally observed in Blueback Herring samples and were difficult to amplify at several loci. We sequenced the AsaC334 locus, a tetramer, in four known Blueback Herring samples from the 2014 Chowan broodfish, four Alewives collected in the Roanoke River and confirmed through peritoneal examination (Berlinsky et al. 2015; Hasselman et al. 2015), and one vouchered Chowan Alewife from the North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences collections. Sequencing revealed a two-base-pair insertion in this marker that tracked exclusively with Blueback Herring when compared with Alewife (Figure 1). The absence of this insertion in Alewife can be viewed easily in GeneMapper as a peak that sits between our two expected bins for Blueback Herring, signifying an allele size that differs by two base pairs (Figure 2). Using GeneMapper, we confirmed this sequence variation in an additional 9 Chowan River Alewife samples and 15 Roanoke River Alewives. We compared these individuals against the Blueback Herring broodfish samples collected in 2013 as well as 10 vouchered Roanoke Blueback Herring samples from the North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences collection. The species-specific insertion was confirmed in all cases analyzed except the three individuals suspected of being Alewife in the 2013 broodfish. These three fish lacked the two-base-pair insertion, consistent with our known Alewife samples. Additionally, our analysis found one juvenile Roanoke phenotypically identified as an Alewife that contained both possible alleles, with one allele falling in the expected bin and the other sitting in between the tetrameric bins (Figure 2), suggesting the presence of Blueback Herring and Alewife hybrids in the Roanoke River.

Figure 1.

Microsatellite marker AsaC334 may be used to discriminate between Blueback Herring Alosa aestivalis and Alewife Alosa pseudoharengus. Blueback Herring carry a GT insertion within the ATGT repeat sequence of the microsatellite marker as compared with Alewife. Samples shown were collected from the Roanoke River, North Carolina, in 2014. Image produced in Geneious (Kearse et al. 2012).

Figure 1.

Microsatellite marker AsaC334 may be used to discriminate between Blueback Herring Alosa aestivalis and Alewife Alosa pseudoharengus. Blueback Herring carry a GT insertion within the ATGT repeat sequence of the microsatellite marker as compared with Alewife. Samples shown were collected from the Roanoke River, North Carolina, in 2014. Image produced in Geneious (Kearse et al. 2012).

Figure 2.

Microsatellite marker AsaC334 may be used to distinguish Blueback Herring Alosa aestivalis, Alewife Alosa pseudoharengus, and their F1 hybrids within a parentage-based tagging assay. AsaC334 Alewife alleles fall in between the expected allele sizes observed in Blueback Herring, represented by the gray lines (bins). This size difference is due to the lack of a Blueback Herring–specific 2 base-pair insertion within this marker. F1 hybrids of the two species consequently have one allele that falls into an expected bin and one allele that resides between two bins. Samples shown were collected from the Roanoke River, North Carolina, in 2014. Image produced in GeneMapper 4.0 (ThermoFisher Scientific, Waltham, MA).

Figure 2.

Microsatellite marker AsaC334 may be used to distinguish Blueback Herring Alosa aestivalis, Alewife Alosa pseudoharengus, and their F1 hybrids within a parentage-based tagging assay. AsaC334 Alewife alleles fall in between the expected allele sizes observed in Blueback Herring, represented by the gray lines (bins). This size difference is due to the lack of a Blueback Herring–specific 2 base-pair insertion within this marker. F1 hybrids of the two species consequently have one allele that falls into an expected bin and one allele that resides between two bins. Samples shown were collected from the Roanoke River, North Carolina, in 2014. Image produced in GeneMapper 4.0 (ThermoFisher Scientific, Waltham, MA).

The ability to use AsaC334 as a discriminatory marker was further supported by confirmation of our findings using the nuclear marker recombination activating gene 2 (rag2; Berlinsky et al. 2015). The rag2 gene contains a species-specific single-nucleotide polymorphism whereby a cytosine creates a BamHI site specific to Alewives as compared with Blueback Herring. Samples (Blueback Herring n = 15, Alewife n = 16) used to examine AsaC334 were also subjected to rag2 sequencing. In all instances, the rag2 marker confirmed our species designation using AsaC334. Rag2 sequencing also confirmed the juvenile hybrid detected by AsaC334 (Figure 3).

Figure 3.

