| Literature DB >> 28445499 |
Sujeet Kumar Singh1,2, Jouni Aspi1, Laura Kvist1, Reeta Sharma3, Puneet Pandey2, Sudhanshu Mishra2, Randeep Singh4, Manoj Agrawal2, Surendra Prakash Goyal2.
Abstract
Despite massive global conservation strategies, tiger populations continued to decline until recently, mainly due to habitat loss, human-animal conflicts, and poaching. These factors are known to affect the genetic characteristics of tiger populations and decrease local effective population sizes. The Terai Arc Landscape (TAL) at the foothills of the Himalaya is one of the 42 source sites of tigers around the globe. Therefore, information on how landscape features and anthropogenic factors affect the fine-scale spatial genetic structure and variation of tigers in TAL is needed to develop proper management strategies for achieving long-term conservation goals. We document, for the first time, the genetic characteristics of this tiger population by genotyping 71 tiger samples using 13 microsatellite markers from the western region of TAL (WTAL) of 1800 km2. Specifically, we aimed to estimate the genetic variability, population structure, and gene flow. The microsatellite markers indicated that the levels of allelic diversity (MNA = 6.6) and genetic variation (Ho = 0.50, HE = 0.64) were slightly lower than those reported previously in other Bengal tiger populations. We observed moderate gene flow and significant genetic differentiation (FST= 0.060) and identified the presence of cryptic genetic structure using Bayesian and non-Bayesian approaches. There was low and significantly asymmetric migration between the two main subpopulations of the Rajaji Tiger Reserve and the Corbett Tiger Reserve in WTAL. Sibship relationships indicated that the functionality of the corridor between these subpopulations may be retained if the quality of the habitat does not deteriorate. However, we found that gene flow is not adequate in view of changing land use matrices. We discuss the need to maintain connectivity by implementing the measures that have been suggested previously to minimize the level of human disturbance, including relocation of villages and industries, prevention of encroachment, and banning sand and boulder mining in the corridors.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28445499 PMCID: PMC5405937 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0174371
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Map showing tiger samples locations collected from WTAL, human habitation depicted by the amount of night light pollution and identified corridors C1&C2.
Genetic characterisation of tiger in WTAL, India.
| Locus | CTR | RTR | Overall | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 54 | 6.0 | 4.37 | 0.46 | 0.63 | 0.28 | 0.16 | 15 | 3.0 | 2.80 | 0.60 | 0.48 | -0.20 | -0.11 | 69 | 6.0 | 5.85 | 0.49 | 0.61 | 0.20 | 0.11 | |
| 55 | 4.0 | 3.53 | 0.27 | 0.42 | 0.37 | 0.22 | 15 | 6.0 | 5.73 | 0.46 | 0.74 | 0.40 | 0.22 | 70 | 6.0 | 5.83 | 0.31 | 0.57 | 0.45 | 0.27 | |
| 51 | 4.0 | 2.79 | 0.37 | 0.53 | 0.31 | 0.18 | 15 | 3.0 | 3.00 | 0.20 | 0.58 | 0.67 | 0.47 | 66 | 4.0 | 3.90 | 0.33 | 0.56 | 0.41 | 0.24 | |
| 56 | 7.0 | 4.73 | 0.66 | 0.69 | 0.05 | 0.02 | 14 | 4.0 | 3.96 | 0.14 | 0.62 | 0.78 | 0.61 | 70 | 7.0 | 6.97 | 0.55 | 0.70 | 0.21 | 0.10 | |
