Pond Boss Magazine
https://www.pondboss.com/images/userfiles/image/20130301193901_6_150by50orangewhyshouldsubscribejpeg.jpg
Advertisment
Newest Members
Shotgun01, Dan H, Stipker, LunkerHunt23, Jeanjules
18,451 Registered Users
Forum Statistics
Forums36
Topics40,902
Posts557,119
Members18,452
Most Online3,612
Jan 10th, 2023
Top Posters
esshup 28,420
ewest 21,475
Cecil Baird1 20,043
Bill Cody 15,112
Who's Online Now
5 members (Fishingadventure, RogersTailgate, jpsdad, anthropic, Brev), 714 guests, and 197 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,903
Likes: 109
Offline
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,903
Likes: 109
Thank you all. ewest, I had to go through that info twice, just to scratch the surface. I'll continue to catch as many HBG as I can, but I've been seeing a lot lately in the 1-2" range.
I also have RES, so I could be getting addl crossing there, or, the 1-2" fry I'm seeing might be RES, and not HBG.
If I ever get to the point that I'm not catching them as soon as the hook hits the water, or they really leave swimmers alone, I'll report it here.


9 yr old pond, 1 ac, 15' deep.
RES, YP, GS, FHM (no longer), HBG (going away), SMB, and HSB (only one seen in 5 yrs) Restocked HSB (2020) Have seen one of these.
I think that's about all I should put in my little pond.
Otter attack in 2023
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 21,475
Likes: 264
E
Moderator
Hall of Fame 2014
Lunker
Offline
Moderator
Hall of Fame 2014
Lunker
E
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 21,475
Likes: 264
Originally Posted By: sprkplug
If the HBG are not prone to recruitment amongst themselves, nor are they likely to cross and backcross, where did the multitude of stories regarding reversion to GSF come from?


Sprk a scientific reply is - there is a whole lot we don't know. Bill C. gave you at least part of the answer - multi species , reciprocal cross differences , % of pure genetics , regional adaptation and more. I start my analysis with the following.

TEMPO OF HYBRID INVIABILITY IN CENTRARCHID FISHES
By DANIEL I. BOLNICK AND THOMAS J. NEAR
Received September 13, 2004. Accepted February 15, 2005.*


Abstract. Hybrid viability decreases with divergence time, a pattern consistent with a so-called speciation clock.
However, the actual rate at which this clock ticks is poorly known. Most speciation-clock studies have used genetic
divergence as a proxy for time, adopting a molecular clock and often far-distant calibration points to convert genetic
distances into age. Because molecular clock assumptions are violated for most genetic datasets and distant calibrations
are of questionable utility, the actual rate at which reproductive isolation evolves may be substantially different than
current estimates suggest. We provide a robust measure of the tempo at which hybrid viability declines with divergence
time in a clade of freshwater fishes (Centrarchidae). This incompatibility clock is distinct from a speciation clock
because speciation events in centrarchids appear to be driven largely by prezygotic isolation. Our analyses used
divergence times estimated with penalized likelihood applied to a phylogeny derived from seven gene regions and
calibrated with six centrarchid fossils. We found that hybrid embryo viability declined at mean rate of 3.13% per
million years, slower than in most other taxa investigated to date. Despite measurement error in both molecular
estimated ages and hatching success of hybrid crosses, divergence time explained between 73% and 90% of the
variation in hybrid viability among nodes. This high correlation is consistent with the gradual accumulation of many
genetic incompatibilities of small effect. Hybrid viability declined with the square of time, consistent with an increasing
rate of accumulation of incompatibilities between divergent genomes (the snowball effect). However, the quadratic
slope is due to a lag phase resulting from heterosis among young species pairs, a phenomenon rarely considered in
predictions of hybrid fitness. Finally, we found that reciprocal crosses often show asymmetrical hybrid viabilities.
We discuss several alternative explanations for this result including possible deleterious cytonuclear interactions.
Speciation-clock studies have been a small cottage industry recently, but there are still novel insights to be gained
from analyses of more taxonomic groups. However, between-group comparisons require more careful molecular-clock
calibration than has been the norm.


we have not been able
to find any documentation of F1 fertility for taxa more than
14.64 million years apart.
In contrast, the minimum age for total inviability
in centrarchids is 24.81 million years (node 3, Fig. 2), though
this is only for one direction of a reciprocal cross. The other
direction of this cross (L. microlophus 3 M. salmoides) yielded
43% viability. The only crosses with total inviability in
both directions are M. salmoides 3 (Ambloplites rupestrus,
Pomoxis annularis, or Pomoxis nigromaculatus) at 28.94 million
years, while 10 other crosses of that age have some
viability in one or both reciprocal directions (see online Appendix).
Centrarchids also retain nonzero viability and heterosis
for much longer than most other taxa.