The use of AsaC334 as a distinguishing marker between Blueback Herring Alosa aestivalis, Alewife Alosa pseudoharengus, and their F1 hybrids is supported by confirmation of species assignment using the nuclear marker recombination activating gene 2 (rag2). This gene contains a unique BamHI cut site in Alewife when compared with Blueback Herring. The presence of a hybrid within our juvenile sample is indicated by the presence of a single nucleotide polymorphism (noted by the black arrow) at this BamHI site. Compared with AsaC334, Rag2 requires either sequencing or restriction enzyme digest after amplification, while microsatellite AsaC334 needs only a single polymerase chain reaction assay and may be incorporated directly into microsatellite suites used for parentage-based tagging. Samples shown were collected from the Roanoke River, North Carolina, in 2014. Image produced in Geneious (Kearse et al. 2012).

Figure 3.

The use of AsaC334 as a distinguishing marker between Blueback Herring Alosa aestivalis, Alewife Alosa pseudoharengus, and their F1 hybrids is supported by confirmation of species assignment using the nuclear marker recombination activating gene 2 (rag2). This gene contains a unique BamHI cut site in Alewife when compared with Blueback Herring. The presence of a hybrid within our juvenile sample is indicated by the presence of a single nucleotide polymorphism (noted by the black arrow) at this BamHI site. Compared with AsaC334, Rag2 requires either sequencing or restriction enzyme digest after amplification, while microsatellite AsaC334 needs only a single polymerase chain reaction assay and may be incorporated directly into microsatellite suites used for parentage-based tagging. Samples shown were collected from the Roanoke River, North Carolina, in 2014. Image produced in Geneious (Kearse et al. 2012).

Discussion

Genetics can be a powerful tool in hatchery management and conservation. To this end, we have characterized microsatellite markers that may be used in these fields for Blueback Herring. A significant challenge in previous years for hatchery management of Blueback Herring has been the ability to readily distinguish between this species and the related alosine, Alewife. Herein we present a microsatellite marker capable of distinguishing these two species. Sequencing of the AsaC334 marker revealed a two-base-pair insertion that occurred exclusively in our Blueback Herring samples when compared with Alewife. The presence of this sequence variant in two separate river systems demonstrates the robustness of AsaC334 as a differentiating marker for these closely related species. This microsatellite marker can distinguish between Blueback Herring and Alewife without the need for additional sequencing or alternate assays, and may easily be inserted into panels used for PBT, allowing researchers to address issues of species and parentage with the same analysis.

Examination of our samples using this marker identified one fish with allelic patterns consistent with those expected from a hybrid. Identification of a hybrid within the Roanoke River could indicate one of several possibilities. Previous studies have indicated the presence of Blueback Herring and Alewife hybrids in the John H. Kerr Reservoir (Hasselman et al. 2014). Therefore, our results may provide the first evidence that such hybrids are escaping the John H. Kerr Reservoir and moving downstream to the lower Roanoke River. Alternatively, hybridization could be occurring naturally in the Roanoke River with Alewife and Blueback Herring in spawning condition at similar times. A third possibility is that hatcheries might unintentionally be stocking hybrids if broodfish were not identified correctly at the species level and subsequently spawned in a hatchery setting. Regardless of the cause, identification of AsaC334 as a microsatellite marker that can be analyzed simultaneously with other microsatellites used for PBT can help track and manage potential hybridization in the future.

We further present the development of a robust Blueback Herring microsatellite marker set suitable for parentage-based tagging. This 14-locus panel was 100% effective at identifying positive controls known to spawn in a hatchery with broodfish cohorts from both 2013 and 2015. Similarly, the panel was successful in eliminating wild-spawned juvenile as possible descendants of hatchery broodfish. Our findings demonstrate that fisheries managers may utilize this panel for parentage-based tagging to assess hatchery contribution of Blueback Herring fry stockings. Data collected from PBT analyses have the ability to tag a fish back to specific parents from known breeding years; therefore, these studies have the ability to yield information beyond hatchery contribution, including optimal stocking locations, migration rates between rivers, age range of fish returning to spawn, and overall genetic diversity of the population of interest. Moreover, the same microsatellite data set may be employed in other genetic analyses of interest to hatchery management such as population structure and effective population estimates. Overall, the wealth of data obtained through the use of these microsatellite markers can allow fishery biologists to not only track hatchery contribution for Blueback Herring, but to address issues such as the appropriateness of mixing stock from multiple rivers and ensuring the maintenance of genetic diversity within stocked rivers.