| 55 | 5.0 | 3.74 | 0.63 | 0.67 | 0.06 | 0.03 | 15 | 4.0 | 3.80 | 0.53 | 0.67 | 0.24 | 0.11 | 70 | 6.0 | 5.71 | 0.61 | 0.67 | 0.09 | 0.05 | |
| 53 | 5.0 | 4.84 | 0.69 | 0.75 | 0.08 | 0.04 | 14 | 6.0 | 5.71 | 0.50 | 0.65 | 0.27 | 0.14 | 67 | 7.0 | 6.89 | 0.65 | 0.76 | 0.15 | 0.07 | |
| 52 | 6.0 | 4.07 | 0.48 | 0.49 | 0.04 | 0.02 | 14 | 3.0 | 2.98 | 0.28 | 0.30 | 0.11 | 0.09 | 66 | 5.0 | 4.99 | 0.42 | 0.46 | 0.09 | 0.03 | |
| 56 | 7.0 | 4.79 | 0.53 | 0.58 | 0.09 | 0.04 | 15 | 7.0 | 6.95 | 0.33 | 0.80 | 0.61 | 0.40 | 71 | 8.0 | 7.82 | 0.49 | 0.69 | 0.29 | 0.15 | |
| 56 | 5.0 | 4.44 | 0.44 | 0.65 | 0.32 | 0.19 | 12 | 5.0 | 5.00 | 0.41 | 0.69 | 0.43 | 0.26 | 68 | 6.0 | 5.99 | 0.44 | 0.72 | 0.39 | 0.23 | |
| 47 | 7.0 | 4.92 | 0.55 | 0.65 | 0.16 | 0.08 | 13 | 5.0 | 4.84 | 0.38 | 0.63 | 0.42 | 0.23 | 60 | 10.0 | 10 | 0.51 | 0.67 | 0.24 | 0.14 | |
| 54 | 7.0 | 5.00 | 0.70 | 0.68 | -0.02 | -0.03 | 15 | 7.0 | 6.36 | 0.93 | 0.69 | -0.31 | -0.17 | 69 | 9.0 | 8.60 | 0.75 | 0.69 | -0.07 | 0.05 | |
| 50 | 5.0 | 0.12 | 0.44 | 0.49 | 0.12 | 0.06 | 14 | 2.0 | 2.00 | 0.42 | 0.33 | -0.23 | -0.11 | 64 | 5.0 | 4.87 | 0.43 | 0.46 | 0.06 | 0.01 | |
| 50 | 6.0 | 0.73 | 0.40 | 0.73 | 0.46 | 0.31 | 15 | 7.0 | 6.95 | 0.60 | 0.83 | 0.31 | 0.15 | 65 | 8.0 | 7.98 | 0.44 | 0.77 | 0.42 | 0.27 | |
N, number of sample used; A, number of allele; A, allele richness; H, observed heterozygosity; H, expected heterozygosity; F, inbreeding coefficient; F, null allele frequency.
* P<0.05
** includes Corbett Tiger Reserve (CTR), Forest Divisions of Lansdown, Ramnagar, Terai West and Terai Central.
RTR-Rajaji Tiger Reserve.
Summary of bottleneck analyses and effective population sizes (NE) in WTAL, India.
| Pop | Mutation model | Sign test | Standardized difference test | Wilcoxon test (H deficiency/H excess/H excess & deficiency | Allele frequency distribution | M-ratio (G-W index) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CTR | TPM | L-shaped | 0.768 | 81.2(47.7–195.9) | |||
| SMM | |||||||
| RTR | TPM | L-shaped | 0.726 | 46.8 (13.6- infinite) | |||
| SMM |
Pop = population, TPM = two phase mutation model, SMM = stepwise mutation model
* includes Corbett Tiger Reserve (CTR) and Forest Divisions of Lansdown, Ramnagar, Terai West and Terai Central.
RTR—Rajaji Tiger Reserve.
#significant p-value (p<0.05)
Fig 2Bayesian clustering analysis result using genetic programs STRUCTURE and GENELAND based on 10 microsatellite loci and admixture model.
a) Summary bar plot of STRUCTURE run at K = 2 showing population assignments for each individual of the populations from western TAL including RTR, CTR and adjoining Forest Division b), Map showing individuals by dots and colored to reflect the cluster they were assigned to with the highest probability (>70%) in 2a. Black color represents admix individual (<70%), c). Summary bar plot of STRUCTURE run at K = 2 showing population assignments for each individual of the populations from CTR and adjoining Forest Divisions, d) Map showing individuals by dots and colored to reflect the cluster they were assigned to with the highest probability (>70) in 2c. Black color represents admix individual (<70%), d) GENELAND analysis result. Colors in figure indicate different populations in WTAL and dots show sampled locations of individuals.