We speculate that the slow evolution of hybrid inviability in
centrarchids reflects a lack of distinctive large hemizygous
sex chromosomes, preventing the more rapid accumulation
of inviabilities via Haldane’s rule (Turelli and Begun 1997).
The asymmetrical viability of reciprocal F1 hybrids argues
for a major role of interactions between haploid (sex or mitochondrial
loci) and diploid genes, or cytonuclear interactions
in postzygotic isolation. Previous studies of allozyme
gene expression ontogeny in hybrid centrarchids lend support
to the latter effect (Whitt et al. 1977). Our results also suggest
that theory needs to assess the interaction between heterosis
and genetic incompatibilities before we can judge whether a
lag phase (Mendelson et al. 2004) in the evolution of hybrid
inviability can be used to support the snowball effect (Orr
and Turelli 2001). Finally, we argue that the evolution of
hybrid inviability plays little role in driving speciation in
centrarchids. Nonetheless, inviability may still play an important
role in buttressing species against subsequent introgression.
This is because other reproductive isolating mechanisms
can break down under habitat disturbance or environmental
change, whereas intrinsic genetic incompatibilities
guarantee that diverged lineages remain distinct.


We do not currently have enough information to distinguish
between sex chromosome, mitochondrial, or cytoplasmic
effects. However, the lack of distinctive sex chromosomes
(Roberts 1964; but see Becak et al. 1966) suggests
that the hemizygous nuclear region is likely to be small (possibly
even a single locus) and so may not contribute strongly
to inviability (Turelli and Begun 1997). One puzzling pattern to emerge from our data lends some credence to a role for
cytonuclear interactions: using maximum body size as an
index (Page and Burr 1991), the larger species tends to be
the more successful maternal parent (Table 3). Of the 18
species pairs with reciprocal cross data and nonzero viability,
one pair had equal body size and nearly symmetrical crossing
success. Focusing on the remaining 17 species pairs (admittedly
not phylogenetically independent; Table 3), the larger
parent was more successful in 13 crosses and less successful
in four crosses (x12 5 4.765, P 5 0.029). We speculate that
there is greater disruption of paternal allele expression when
the paternal allele is from a smaller species, placed in an egg
with cytoplasmic factors encoded by a larger maternal species.
However, the cytoplasmic effect cannot be attributed to
differences in egg size, as egg size is not correlated with
body size (D. I. Bolnick, unpubl. data) and egg size differences
are not associated with inviability (Merriner 1971b).
We are working on expanding our dataset to include more
reciprocal crosses to test this pattern more rigorously.




Last edited by ewest; 06/19/17 02:55 PM.















Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 4,596
Likes: 36
Lunker
Offline
Lunker
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 4,596
Likes: 36
Originally Posted By: sprkplug
The studies posted by ewest are the same ones I used to have. Actually, they are the same ones that get presented everytime. Look at the dates when some were published, going on 50 years old or older.I wish someone would take a fresh look, with fresh experimentation. If the HBG are not prone to recruitment amongst themselves, nor are they likely to cross and backcross, where did the multitude of stories regarding reversion to GSF come from?


There is always the possibility that pure GSF can gain access to ponds during high water events, if that happens I would think that they would be much more prone to recruitment than any HBG that were stocked.



Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,903
Likes: 109
Offline
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,903
Likes: 109
I seriously doubt any GSF or BG came to my pond during a high water event. All the drainage to the pond is on my property. No other ponds in the drainage. Coming up from below the dam would be next to impossible.
I guess there is the possibility of a friendly neighbor, but I've talked to everyone that I believe would come by, and have asked them not to "help" with any stocking.

Last edited by SetterGuy; 06/19/17 03:22 PM.

