| Literature DB >> 25367292 |
Camille Turlure1, Sofie Vandewoestijne2, Michel Baguette3,4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Addressing genetic issues in the management of fragmented wild populations of threatened species is one of the most important challenges in conservation biology. Nowadays, a diverse array of molecular methods exists to assess genetic diversity and differentiation of wild populations such as allozymes, dominant markers and co-dominant markers. However it remains worthwhile i) to compare the genetic estimates obtained using those several markers in order to ii) test their relative utility, reliability and relevance and iii) the impact of these results for the design of species-specific conservation measures.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25367292 PMCID: PMC4234837 DOI: 10.1186/s12863-014-0114-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Genet ISSN: 1471-2156 Impact factor: 2.797
Genetic diversity and inbreeding estimated for populations in four Belgian landscapes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| Tailles | Grande Fange | 26 | 19 | 1.000 | 0.895 | 0.514 | 0.388 | 0.063 | 3.667 | 1.406 |
| Mirenne | 25 | 21 | 0.933 | 0.842 | 0.481 | 0.352 | -0.072 | 3.400 | 1.276 | |
| Grand Passage | 15 | 15 | 1.000 | 0.789 | 0.544 | 0.337 |
| 3.867 | 1.445 | |
| Logbiermé | 9 | 9 | 0.933 | 0.789 | 0.576 | 0.293 | 0.054 | 3.333 | 1.277 | |
| Pisserotte | 8 | 8 | 0.933 | 0.895 | 0.505 | 0.355 |
| 3.200 | 1.289 | |
| Recogne | Libin | 19 | 14 | 0.867 | 0.684 | 0.466 | 0.276 | -0.023 | 3.133 | 1.165 |
| Saint-Hubert | Pleine Hé | 8 | 10 | 0.692 | 0.526 | 0.294 | 0.239 | -0.131 | 2.154 | NA |
| Hautes Fagnes | Eichenbusch | 2 | 6 | 0.800 | 0.684 | 0.500 | 0.284 | 0.000 | 2.067 | 0.888 |
| Mean | 0.895 | 0.763 | 0.485 | 0.315 | 0.018 | 3.103 | 1.250 | |||
| SD | 0.098 | 0.118 | 0.079 | 0.047 | 0.086 | 0.615 | 0.171 | |||
μsat: microsatellite based estimates, RAPD: Random Amplified Polymorphic DNA based estimates, N: sample size, P95: number of polymorphic loci using the 95% criterion, He: unbiased expected heterozygosity, f: inbreeding coefficient, A: mean number of alleles per locus, AR: allelic richness. Bold values indicate statistical significance (P <0.05).
Effective and consensus population size estimates on two populations
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||
| Grande Fange | 10-1000 | 17.135 | 14.355 | - | 25.408 | 0.05 | 54.50 | 21.00 | - | ∞ | 1692 | 377 | 0.010 |
| 2-500 | 0.01 | 333.00 | 35.70 | - | ∞ | ||||||||
| 2-100 | 18.624 | 15.143 | - | 23.654 | 0.011 | ||||||||
| Mirenne | 10-1000 | 0.05 | 75.70 | 21.60 | - | ∞ | 791 | 64 | |||||
| 2-500 | 18.618 | 15.442 | - | 25.043 | 0.01 | 147.30 | 31.80 | - | ∞ | 0.024 | |||
| 2-100 | 16.340 | 13.839 | - | 20.802 | 0.021 | ||||||||
Bayesian estimates and linkage disequilibrium of effective number of breeder were calculated using OneSamp and LDNe softwares respectively, with CL the 95% credible limits for the posterior distribution of Ne and allele ν the lowest allele frequency. Mark Release Recapture (MRR) estimates of consensus population size in 1995 (parental generation of Ne estimate) were inferred from Jolly-Seber models implemented in the Mark software [33].
Pairwise estimates of F between populations of
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| / |
| 0.039 | 0.046 | 0.033 |
|
| 0.079 |
|
|
| / |
| 0.090 |
|
|
|
|
|
| -0.005 |
| / | 0.049 | 0.042 |
|
| 0.158 |
|
|
|
|
| / | 0.135 |
| 0.263 | 0.111 |
|
|
|
| -0.009 |
| / |
| 0.250 | 0.168 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| / |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| / |
|
|
| 0.012 |
| 0.009 | -0.003 |
|
|
| / |
RAPD based estimates above de diagonal, microsatellite based estimates below. Bold values indicate significant differences between populations (P <0.05).
Figure 1Map of the study system. Black dots: B. aquilonaris populations. Dashed lines: limit of the plateaux. The insert shows the location of the study system in Belgium.
Figure 2Spatial population structure at the landscape scale (Plateau des Tailles). The probability of membership to hypothetical clusters for a) microsatellite and b) RAPD data.
Number of migrants per generation based on maximum likelihood method
|
|
| |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
| / | 3.74 | 3.47 | 2.04 | 2.99 |
|
| 0.63 | / | 0.87 | 1.01 | 0.93 | |
|
| 5.38 | 4.09 | / | 1.23 | 3.34 | |
|
| 0.86 | 1.32 | 1.35 | / | 2.78 | |
|
| 3.58 | 1.58 | 4.67 | 2.03 | / | |