| Literature DB >> 24688884 |
Jason Munshi-South1, Christopher Nagy2.
Abstract
Severe fragmentation is a typical fate of native remnant habitats in cities, and urban wildlife with limited dispersal ability are predicted to lose genetic variation in isolated urban patches. However, little information exists on the characteristics of urban green spaces required to conserve genetic variation. In this study, we examine whether isolation in New York City (NYC) parks results in genetic bottlenecks in white-footed mice (Peromyscus leucopus), and test the hypotheses that park size and time since isolation are associated with genetic variability using nonlinear regression and information-theoretic model selection. White-footed mice have previously been documented to exhibit male-biased dispersal, which may create disparities in genetic variation between males and females in urban parks. We use genotypes of 18 neutral microsatellite data and four different statistical tests to assess this prediction. Given that sex-biased dispersal may create disparities between population genetic patterns inferred from bi- vs. uni-parentally inherited markers, we also sequenced a 324 bp segment of the mitochondrial D-loop for independent inferences of historical demography in urban P. leucopus. We report that isolation in urban parks does not necessarily result in genetic bottlenecks; only three out of 14 populations in NYC parks exhibited a signature of a recent bottleneck at 18 neutral microsatellite loci. Mouse populations in larger urban parks, or parks that have been isolated for shorter periods of time, also do not generally contain greater genetic variation than populations in smaller parks. These results suggest that even small networks of green spaces may be sufficient to maintain the evolutionary potential of native species with certain characteristics. We also found that isolation in urban parks results in weak to nonexistent sex-biased dispersal in a species known to exhibit male-biased dispersal in less fragmented environments. In contrast to nuclear loci, mitochondrial D-loop haplotypes exhibited a mutational pattern of demographic expansion after a recent bottleneck or selective sweep. Estimates of the timing of this expansion suggest that it occurred concurrent with urbanization of NYC over the last few dozens to hundreds of years. Given the general non-neutrality of mtDNA in many systems and evidence of selection on related coding sequences in urban P. leucopus, we argue that the P. leucopus mitochondrial genome experienced recent negative selection against haplotypes not favored in isolated urban parks. In general, rapid adaptive evolution driven by urbanization, global climate change, and other human-caused factors is underappreciated by evolutionary biologists, but many more cases will likely be documented in the near future.Entities:
Keywords: Genetic bottleneck; Genetic variation; Historical demography; Mitochondrial DNA; Peromyscus leucopus; Population genetics; Selective sweep; Sex-biased dispersal; Urban ecology; Urban evolutionary biology
Year: 2014 PMID: 24688884 PMCID: PMC3961106 DOI: 10.7717/peerj.310
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PeerJ ISSN: 2167-8359 Impact factor: 2.984
Characteristics of study sites and results of bottleneck tests.
Total area of site, area of potential white-footed mouse habitat, percent habitat, and years since park founding (a proxy for isolation time) for 14 NYC parks analyzed in this study. Site abbreviations follow Fig. 1. Final column represents the P-value calculated from 10,000 randomizations of the bottleneck test. Significant values appear in bold.
| Site | Borough | Total area | Habitat area | Percent | Years since | Bottleneck |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hunters Island (HI) | Bronx | 247.23 | 103.47 | 0.42 | 121 | 0.71 |
| NY Botanical Garden (NYBG) | Bronx | 98.23 | 37.44 | 0.38 | 114 | 0.838 |
| S. Pelham Bay (SPel) | Bronx | 126.24 | 64.06 | 0.51 | 121 | 0.567 |
| Van Cortlandt Park (VC) | Bronx | 433.15 | 226.83 | 0.52 | 121 | 0.29 |
| Central Park (CP) | Manhattan | 344.05 | 45.23 | 0.13 | 136 |
|
| Inwood Hill Park (In) | Manhattan | 79.21 | 52.53 | 0.66 | 93 | 0.935 |
| Alley Pond Park (AP) | Queens | 219.66 | 164.26 | 0.75 | 82 |
|
| Cunningham Park (CH) | Queens | 188.31 | 123.50 | 0.66 | 71 | 0.517 |
| Willow Lake (FM) | Queens | 42.09 | 25.84 | 0.61 | 75 |
|
| Forest Park (FP) | Queens | 230.68 | 129.84 | 0.56 | 114 | 0.433 |
| Fort Tilden (FT) | Queens | 248.96 | 66.71 | 0.27 | 92 | 0.416 |
| Jamaica Bay (JB) | Queens | 263.38 | 263.38 | 1.00 | 71 | 0.071 |
| Kissena Park (KP) | Queens | 61.44 | 17.68 | 0.29 | 103 | 0.959 |
| Ridgewood Reservoir (RWR) | Queens | 50.58 | 28.40 | 0.56 | 103 | 0.695 |
Figure 1Scatterplots of genetic variation vs. characteristics of NYC parks.