9 yr old pond, 1 ac, 15' deep.
RES, YP, GS, FHM (no longer), HBG (going away), SMB, and HSB (only one seen in 5 yrs) Restocked HSB (2020) Have seen one of these.
I think that's about all I should put in my little pond.
Otter attack in 2023
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,979
Likes: 14
S
Ambassador
Lunker
Offline
Ambassador
Lunker
S
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,979
Likes: 14
I have little doubt that misidentification accounts for some of the reported HBG-becoming-GSF-over-time, reports. But I have my doubts that this scenario explains every instance.

Wasn't it meadowlark who was documenting his experiences with F2 and F3 HBG?


Thanks ewest, always appreciate you digging up the good info!

Last edited by sprkplug; 06/19/17 05:22 PM.

"Forget pounds and ounces, I'm figuring displacement!"

If we accept that: MBG(+)FGSF(=)HBG(F1)
And we surmise that: BG(>)HBG(F1) while GSF(<)HBG(F1)
Would it hold true that: HBG(F1)(+)AM500(x)q.d.(=)1.5lbGRWT?
PB answer: It depends.
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 6,086
Likes: 93
S
Offline
S
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 6,086
Likes: 93
See my post above.

Only takes a parental pair of non-target fish over a period of say 5 years to create enough offspring to be noticable, particularly in a pond with only HBG as top predators.

Are all those "reversion" stories from ponds certified to be free of non-target species?

Last edited by snrub; 06/19/17 10:45 PM.

John

I subscribe to Pond Boss Magazine
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,979
Likes: 14
S
Ambassador
Lunker
Offline
Ambassador
Lunker
S
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,979
Likes: 14
Maybe this is an area where we differ in Regards to what constitutes a HBG. To me, if an F1 hybrid crosses with a "pure" BG and offspring result from the cross, those offspring ARE hybrid bluegills for all practical concerns, most obviously in their appearance.

I will look for Meadowlark posts when I have time. If memory serves, he had both F2 and F3 fish. I've caught a couple FX fish out of my own pond, but cannot say with certainty whether they were F2 hybs, or the result of a female HBG crossing with a male BG. I do have a few male BG in the pond, and certainly have had female HBG in the past.


"Forget pounds and ounces, I'm figuring displacement!"

If we accept that: MBG(+)FGSF(=)HBG(F1)
And we surmise that: BG(>)HBG(F1) while GSF(<)HBG(F1)
Would it hold true that: HBG(F1)(+)AM500(x)q.d.(=)1.5lbGRWT?
PB answer: It depends.
Page 2 of 2 1 2

Link Copied to Clipboard
Today's Birthdays
cro, HC1968
Recent Posts
Dewatering bags seeded to form berms?
by RogersTailgate - 03/29/24 05:45 AM
Relative weight charts in Excel ? Calculations?
by jpsdad - 03/29/24 05:43 AM
pond experience needed
by esshup - 03/29/24 12:45 AM
New pond middle TN: establishing food chain?
by Bill Cody - 03/28/24 07:57 PM
Happy Birthday Bob Lusk!!
by FireIsHot - 03/28/24 07:33 PM
Working on a .5acre disaster, I mean pond.
by PRCS - 03/28/24 06:39 PM
Fungus infection on fish
by nvcdl - 03/28/24 06:07 PM
Can anyone ID these minnows?
by Dylanfrely - 03/28/24 05:43 PM
1 year after stocking question
by esshup - 03/28/24 04:48 PM
Yellow Perch Spawn 2024
by H20fwler - 03/28/24 04:29 PM
New 2 acre pond stocking plan
by LANGSTER - 03/28/24 03:49 PM
Newly Uploaded Images
Eagles Over The Pond Yesterday
Eagles Over The Pond Yesterday
by Tbar, December 10
Deer at Theo's 2023
Deer at Theo's 2023
by Theo Gallus, November 13
Minnow identification
Minnow identification
by Mike Troyer, October 6
Sharing the Food
Sharing the Food
by FishinRod, September 9
Nice BGxRES
Nice BGxRES
by Theo Gallus, July 28
Snake Identification
Snake Identification
by Rangersedge, July 12

� 2014 POND BOSS INC. all rights reserved USA and Worldwide

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5