Supplemental Material

Please note: The Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supplemental material. Queries should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.

Table S1. Fourteen microsatellite markers were selected for use in Blueback Herring Alosa aestivalis parentage-based tagging. Alleles for Blueback Herring samples collected from 2013 through 2015 are recorded based on fragment size after polymerase chain reaction amplification with marker-specific primers and measured using GeneMapper 4.0. The 14 marker names are listed on top, with A and B noting the two distinct alleles per marker. The first four numbers of the sample ID indicate year of collection (sample year − sample number). Red indicates broodfish, blue indicates negative controls, and green indicates positive controls. Positive controls came from broodfish spawned in the hatchery but collected from 3 different creeks; sc = Sarem Creek, bc = Bennett's Creek, and ic = Indian (Dillard's) Creek. Alleles that were unable to be discriminately called by two researchers were scored as 0.

Found at DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3996/022017-JFWM-011.S1 (173 KB XLSX).

Figure S1. Six novel Blueback Herring Alosa aestivalis microsatellite markers were identified in 2014 through NextGeneration sequencing for possible use in parentage-based tagging. Complete sequence for these six markers is shown here. Primer sequences are highlighted in yellow. The previously developed microsatellite marker AsaC334 (Julian and Bartron 2007) may be used for species discrimination between Blueback Herring and Alewife Alosa pseudoharengus. Additional analysis of our samples with the known discriminatory locus recombination activating gene 2 (rag2) confirmed our findings with AsaC334. Genomic sequence for both of these loci is shown. Primer sequence is not included because they have been trimmed for quality, but may be found in Materials and Methods.

Found at DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3996/022017-JFWM-011.S2 (16 KB DOCX).

Reference S1. Evans J. 2015. River herring production report, 2015. Raleigh, North Carolina: North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration F-108 Report.

Found at DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3996/022017-JFWM-011.S3 (379 KB PDF).

Reference S2. Limburg K, Oliveira K, Wiedenmann J, O'Boyle B. 2012. River Herring benchmark stock assessment, Volume 1. Raleigh, North Carolina: Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. Stock Assessment Report No. 12-02.

Found at DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3996/022017-JFWM-011.S4 (10.626 KB PDF).

Reference S3. [NCDMF] North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries. 2000. North Carolina fishery management plan: Albemarle Sound Area River Herring. Morehead City, North Carolina: NCDMF.

Found at DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3996/022017-JFWM-011.S5 (548 KB PDF).

Reference S4. [NOAA] National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2009. Species of concern: River Herring. NOAA.

Found at DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3996/022017-JFWM-011.S6 (1229 KB PDF); also available at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/species/riverherring_detailed.pdf (1.23 MB PDF).

Reference S5. [NOAA] National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2016. River herring conservation plan. NOAA Fisheries, Greater Atlantic Region.

Found at DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3996/022017-JFWM-011.S7 (194 KB PDF); also available at https://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/protected/riverherring/conserv/rh_plan_2015_executive_summary_060716.pdf (191 KB PDF).

Reference S6. Potoka KM. 2016. River Herring monitoring program in the Chowan River Basin, North Carolina—2015. Survey. Raleigh, North Carolina: North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. Survey.

Found at DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3996/022017-JFWM-011.S8 (318 KB PDF).

Reference S7. River Herring [TEWG] Technical Expert Working Group. 2016. Meeting summary. NOAA Fisheries Greater Atlantic Region. Found at DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3996/022017-JFWM-011.S9 (63 KB PDF); also available at https://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/protected/riverherring/tewg/sept_2016_tewg_meeting_summary_final.pdf (64 KB PDF).

Acknowledgments

We gratefully acknowledge the work performed by the North Carolina State Genomic Sciences Laboratory (Raleigh, North Carolina) in conducting our NextGeneration sequencing. Thanks go to our collaborators at the Edenton National Fish Hatchery and the Watha State Fish Hatchery who conducted production, stocking, and fin clip collections for samples described in this paper. Funding for analysis of these samples came from the Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration program, project F-108. We thank the Associate editor and reviewers for their time and effort on this manuscript.

