| Literature DB >> 23028396 |
Giridhar Athrey1, Kelly R Barr, Richard F Lance, Paul L Leberg.
Abstract
Anthropogenic alterations in the natural environment can be a potent evolutionary force. For species that have specific habitat requirements, habitat loss can result in substantial genetic effects, potentially impeding future adaptability and evolution. The endangered black-capped vireo (Vireo atricapilla) suffered a substantial contraction of breeding habitat and population size during much of the 20th century. In a previous study, we reported significant differentiation between remnant populations, but failed to recover a strong genetic signal of bottlenecks. In this study, we used a combination of historical and contemporary sampling from Oklahoma and Texas to (i) determine whether population structure and genetic diversity have changed over time and (ii) evaluate alternate demographic hypotheses using approximate Bayesian computation (ABC). We found lower genetic diversity and increased differentiation in contemporary samples compared to historical samples, indicating nontrivial impacts of fragmentation. ABC analysis suggests a bottleneck having occurred in the early part of the 20th century, resulting in a magnitude decline in effective population size. Genetic monitoring with temporally spaced samples, such as used in this study, can be highly informative for assessing the genetic impacts of anthropogenic fragmentation on threatened or endangered species, as well as revealing the dynamics of small populations over time.Entities:
Keywords: anthropogenic fragmentation; bottlenecks; evolutionary dynamics; fragmentation; genetic differentiation; genetic diversity
Year: 2012 PMID: 23028396 PMCID: PMC3461138 DOI: 10.1111/j.1752-4571.2011.00233.x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evol Appl ISSN: 1752-4571 Impact factor: 5.183
Figure 1A map showing the distribution of breeding habitats of the black-capped vireo in central Texas and south-central Oklahoma. The shaded regions denote the historical breeding range of the species, but the current breeding range is considerably limited (not depicted). Filled ovals represent sites where we have both historical and contemporary samples.
Classification of comparisons and the time points over which we assessed changes in genetic diversity. Ne estimation was based on the historical–contemporary samples
| Comparison | Site | Year |
|---|---|---|
| Historical | Kerr | 1900, 1910, 1915 |
| Historical–contemporary | Bexar | 1910 |
| Kerr | 1900, 1910, 1915, 2005 | |
| Oklahoma | 1910 | |
| Contemporary | Kerr | 2005, 2008 |
Bexar was the combined sample from Bexar–Travis–Williamson counties (sites SA and BC in Barr et al. 2008).
Oklahoma was the combined sample from Blaine–Caddo–Comanche counties.
Samples labeled 1910 for Bexar and Oklahoma consist of those collected from 1906 to 1910.
Description of the eleven scenarios that were evaluated using coalescent simulation and ABC estimation. In all but one case, the putative time at which population decline t generations ago was estimated
| Scenario | Evaluated conditions | Notation | Parameters estimated |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Constant or increasing size between ancestral (Na) at | Na ≤ N1 | Na:U[10:100 000] N1:U[10:100 000] |
| 2 | Population size declined from 4000 at | Nb > N2 | Time of bottleneck t:U[10:80] |
| 3 | Population size declined from 5000 at | Nc > N3 | Time of bottleneck t:U[10:80] |
| 4 | Population size declined from 6000 at | Nd > N4 | Time of bottleneck t:U[10:80] |
| 5 | Populations size declined from 2000 at | Ne > N5 | Time of bottleneck t:U[10:80] N5:U[200:1000] |
| 6 | Population size declined from 3000 at | Nf > N6 | Time of bottleneck t:U[10:80] N6:U[200:1000] |
| 7 | Population size declined from 4000 at | Ng > N7 | Time of bottleneck t:U[10:80] N7:U[200:1000] |
| 8 | Population size declined from 5000 at | Nh > N8 | Time of bottleneck t:U[10:80] N8:U[200:1000] |
| 9 | Population size declined from Ni at | Ni > N9 | Ni:U[2500:15 000] Time of bottleneck t:U[10:80] N9:U[100:1000] |
| 10 | Population size declined from Nj at | Nj > N10 | Nj:U[2500:15 000] Time of bottleneck t:U[10:80] N10:U[100:1000] |
| 11 | Population size declined from Nk at | Nk > N11 | Nk:U[2000:10 000] Time of bottleneck t:U[10:80] N11:U[500:750] |
t0 represents our contemporary sample, and t90 refers to the historical sample. Scenario 1 is the null hypothesis of constant population or increasing size.
