Literature DB >> 22834373

Habitat selection predicts genetic relatedness in an alpine ungulate.

Aaron B A Shafer1, Joseph M Northrup, Kevin S White, Mark S Boyce, Steeve D Côté, David W Coltman.   

Abstract

Landscape heterogeneity plays an integral role in shaping ecological and evolutionary processes. Despite links between the two disciplines, ecologists and population geneticists have taken different approaches to evaluating habitat selection, animal movement, and gene flow across the landscape. Ecologists commonly use statistical models such as resource selection functions (RSFs) to identify habitat features disproportionately selected by animals, whereas population genetic approaches model genetic differentiation according to the distribution of habitat variables. We combined ecological and genetic approaches by using RSFs to predict genetic relatedness across a heterogeneous landscape. We constructed sex- and season-specific resistance surfaces based on RSFs estimated using data from 102 GPS (global positioning system) radio-collared mountain goats (Oreamnos americanus) in southeast Alaska, USA. Based on mountain goat ecology, we hypothesized that summer and male surfaces would be the best predictors of relatedness. All individuals were genotyped at 22 microsatellite loci, which we used to estimate genetic relatedness. Summer resistance surfaces derived from RSFs were the best predictors of genetic relatedness, and winter models the poorest. Mountain goats generally selected for areas close to escape terrain and with a high heat load (a metric related to vegetative productivity and snow depth), while avoiding valleys. Male- and female-specific surfaces were similar, except for winter, for which male habitat selection better predicted genetic relatedness. The null models of isolation-by-distance and barrier only outperformed the winter models. This study merges high-resolution individual locations through GPS telemetry and genetic data, that can be used to validate and parameterize landscape genetics models, and further elucidates the relationship between landscape heterogeneity and genetic differentiation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22834373     DOI: 10.1890/11-0815.1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ecology        ISSN: 0012-9658            Impact factor:   5.499


  19 in total

Review 1.  Home ranges, habitat and body mass: simple correlates of home range size in ungulates.

Authors:  Endre Grüner Ofstad; Ivar Herfindal; Erling Johan Solberg; Bernt-Erik Sæther
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2016-12-28       Impact factor: 5.349

2.  Temporally dynamic habitat suitability predicts genetic relatedness among caribou.

Authors:  Glenn Yannic; Loïc Pellissier; Maël Le Corre; Christian Dussault; Louis Bernatchez; Steeve D Côté
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2014-10-07       Impact factor: 5.349

Review 3.  Conceptual and methodological advances in habitat-selection modeling: guidelines for ecology and evolution.

Authors:  Joseph M Northrup; Eric Vander Wal; Maegwin Bonar; John Fieberg; Michel P Laforge; Martin Leclerc; Christina M Prokopenko; Brian D Gerber
Journal:  Ecol Appl       Date:  2021-11-28       Impact factor: 6.105

4.  Fine-scale landscape genetics of the American badger (Taxidea taxus): disentangling landscape effects and sampling artifacts in a poorly understood species.

Authors:  E M Kierepka; E K Latch
Journal:  Heredity (Edinb)       Date:  2015-08-05       Impact factor: 3.821

5.  Landscape characteristics influencing the genetic structure of greater sage-grouse within the stronghold of their range: a holistic modeling approach.

Authors:  Jeffrey R Row; Sara J Oyler-McCance; Jennifer A Fike; Michael S O'Donnell; Kevin E Doherty; Cameron L Aldridge; Zachary H Bowen; Bradley C Fedy
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2015-05-01       Impact factor: 2.912

6.  Preferred habitat and effective population size drive landscape genetic patterns in an endangered species.

Authors:  Byron V Weckworth; Marco Musiani; Nicholas J Decesare; Allan D McDevitt; Mark Hebblewhite; Stefano Mariani
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2013-09-04       Impact factor: 5.349

7.  Linking genotype, ecotype, and phenotype in an intensively managed large carnivore.

Authors:  Aaron B A Shafer; Scott E Nielsen; Joseph M Northrup; Gordon B Stenhouse
Journal:  Evol Appl       Date:  2013-12-04       Impact factor: 5.183

8.  The influence of habitat structure on genetic differentiation in red fox populations in north-eastern Poland.

Authors:  Jacinta Mullins; Allan D McDevitt; Rafał Kowalczyk; Iwona Ruczyńska; Marcin Górny; Jan M Wójcik
Journal:  Acta Theriol (Warsz)       Date:  2014-03-22

9.  Does learning or instinct shape habitat selection?

Authors:  Scott E Nielsen; Aaron B A Shafer; Mark S Boyce; Gordon B Stenhouse
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-01-16       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Spatial Niche Segregation of Sympatric Stone Marten and Pine Marten--Avoidance of Competition or Selection of Optimal Habitat?

Authors:  Anna Wereszczuk; Andrzej Zalewski
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-10-07       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.