| Literature DB >> 24386079 |
Ross L Goldingay1, Katherine A Harrisson2, Andrea C Taylor2, Tina M Ball3, David J Sharpe1, Brendan D Taylor1.
Abstract
Understanding how populations respond to habitat loss is central to conserving biodiversity. Population genetic approaches enable the identification of the symptoms of population disruption in advance of population collapse. However, the spatio-temporal scales at which population disruption occurs are still too poorly known to effectively conserve biodiversity in the face of human-induced landscape change. We employed microsatellite analysis to examine genetic structure and diversity over small spatial (mostly 1-50 km) and temporal scales (20-50 years) in the squirrel glider (Petaurus norfolcensis), a gliding mammal that is commonly subjected to a loss of habitat connectivity. We identified genetically differentiated local populations over distances as little as 3 km and within 30 years of landscape change. Genetically isolated local populations experienced the loss of genetic diversity, and significantly increased mean relatedness, which suggests increased inbreeding. Where tree cover remained, genetic differentiation was less evident. This pattern was repeated in two landscapes located 750 km apart. These results lend support to other recent studies that suggest the loss of habitat connectivity can produce fine-scale population genetic change in a range of taxa. This gives rise to the prediction that many other vertebrates will experience similar genetic changes. Our results suggest the future collapse of local populations of this gliding mammal is likely unless habitat connectivity is maintained or restored. Landscape management must occur on a fine-scale to avert the erosion of biodiversity.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 24386079 PMCID: PMC3873248 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0080383
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Figure 1Genetic clustering analysis for Mackay (K=5) samples.
Different grayscales represent the five different genetic clusters. Individuals are grouped by location and are represented by columns and the proportion of each grayscale in a column represents their proportional assignment to a cluster. Locations are arranged north to south (left to right).
Figure 2Genetic clustering analysis for Brisbane (K=4) samples.
Genetic diversity and differentiation parameters for squirrel glider sample locations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||||
| 1 Cape Hillsborough | Hil | >500 | 30 | 10 | 0.87 | 4.48 | 0.097 |
| 2 Mt Jukes | – | 5000 | 0 | 2 | – | – | – |
| 3 Weston | Wes | 150 | 5-15 | 5 | 0.85 | 4.31 | 0.088 |
| 4 The Leap | Lea | 300 | 5-15 | 7 | 0.88 | 4.52 | 0.075 |
| 5 Slade Point | Sla | 215 | 50-60 | 5 | 0.68 | 2.80 | 0.172 |
| 6 Mt Vince | MtV | 25 | 20-30 | 4 | 0.84 | 4.09 | 0.096 |
| 7 Thompsons | – | 100 | 30-40 | 2 | – | – | – |
| 8 Padaminka | Pad | 65 | 30-40 | 22 | 0.78 | 3.90 | 0.148 |
| 9 Kinchant | Kin | 485 | 20-30 | 13 | 0.91 | 4.77 | 0.069 |
| 10 Mt Blarney | MtB | 95 | 15-20 | 4 | 0.83 | 4.08 | 0.122 |
| 11 Mt Christian | MtC | >600 | 0 | 4 | 0.94 | 4.88 | 0.078 |
|
| |||||||
| 1 Bracken Ridge | Bra | 100 | 30-50 | 15 | 0.85 | 5.71 | 0.090 |
| 2 Minnippi Parklands | MnP | 50 | 30-50 | 138 | 0.75 | 4.59 | 0.094 |
| 3 Minnippi East | MnE | 25 | 30-50 | 9 | 0.67 | 3.93 | 0.141 |
| 4 Belmont Hills | Bel | 110 | 30-50 | 22 | 0.86 | 6.17 | 0.069 |
| 5 Gateway | Gat | 700 | 30-50 | 5 | 0.88 | 6.50 | 0.068 |
| 6 Mt Petrie | MtP | 700 | 30-50 | 36 | 0.91 | 7.02 | 0.056 |
| 7 Kuraby | Kur | 140 | 20-30 | 8 | 0.90 | 6.68 | 0.063 |
| 8 Karawatha | Kar | 750 | 20-30 | 32 | 0.92 | 7.45 | 0.051 |
Sites are arranged north to south. Age= the number of years before sampling when the remnant became isolated from other habitat areas. N = sample size, Hs = gene diversity, AR = allelic richness (standardised to a minimum sample size of either 3 or 5). Average F ST was calculated by averaging all pairwise F ST values (within the relevant region) involving that population.
