| Literature DB >> 23919153 |
Anita Rogic1, Nathalie Tessier, Pierre Legendre, François-Joseph Lapointe, Virginie Millien.
Abstract
The white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus) has expanded its northern limit into southern Québec over the last few decades. P. leucopus is a great disperser and colonizer and is of particular interest because it is considered a primary reservoir for the spirochete bacterium that causes Lyme disease. There is no current information on the gene flow between mouse populations on the mountains and forest fragments found scattered throughout the Montérégie region in southern Québec, and whether various landscape barriers have an effect on their dispersal. We conducted a population genetics analysis on eleven P. leucopus populations using eleven microsatellite markers and showed that isolation by distance was weak, yet barriers were effective. The agricultural matrix had the least effect on gene flow, whereas highways and main rivers were effective barriers. The abundance of ticks collected from mice varied within the study area. Both ticks and mice were screened for the presence of the spirochete bacterium Borrelia burgdorferi, and we predicted areas of greater risk for Lyme disease. Merging our results with ongoing Lyme disease surveillance programs will help determine the future threat of this disease in Québec, and will contribute toward disease prevention and management strategies throughout fragmented landscapes in southern Canada.Entities:
Keywords: Barriers; Lyme disease; Peromyscus leucopus; climate change; fragmentation; gene flow
Year: 2013 PMID: 23919153 PMCID: PMC3728948 DOI: 10.1002/ece3.620
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ecol Evol ISSN: 2045-7758 Impact factor: 2.912
Figure 1Geographic locations of the 11 study sites and the main geographic barriers among them. Four Monteregian hills were considered: Mont Saint Bruno (H), Mont Saint Hilaire (K), Mont Rougemont (G), and Mont Yamaska (J). In the top panel, a greater forest density is observed in the southern portion of the Montérégie (mapped with SIEF data, MRNQ 2000). Agricultural fields are shaded in white, forested habitats in light gray, and water bodies in dark gray.
Location, elevation, and sample size for the study sites
| Site | Latitude | Longitude | Elevation (m) | Nearest mountain | number | Years collected |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | N45 28.91 | W73 10.47 | 44 | NA | 35 | 2010, 2011 |
| B | N45 29.01 | W73 13.86 | 23 | NA | 32 | 2010, 2011 |
| C | N45 26.97 | W72 54.54 | 83 | Mont Yamaska | 34 | 2011 |
| D | N45 29.75 | W73 18.99 | 35 | Mont Saint Bruno | 31 | 2011 |
| E | N45 23.28 | W73 12.09 | 63 | NA | 34 | 2010, 2011 |
| F | N45 25.43 | W73 03.92 | 68 | Mont Rougemont | 35 | 2011 |
| G | N45 29.74 | W73 04.06 | 89 | NA | 35 | 2009, 2011 |
| H | N45 32.97 | W73 18.23 | 90 | NA | 37 | 2009 |
| I | N45 31.23 | W73 12.14 | 59 | Mont Saint Hilaire | 35 | 2011 |
| J | N45 27.42 | W72 51.52 | 295 | NA | 21 | 2009, 2011 |
| K | N45 33.16 | W73 09.09 | 244 | NA | 38 | 2007–2009 |
Nearest mountains for fragments are indicated. G, Mont Rougemont; H, Mont Saint Bruno; J, Mont Yamaska; K, Mont Saint Hilaire.
Tick abundance collected from mice
| Site | Number of mice | Mice with ticks | Minimum and maximum number of ticks | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| # | % | Larvae | Nymphs | Adults | ||
| A | 35 | 1 | 2.9 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| B | 32 | 2 | 6.3 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| C | 34 | 14 | 41.2 | 1–7 | 1 | 0 |
| D | 31 | 16 | 51.6 | 1–8 | 0 | 0 |
| E | 34 | 21 | 61.8 | 1–7 | 1 | 0 |
| F | 35 | 3 | 8.6 | 2 | 1 | 0 |
| G | 35 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| I | 35 | 3 | 8.6 | 1–3 | 0 | 0 |
| J | 21 | 2 | 9.5 | 1–2 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 292 | 62 | 21.2 | |||
Sites H and K were not sampled for ticks. Three infected mice and an infected tick were collected from site D in 2011.
Sample size (n), mean number of alleles per locus (k), allelic richness (A), number of private alleles (p), and observed (H) and expected heterozygosity (H) for the 11 populations
| Site | n | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | 35 | 13.7 | 10.7 | 4 | 0.858 | 0.860 |
| B | 32 | 11.3 | 9.4 | 4 | 0.846 | 0.844 |
| C | 34 | 13.3 | 10.7 | 13 | 0.853 | 0.852 |
| D | 31 | 11.8 | 9.7 | 2 | 0.902 | 0.830 |
| E | 34 | 12.0 | 10.0 | 3 | 0.917 | 0.863 |
| F | 35 | 13.2 | 10.7 | 9 | 0.874 | 0.869 |
| G | 35 | 11.9 | 10.2 | 2 | 0.893 | 0.868 |
| H | 37 | 10.6 | 9.1 | 3 | 0.861 | 0.853 |
| I | 35 | 12.1 | 9.9 | 3 | 0.891 | 0.846 |
| J | 21 | 9.8 | 9.4 | 0 | 0.872 | 0.845 |
| K | 38 | 11.8 | 9.7 | 4 | 0.832 | 0.842 |
| Mean | 0.873 | 0.852 |
Figure 2STRUCTURE's population clustering analysis suggesting two population clusters (K = 2). Each line represents an individual, and Q is the proportion of the individual's genome which is part of each K subpopulation.
Figure 3Results of the (A) hierarchical clustering tree (UPGMA) and (B) the isolation-by-distance analysis using FST values.
Canonical redundancy analyses with FST values and allele frequencies as the dependant variable and dispersal barriers as independent variables
| AIC | F | Adjusted | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Richelieu River | −53.8 | 6.41 | |
| Yamaska River | −54.8 | 2.50 | |
| Highway 116 | −55.8 | 2.19 | |
| Highway 112 | −58.4 | 3.17 | 0.63 |
| Allele frequencies | |||
| Richelieu River | −12.3 | 3.18 | |
| Yamaska River | −12.3 | 1.60 | |
| Highway 116 | −12.4 | 1.54 | |
| Highway 112 | −13.0 | 1.59 | 0.33 |
AIC, F, and adjusted r2 values are shown for each model.
nsP > 0.05,
P < 0.05,
P < 0.01.