Scatterplots of observed heterozygosity (A–D), number of alleles (E–H), number of effective alleles (I–L), number of private alleles (M–P), and Θ (4N; Q–T) on the y-axis vs. (from left to right) total park area (ha), habitat area (ha), percent habitat, and years since founding on the x-axis. Each of 14 NYC parks is labeled within each scatterplot with an abbreviation following Table 1.
Tests for male-biased dispersal in urban white-footed mice.
Results of sex-biased dispersal analysis for white-footed mice across all 14 NYC parks, a subset of six parks in Bronx, and a subset of parks in Queens.
|
| Mean AI | Variance AI | Relatedness |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All NYC Parks | 301 | – | – | 0.14 | 0.08 |
|
| 165 | 0.43 | 31.8 | 0.15 | 0.09 |
|
| 136 | −0.52 | 32.2 | 0.14 | 0.08 |
| Bronx | 104 | – | – | 0.16 | 0.09 |
|
| 52 | 0.47 | 35.7 | 0.15 | 0.09 |
|
| 52 | −0.47 | 36.8 | 0.15 | 0.08 |
| Queens | 157 | – | – | 0.14 | 0.08 |
|
| 90 | 0.40 | 31.8 | 0.15 | 0.09 |
|
| 67 | −0.53 | 26.3 | 0.13 | 0.08 |
Model selection for park characteristics vs. genetic diversity.
Results of model selection for park characteristics vs. genetic diversity indices.
| Model | LogLike |
| ΔAIC | Model | LogLike |
| ΔAIC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| ||||||
| Intercept | −25.91 | 2 | 0.00 | Intercept | −15.20 | 2 | 0.00 |
| TA | −25.54 | 3 | 2.58 | F | −15.13 | 3 | 3.17 |
| HA | −25.61 | 3 | 2.71 | HA | −15.15 | 3 | 3.21 |
| PH | −25.85 | 3 | 3.19 | HA ∗ F | −10.60 | 5 | 3.21 |
| F | −25.87 | 3 | 3.22 | TA | −15.15 | 3 | 3.22 |
| HA ∗ F | −22.49 | 5 | 5.56 | PH | −15.19 | 3 | 3.29 |
| TA + F | −25.35 | 4 | 6.23 | PH + F | −14.98 | 4 | 6.91 |
| TA + PH | −25.45 | 4 | 6.43 | HA + F | −15.04 | 4 | 7.03 |
| TA + HA | −25.51 | 4 | 6.55 | TA + F | −15.11 | 4 | 7.18 |
| HA + PH | −25.60 | 4 | 6.73 | TA + HA | −15.14 | 4 | 7.24 |
| HA + F | −25.60 | 4 | 6.74 | HA + PH | −15.14 | 4 | 7.24 |
| PH + F | −25.85 | 4 | 7.23 | TA + PH | −15.14 | 4 | 7.25 |
| TA ∗ F | −24.43 | 5 | 9.45 | TA ∗ F | −13.60 | 5 | 9.22 |
| TA + HA + F | −25.33 | 5 | 11.25 | HA + PH + F | −14.97 | 5 | 11.96 |
| TA + PH + F | −25.35 | 5 | 11.28 | TA + PH + F | −14.97 | 5 | 11.96 |
| TA + HA + PH | −25.36 | 5 | 11.31 | TA + HA + F | −14.99 | 5 | 11.99 |
| HA + PH + F | −25.53 | 5 | 11.65 | TA + HA + PH | −15.14 | 5 | 12.30 |
| Global | −25.26 | 6 | 17.60 | Global | −14.97 | 6 | 18.46 |
|
|
| ||||||
| Intercept | −33.40 | 2 | 0.00 | Intercept | 25.75 | 2 | 0.00 |
| HA | −33.29 | 3 | 3.07 | PH | 26.13 | 3 | 2.56 |
| PH | −33.31 | 3 | 3.12 | F | 26.11 | 3 | 2.60 |
| TA | −33.40 | 3 | 3.31 | HA | 26.03 | 3 | 2.75 |
| F | −33.40 | 3 | 3.31 | TA | 25.75 | 3 | 3.31 |
| TA + HA | −33.21 | 4 | 6.98 | TA + HA | 26.49 | 4 | 5.87 |
| PH + F | −33.22 | 4 | 6.99 | HA + F | 26.38 | 4 | 6.10 |
| HA + PH | −33.27 | 4 | 7.09 | HA + PH | 26.20 | 4 | 6.45 |