Pairwise F ST values (below diagonal) and Euclidean distances (km) (above diagonal) among sample locations for the two study landscapes.
|
| Hil | Sla | Lea | Wes | Kin | Pad | MtV | MtB | MtC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hil | 26.7 | 16.5 | 13.7 | 37.8 | 29.4 | 29.3 | 60.8 | 82.8 | |
| Sla |
| 19.9 | 19.3 | 37.2 | 19.6 | 26.5 | 39.0 | 59.8 | |
| Lea |
|
| 3.0 | 22.0 | 13.5 | 13.4 | 46.5 | 68.0 | |
| Wes |
|
| 0.019 | 25.3 | 15.8 | 16.3 | 48.0 | 69.8 | |
| Kin |
|
|
|
| 17.1 | 10.0 | 40.5 | 61.3 | |
| Pad |
|
|
|
|
| 8.0 | 31.6 | 55.3 | |
| MtV |
|
| 0.047 | 0.079 |
|
| 36.1 | 59.7 | |
| MtB |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 23.7 | |
| MtC |
|
| 0.041 | 0.051 |
|
| 0.081 | 0.082 | |
|
| Bra | MnE | MnP | Bel | MtP | Gat | Kar | Kur | |
| Bra | 17.2 | 16.3 | 20 | 24.2 | 22.1 | 31 | 30.2 | ||
| MnE |
| 0.8 | 2.6 | 6.5 | 4.4 | 15.1 | 14.2 | ||
| MnP |
|
| 2.9 | 7.1 | 4.7 | 15.2 | 14.3 | ||
| Bel |
|
|
| 3.3 | 2.4 | 12.1 | 11.2 | ||
| MtP |
|
|
|
| 2.2 | 10.6 | 9.9 | ||
| Gat |
|
|
|
| 0.015 | 11.5 | 10.8 | ||
| Kar |
|
|
|
|
| 0.018 | 0.05 | ||
| Kur |
|
|
|
|
| 0.045 | 0.003 |
Significant F ST values (P<0.05) are shown in bold.
Figure 3Mean relatedness for sample locations in Mackay.
Location names are abbreviated as in Table 1. The red lines indicate the upper (U) and lower (L) 95% confidence interval expected for that population under the null hypothesis of no difference among populations. Mean values above that interval for Hil, Sla and Pad indicate relatedness is higher than expected.
Figure 4Mean relatedness for sample locations in Brisbane.
Mean values above the red lines for Bra, MnP, MnE and Bel indicate relatedness is higher than expected.
Contemporary migration rates estimated using BayesAss 1.3.
|
|
| ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Hil | Sla | Lea | Wes | Kin | Pad | MtV | MtB | MtC |
| Hil (10) |
| 0.020 | 0.010 | 0.017 | 0.015 | 0.014 | 0.012 | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Sla (5) | 0.013 |
| 0.011 | 0.015 | 0.035 | 0.013 | 0.013 | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Lea (7) | 0.018 | 0.019 |
|
|
| 0.015 |
| 0.014 |
|
| Wes (5) | 0.026 | 0.026 |
|
|
| 0.021 | 0.024 | 0.021 | 0.023 |
| Kin (13) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
|
|
| 0.005 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
|
| Pad (22) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| 0.006 | 0.006 |
| 0.006 | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| MtV (4) | 0.021 | 0.024 |
| 0.021 | 0.039 | 0.022 |
| 0.021 | 0.021 |
| MtB (4) | 0.018 | 0.025 | 0.034 | 0.024 | 0.026 | 0.031 | 0.026 |
| 0.027 |
| MtC (4) | 0.028 | 0.029 |
| 0.027 |
| 0.023 | 0.026 | 0.026 |
|
|
| BR | MnE | MnP | Bel | Gat | MtP | Kar | Kur | |
| BR (15) |
| 0.003 | 0.003 | 0.003 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 0.003 | |
| MnE (9) | 0.013 |
|
| 0.014 | 0.012 | 0.013 | 0.014 | 0.013 | |
| MnP (138) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | |
| Bel (22) | 0.004 | 0.005 | 0.036 |
|
|
|
|
| |
| Gat (5) | 0.030 | 0.021 | 0.023 |
|
|
|
|
| |
| MtP (36) | 0.005 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
|
|
|
|
| |
| Kar (32) |
| 0.009 | 0.007 |
|
|
|
|
| |
| Kur (8) | 0.029 | 0.017 | 0.027 |
|
|
|
|
| |
Values represent migration from the source location listed across the top to the recipient location listed in the column at left. Simulations in BayesAss show that uninformative data will produce a mean migration rate of 0.021 (0.000-0.126, 95% CIs) for nine populations and 0.024 (0.000-0.134, 95% CIs) for eight populations. Values in bold and italics fall outside these intervals. Uninformative data for 8 and 9 populations produce a mean proportion of residents (diagonal values) of 0.833 (0.675-0.992, 95% CIs). Plain italicised values are pairs with F ST <0.05.