Any use of trade, product, website, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

References

A'Hara
SW.
Amouroux
P.
Argo
EE.
Avand-Faghih
A.
Barat
A.
Barbieri
L.
Bert
TM.
Blatrix
R.
Blin
A.
Bouktila
D.
Broome
A.
Burban
C.
Capdevielle-Dulac
C.
Casse
N.
Chandra
S.
Jin Cho
K.
Cottrell
JE.
Crawford
CR.
Davis
MC.
DeLatte
H.
Desneux
N.
Djieto-Lordon
C.
Dubois
MP.
El-Mergawy
RAAM.
Gallardo-Escárate
C.
Garcia
M.
Gardiner
MM.
Guillemaud
T.
Haye
PA.
Hellemans
B.
Hinrichsen
P.
Jeon
JH.
Kerdelhué
C.
Kharrat
I.
Kim
KH.
Kim
YY.
Kwan
Y-S.
Labbe
EM.
LaHood
E.
Lee
KM.
Lee
W-O.
Lee
Y-H.
LeGoff
I.
Li
H.
Lin
C-P.
Liu
SS.
Liu
YG.
Long
D.
Maes
GE.
Magnoux
E.
Mahanta
PC.
Makni
H.
Makni
M.
Malausa
T.
Matura
R.
McKey
D.
McMillen-Jackson
AL.
Méndez
MA.
Mezghani–Khemakhem
M.
Michel
AP.
Paul
M.
Muriel-Cunha
J.
Nibouche
S.
Normand
F.
Palkovacs
EP.
Pande
V.
Parmentier
K.
Peccoud
J.
Piatscheck
F.
Puchulutegui
C.
Ramos
R.
Ravest
G.
Richner
H.
Robbens
J.
Rochat
D.
Rousselet
J.
Saladin
V.
Sauve
M.
Schlei
O.
Schultz
TF.
Scobie
AR.
Segovia
NI.
Seyoum
S.
Silvain
J-F.
Tabone
E.
Van Houdt
JKJ.
VanDamme
SG.
Volckaert
FAM.
Wenburg
J.
Willis
TV.
Won
Y-J.
Ye
NH.
Zhang
W.
Zhang
YX
.
2012
.
Permanent genetic resources added to Molecular Ecology Resources Database 1 August 2011–30 September 2011
.
Molecular Ecology Resources
12
:
185
189
.
Andreou
D.
Vacquie-Garcia
J.
Cucherousset
J.
Blanchet
S.
Gozlan
RE.
Loot
G.
2011
.
Individual genetic taging for teleosts: an empirical validation and a guideline for ecologists
.
Journal of Fish Biology
80
:
181
194
.
Berlinsky
DL.
DiMaggio
MA.
Breton
TS.
Walsh
J.
Kovach
AI.
2015
.
Peritoneal pigmentation in purebred and hybrid River Herring
.
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society
144
:
717
723
.
Bigelow
HB.
Schroeder
WC.
1953
.
Fishes of the Gulf of Maine. Third edition
.
Washington, D.C
.:
United States Government Printing Office
.
Brohede
J.
Primmer
CR.
Møller
A.
Ellegren
H.
2002
.
Heterogeneity in the rate and pattern of germline mutation at individual microsatellite loci
.
Nucleic Acids Research
30
:
1997
2003
. doi:.
Buchholz-Sørensen
M.
Vella
A.
2016
.
Population structure, genetic diversity, effective population size, demographic history and regional connectivity patterns of the endangered Dusky Grouper, Epinephelus marginatus (Teleostei: Serranidae), within Malta's Fisheries Management Zone
.
PLoS One
11
:
e0159864
. doi:.
Caporaso
JG.
Kuczynski
J.
Stombaugh
J.
Bittinger
K.
Bushman
FD.
Costello
EK.
Fierer
N.
Pena
AG.
Goodrich
JK.
Gordon
JI.
Huttley
GA.
Kelley
ST.
Knights
D.
Koenig
JE.
Ley
RE.
Lozupone
CA.
McDonald
D.
Muegge
BD.
Pirrung
M.
Reeder
J.
Sevinsky
JR.
Turnbaugh
PJ.
Walters
W.
Widmann
J.
Yatsunenko
T.
Zaneveld
J.
Knight
R.
2010
.
QIIME allows analysis of high-throughput community sequencing data
.
Nature Methods
7
:
335
36
.
Chapman
R.
Patton
J.
Eleby
B.
1994
.
Comparisons of mitochondrial DNA variation in four alosid species as revealed by the total genome, the NADH dehydrogenase I and cytochrome b regions
.
Pages
249
262
in
Beaumont
AR.
editor
.
Genetics and Evolution of Aquatic Organisms
.
London
:
Chapman and Hall
.
De
J.
Zhu
W.
Liu
T.
Wang
Z.
Zhong
Y.
2017
.
Development of microsatellite markers using Illumina MiSeq sequencing to characterize Ephedra gerardiana (Ephedraceae). Applications in Plant Sciences 5(3), apps.1600104
. .
Ellegren
H.
2000
.
Heterogeneous mutation processes in human microsatellite DNA sequences
.
Nature Genetics
24
:
400
402
. doi:.
Evans
J.
2015
.