| HA + F | −33.28 | 4 | 7.11 | PH + F | 26.20 | 4 | 6.46 |
| TA + PH | −33.30 | 4 | 7.16 | TA + F | 26.17 | 4 | 6.52 |
| TA + F | −33.40 | 4 | 7.35 | TA + PH | 26.13 | 4 | 6.59 |
| HA ∗ F | −32.59 | 5 | 10.78 | HA ∗ F | 27.74 | 5 | 8.44 |
| TA ∗ F | −32.88 | 5 | 11.35 | TA ∗ F | 26.70 | 5 | 10.51 |
| TA + HA + F | −33.07 | 5 | 11.74 | TA + HA + PH | 26.65 | 5 | 10.61 |
| TA + HA + PH | −33.11 | 5 | 11.83 | TA + HA + F | 26.53 | 5 | 10.85 |
| HA + PH + F | −33.21 | 5 | 12.03 | HA + PH + F | 26.38 | 5 | 11.16 |
| TA + PH + F | −33.22 | 5 | 12.04 | TA + PH + F | 26.23 | 5 | 11.44 |
| Global | −33.03 | 6 | 18.15 | Global | 26.80 | 6 | 16.81 |
|
| |||||||
| HA ∗ F | – | – | – | ||||
| Global | – | – | – | ||||
|
|
|
|
| ||||
| PH + F | −38.99 | 4 | 2.63 | ||||
| Intercept | −43.10 | 2 | 3.51 | ||||
| HA + PH | −39.44 | 4 | 3.54 | ||||
| TA + PH | −39.50 | 4 | 3.66 | ||||
| HA | −42.27 | 3 | 5.15 | ||||
| TA + HA | −40.32 | 4 | 5.30 | ||||
| F | −42.57 | 3 | 5.76 | ||||
| HA + F | −40.68 | 4 | 6.01 | ||||
| TA + F | −40.82 | 4 | 6.30 | ||||
| TA | −43.09 | 3 | 6.79 | ||||
| TA + PH + F | −38.98 | 5 | 7.67 | ||||
| HA + PH + F | −38.98 | 5 | 7.68 | ||||
| TA + HA + PH | −39.44 | 5 | 8.59 | ||||
| TA + HA + F | −39.64 | 5 | 8.99 | ||||
Notes.
total area of park
undeveloped habitat area of park
proportion of park habitat area to total park area
years since founding of park
Denotes model that did not converge.
Statistical analysis of 324 bp of the mtDNA D-loop from 110 white-footed mouse individuals.
| Population |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| R2 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bronx | 26 | 13 | 0.0089 | 12 | 0.91 | 2.70 | −0.71 | 0.04 | 0.099 | 2.70 | |
| Manhattan | 22 | 10 | 0.0113 | 7 | 0.82 | 3.61 | 1.08 | 0.81 | 0.13 | 0.177 | 2.93 |
| Queens | 56 | 22 | 0.0051 | 17 | 0.74 | 1.62 | 0.88 | ||||
| All | 110 | 30 | 0.0084 | 37 | 0.91 | 2.51 | 0.058 | 2.09 |
Notes.
Significant values are presented in bold text at *P < 0.05 or **P < 0.01 based on 10,000 coalescent simulations in DNASP.
Number of individuals haplotyped.
Number of polymorphic sites in D-loop sequence.
Nucleotide diversity.
Number of D-loop haplotypes.
Haplotype diversity.
Average number of pairwise nucleotide differences.
Tajima’s D.
Fu’s Fs.
Raggedness statistic for mismatch distribution.
Ramos-Onsins & Rozas R2 statistic for mismatch distribution.
τ (2μt) calculated for mismatch distribution.
Figure 2Mitochondrial mismatch distribution analyses for white-footed mice in NYC that show the influence of a recent population expansion after a bottleneck of selective sweep.
Mismatch distributions for 324 bp segment of the mtDNA D-loop for Queens (N = 56; top graph) and all NYC samples (N = 110; bottom graph). The solid line indicates the observed distribution, and the dotted line indicates the expected distribution for a demographic expansion.