Measures of mean multilocus genetic diversity (with SEs) for historical and present population of black-capped vireo from different sampling times. The hypothesis of no difference in estimates of expected heterozygosity (HEXP) or allelic richness (AR) was evaluated with a Wilcoxon signed-rank test or Kruskal–Wallis test*. Sample years with census size (Ne) are given
| Site | Sample year ( | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Historical comparisons | ||||||||
| 1900 | 8 | 8.88 (0.512) | 0.13 | 0.890 | 0.91 (0.012) | 3.76 | 0.1526 | |
| Kerr | 1910 | 15 | 8.56 (0.519) | 0.87 (0.022) | ||||
| 1915 | 20 | 8.72 (0.388) | 0.90 (0.008) | |||||
| Historical–contemporary comparisons | ||||||||
| Kerr | 1915 | 20 | 8.72 (0.388) | 2.429 | 0.008 | 0.90 (0.013) | 2.54 | 0.005 |
| 2005 (1000) | 17 | 6.75 (0.496) | 0.80 (0.034) | |||||
| Bexar | 1906–1910 | 9 | 9.56 (0.765) | 2.666 | 0.004 | 0.91 (0.011) | 2.062 | 0.019 |
| 2005 (260) | 33 | 6.51 (0.619) | 0.79 (0.031) | |||||
| Oklahoma | 1906–1910 | 8 | 8.44 (0.647) | 2.667 | 0.044 | 0.89 (0.021) | 2.76 | 0.004 |
| 2006 (4000) | 34 | 6.00 (0.483) | 0.75 (0.034) | |||||
| Contemporary comparisons | ||||||||
| Kerr | 2005 (1000) | 17 | 6.75 (0.496) | 0.178 | 0.48 | 0.80 (0.021) | 0.889 | 0.18 |
| 2008 (1000) | 25 | 6.29 (0.668) | 0.81 (0.027) | |||||
For comparisons involving pairs of samples, the hypothesis of no difference between samples was evaluated using Wilcoxon signed-rank test; Kruskal–Wallis test was used in comparisons involving three temporally spaced samples.
Pairwise differentiation between the three pairs of sites that were sampled in both the historical and contemporary periods
| Historical samples | Contemporary samples | Historical v/s contemporary comparison | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sample pair | ||||||
| Bexar–Kerr | 0.0131 | 0.126 | 0.0461 | 0.003 | 2.71 | 0.004 |
| Kerr–Oklahoma | 0.0116 | 0.010 | 0.0348 | 0.003 | 2.87 | 0.003 |
| Oklahoma–Bexar | 0.0126 | 0.088 | 0.0497 | 0.003 | 2.66 | 0.004 |
Estimates of FST, and P values for historical and contemporary comparisons are provided. To compare levels of historical versus contemporary differentiation, we used Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, and the respective Z and P values are shown.
Test of hypothesis that FST is not different from zero.
Test of hypothesis that FST from the historical period is not different than FST from the contemporary period.
Figure 2(A) Posterior probabilities of 11 evaluated scenarios, showing that scenario 8, requiring a decline in population size from 5000 to a lesser value (200–1000), was the best supported over a 110 000 closest data sets. (B) Posterior probability for the estimated parameter N8, which as estimated as 450 (95% CI, 320–821). (C) Posterior probability of an event t generations ago when bottleneck occurred (x-axis, generations 10–90). t was estimated to as 67 (95% CI, 36–81) generations before present.
Temporal estimates of effective population size (Ne) from historical–contemporary sampling and assuming generation lengths (T) of 1 year. Values shown are estimates of the likelihood estimates of Ne (MLN), migration (m) and their 95% confidence intervals
| Site | Time | No. Gen | ML | 95% CI | 95% CI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Historical–contemporary comparisons | ||||||
| Bexar | 1910–2005 | 95 | 38 | 17–208 | 0.081 | 0.012–0.243 |
| Kerr | 1915–2005 | 90 | 180 | 43–419 | 0.025 | 0.010–0.132 |
| Oklahoma | 1910–2005 | 95 | 31 | 15–180 | 0.074 | 0.017–0.206 |
Temporal estimates of the effective population size (Ne) based on historical and contemporary samples, assuming closed populations (no migration) and a generation length (T) of 1 year
| Site | Time | No. Gen | Mt | ML | 95% CI | 95% CI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Historical–contemporary comparisons | |||||||
| Bexar | 1910–2005 | 95 | 198 | 597 | 408–872 | 1263 | 803–2379 |
| Kerr | 1915–2005 | 90 | 242 | 552 | 394–809 | 792 | 554–1217 |
| Oklahoma | 1910–2005 | 95 | 129 | 418 | 308–5m84 | 722 | 513–1084 |
Values shown are estimates of the likelihood estimates of the moment estimate MtN, the likelihood estimate (MLNe), and the coalescent estimator CoN. The corresponding 95% confidence intervals are shown.