Fig 3Genetic Landscape Shape Interpolation (GLSI).
Surface plot heights reflect genetic distance patterns over the geographical landscape examined.
Pairwise F between the populations in the WTAL, India.
| CTR | Terai West, Central and East FDs | Ramnagar FD | RTR | |
| CTR | 0 | |||
| Terai West, Central and East FDs | 0.016 | |||
| Ramnagar FD | 0.041 | 0.033 | ||
| RTR | 0.060 | 0.11 | 0.093 | 0 |
*P<0.05
FD: Forest Division
CTR: Corbett Tiger Reserve
RTR: Rajaji Tiger Reserve
Migration rates detected using BAYESASS for each population with 95% credible set.
| From | ||
|---|---|---|
| Into | CTR | RTR |
| CTR | 0.9921±0.007 (0.972, 0.999) | 0.0078±0.007 (0.0002, 0.0276) |
| RTR | 0.0893±0.042 (0.017,0.177) | 0.9106±0.042 (0.822, 0.982) |
*includes Corbett Tiger Reserve (CTR) and Forest Divisions of Lansdown, Ramnagar, Terai West and Terai Central.
Fig 4Sibship assignment using the program COLONY.
Individuals are ordered such that members from the same population have consecutive indexes as listed on both x and y axes. RTR (Rajaji Tiger reserve; CTR (Corbett Tiger Reserve).
Wild prey species, habitat quality characteristics and extent of anthropogenic factors within the study area.
(Values are means ±standard deviation).
| Characteristics of the landscape | Eastern RTR (Chilla) | Rajaji–Corbett corridor, Bijnore and Lansdown FDs | Corbett Tiger Reserve | Ramnagar Forest Division | Terai West Forest Division | Terai Central Forest Division | Terai East Forest Division |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bengal Tiger ( | 12.9±17.6 | 22.6±8.4 to 16.8±28.3 | 41.2±22.0 | 20.7±18.0 | 14.1±9.0 | 9.7±16.7 | 10.1±15.2 |
| Sambar (Rusa unicolor) | 90.6±10.5 | 39.3±55.6 to 55±41.5 | 93.6±7.8 | 80±22.1 | 44±38 | 22±33 | 25.8±35.3 |
| Chital (Axix axix) | 88.3±19.8 | 100±0.0 to 28±36.6 | 80±22.0 | 58±36.5 | 75±32.8 | 29±31.5 | 48±37.4 |
| Wild pig (Sus scrofa) | 42±29.8 | 32±45.5to 23±33.1 | 24.7±19.9 | 36±30.7 | 65±21.5 | 33±(39) | 42.5±39.1 |
| Nilgai(Boselaphus tragocamaelus) | 4.5±11.5 | 75±35.4 to 1.5±4.6 | 0 | 19.4±28.5 | 63±35.5 | 80±25.7 | 31±37.7 |
| Wildlife dung density (number/ha) | 2.4±0.3 | 2.5±2.4 | 1.3±1.6 | 0.5±0.08 | 0.3 ±0.6 | 0.9±1.5 | 0.2±0.5 |
| Percent canopy cover | 23.4±12.3 | 14.7±9.0 | 21.6±12.3 | 24.5±10.1 | 21.1±5.6 | 30.8±16.7 | 7.7±5.9 |
| Tree density (number/ha) | 8±4.4 | 6.5±3.7 | 7 ±5.7 | 9.4±4.2 | 13.8±4.1 | 13.8±6.2 | 20.8±12.6 |
| Human encounter rate (number/km) | 100 | 791 | - | 101 | 148 | - | 40 |
| Looping (number/ha | 1.5±2.4 | 0.8±1.3 | 0±0.01 | 0.1±0.4 | 0.1±0.5 | 0.9± 1.8 | 0.7±1.2 |
| Livestock dung density (number/ha) | 1.3±1.6 | 3.9±3.0 | 0.2±0.6 | 1.0±1.2 | 0.4 ±0.8 | 1.2± 1.2 | 1.9±2. |
Sources: Johnsingh et al (2004).
- = Data not available
Fig 5Intensity and spatial distribution of “rivulet” network in WTAL, India.