River herring production report, 2015
.
Raleigh, North Carolina
:
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
.
Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration F-93 Report (see Supplemental Material, Reference S1, http://dx.doi.org/10.3996/022017-JFWM-011.S3)
.
Faircloth
BC.
2008
.
msatcommander: detection of microsatellite repeat arrays and automated, locus-specific primer design
.
Molecular Ecology Resources
8
:
92
94
.
Faria
R.
Weiss
S.
Alexandrino
P.
2006
.
A molecular phylogenetic perspective on the evolutionary history of Alosa spp. (Clupeidae)
.
Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution
40
:
298
304
.
Fazzi-Gomes
P.
Guerreiro
S.
Palheta
GDA.
Melo
NFAC.
Santos
S.
Hamoy
I.
2017
.
High genetic diversity and connectivity in Colossoma macropomum in the Amazon basin revealed by microsatellite markers
.
Genetics and Molecular Biology
40
:
142
146
. doi:.
Gardner
MG.
Fitch
AJ.
Bertozzi
T.
Lowe
AJ.
2011
.
Rise of the machines—recommendations for ecologists when using next generation sequencing for microsatellite development
.
Molecular Ecology Resources
11
:
1093
1101
.
Hasselman
DJ.
Anderson
EC.
Argo
EE.
Bethoney
ND.
Gephard
SR.
Post
DM.
Schondelmeier
BP.
Schultz
TF.
Willis
TV.
Palkovacs
EP.
2015
.
Genetic stock composition of marine bycatch reveals disproportional impacts on depleted river herring genetic stocks
.
Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences
13
:
1
44
.
Hasselman
DJ.
Argo
EE.
McBride
MC.
Bentzen
P.
Schultz
TF.
Perez-Umphrey
AA.
Palkovacs
EP.
2014
.
Human disturbance causes the formation of a hybrid swarm between two naturally sympatric fish species
.
Molecular Ecology
23
:
1137
52
.
Julian
SE.
Bartron
ML.
2007
.
Microsatellite DNA markers for American shad (Alosa sapidissima) and cross-species amplification within the family Clupeidae
.
Molecular Ecology Notes
7
:
805
807
.
Kalinowski
ST.
Taper
ML.
Marshall
TC.
2007
.
Revising how the computer program CERVUS accommodates genotyping error increases success in paternity assignment
.
Molecular Ecology
16
:
1099
106
.
Kearse
M.
Moir
R.
Wilson
A.
Stones-Havas
S.
Cheung
M.
Sturrock
S.
Buxton
S.
Cooper
A.
Markowitz
S.
Duran
C.
Thierer
T.
Ashton
B.
Meintjes
P.
Drummond
A.
2012
.
Geneious Basic: an integrated and extendable desktop software platform for the organization and analysis of sequence data
.
Bioinformatics
28
:
1647
1649
. doi:.
Limburg
K.
Oliveira
K.
Wiedenmann
J.
O'Boyle
B.
2012
.
River Herring benchmark stock assessment, Volume 1
.
Raleigh, North Carolina
:
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission
.
Stock Assessment Report No. 12-02 (see Supplemental Material, Reference S2, http://dx.doi.org/10.3996/022017-JFWM-011.S4)
.
Loesch
J.
1987
.
Overview of life history aspects of anadromous Alewife and Blueback herring in freshwater habitats
.
American Fisheries Society Symposium
1
:
89
103
.
McBride
MC.
Willis
TV.,
Bradford
RG.
Bentzen
P.
2014
.
Genetic diversity and structure of two hybridizing anadromous fishes (Alosa pseudoharengus, Alosa aestivalis) across the northern portion of their ranges
.
Conservation Genetics
15
:
1281
1298
. doi:.
Messieh
SN.
1977
.
Population structure and biology of alewives (Alosa pseudoharengus) and blueback herring (A. aestivalis) in the Saint John River, New Brunswick
.
Environmental Biology of Fishes
2
:
195
210
. doi:.
[NOAA] National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
.
2009
.
Species of concern: River Herring
.
NOAA (see Supplemental Material, Reference S4, http://dx.doi.org/10.3996/022017-JFWM-011.S6); also available: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/species/riverherring_detailed.pdf (September 2017)
.
[NOAA] National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
.
2016
.
River herring conservation plan
.
NOAA Fisheries, Greater Atlantic Region
.
[NCDMF] North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries
.
2000
.
North Carolina fishery management plan: Albemarle Sound Area River Herring
.
Morehead City, North Carolina
:
NCDMF
(see Supplemental Material, Reference S3, http://dx.doi.org/10.3996/022017-JFWM-011.S5)
.
Overton
AS.
Jones
NA.
Rulifson
R.
2012
.
Spatial and temporal variability in instantaneous growth, mortality, and recruitment of larval River Herring in Tar–Pamlico River, North Carolina
.
Marine and Coastal Fisheries
4
:
218
227
. doi:.
Pine
W.
Hightower
J.
Coggins
L.
Lauretta
MV.
Pollock
KH.
2012
.
Design and analysis of tagging studies
.
Pages
521
572
in
Zale
A.
Parrish
D.
Sutton
T.
editors
.
Fisheries techniques
.
Bethesda, Maryland
:
American Fisheries Society
.
Potoka
KM.
2016
.
River Herring monitoring program in the Chowan River Basin, North Carolina—2015. Survey
.
Raleigh, North Carolina
:
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
(see Supplemental Material, Reference S6, http://dx.doi.org/10.3996/022017-JFWM-011.S8)
.
River Herring [TEWG] Technical Expert Working Group
.
2016
.
Meeting summary
.
NOAA Fisheries Greater Atlantic Region (see Supplemental Material, Reference S7, http://dx.doi.org/10.3996/022017-JFWM-011.S9); also available: https://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/protected/riverherring/tewg/sept_2016_tewg_meeting_summary_final.pdf (August 2017)
.
Schuelke
M.
2000
.
An economic method for the fluorescent labeling of PCR fragments
.
Nature Biotechnology
18
:
233
234
. doi:.
Skalski
JR.
Buchanan
RA.
Griswold
J.
2009
.
Review of marking methods and release–recapture designs for estimating the survival of very small fish: examples from the assessment of salmonid fry survival
.
Reviews in Fisheries Science
17
:
391
401
.
Steele
CA.
Anderson
EC.
Ackerman
MW.
Hess
MA.
Campbell
NR.
Narum
SR.
Campbell
MR.
2013
.
A validation of parentage-based tagging using hatchery steelhead in the Snake River basin
.
Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences
70
:
1046
1054
.
Walsh
HJ.
Settle
LR.
Peters
DS.
2005
.
Early life history of Blueback Herring and Alewife in the Lower Roanoke River, North Carolina
.
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society
134
:
910
926
.
West
DC.
Walters
AW.
Gephard
S.
Post
DM.
2010
.
Nutrient loading by anadromous alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus): contemporary patterns and predictions for restoration efforts
.
Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences
67
:
1211
1220
.
Ywasaki Lima J, Machado FB, Farro APC, Barbosa L de A, da Silveira LS, Medina-Acosta E
.
2017
.
Population genetic structure of Guiana dolphin (Sotalia guianensis) from the southwestern Atlantic coast of Brazil
.
PLoS One
12
:
e0183645
. doi:.

Author notes

Citation: Evans HK, Carlson KB, Wisser R, Raley ME, Potoka KM, Dockendorf KJ. 2018. Genetics and hatchery management: a parentage-based tagging approach to Blueback Herring conservation. Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management 9(1):4–13; e1944-687X. doi:10.3996/022017-JFWM-011

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 data