| Literature DB >> 32027650 |
Sangeeta Angom1, Chongpi Tuboi1, Mirza Ghazanfar Ullah Ghazi1, Ruchi Badola1, Syed Ainul Hussain1.
Abstract
The population of the globally endangered hog deer (Axis porcinus) has declined severely across its geographic range. Intensive monitoring of its demographic and genetic status is necessary. We examined the demographic and genetic structure of a small hog deer population in Keibul Lamjao National Park (KLNP), located on the western fringe of the Indo-Burma biodiversity hotspot for conservation planning. The distribution pattern of hog deer in the Park was derived based on the presence/absence of faecal pellets in 1 km × 1 km grids. We used double-observer distance sampling method to derive the hog deer abundance and population structure and compared with previous data to derive the population trend. We determined the genetic diversity of the population through microsatellite screening and bottleneck detection. The overall pellet density was 0.34 ± 0.02 pellets km-2 restricted to only 22.34 ± 0.20 km2 area of the park. The estimated density of the deer in the park was 1.82-4.32 individuals km-2. The population showed a declining trend from 2006-08 (p < 0.05, R2 = 0.916) with 8% annum-1 and an increasing trend from 2003-2018 (p < 0.05, R2 = 0.9304) with 10% annum-1. The adult male-to-female ratio and fawn-to-doe ratio were 36.2 ± 1.9 males per 100 females and 16.5 ± 0.4 fawns per 100 females, respectively. The molecular examination suggested that the mean number of alleles at 23 loci was 2.70 ± 0.18, the observed heterozygosity (Ho) ranged from 0.26 to 0.63 (mean 0.42 ± 0.02), the expected heterozygosity (He) ranged from 0.23 to 0.73 (χ = 0.51 ± 0.03), and the polymorphic information content (PIC) ranged from 0.2 to 0.67 (χ = 0.43 ± 0.03) indicating a moderate level of genetic diversity. Although no bottleneck in the population was observed, the loss of genetic diversity may affect the evolutionary potential of the species at the site by limiting the selection flexibility. Conservation planning coupled with scientific management regime will help in the long term persistence of the population in the region.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32027650 PMCID: PMC7004368 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0210382
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Density estimate of hog deer (2006–08) in Keibul Lamjao National Park, India.
| Parameters | Estimates | % CV | 95% CI | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Minimum | Maximum | |||||||||||
| 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | |
| p | 0.38 ± 0.58 | 0.31 ± 0.29 | 0.30 ± 0.25 | 15.6 | 9.59 | 8.48 | 0.27 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.52 | 0.37 | 0.38 |
| n/k | 0.36 ± 0.33 | 0.22 ± 0.20 | 0.24 ± 0.20 | 9.33 | 10.3 | 10.5 | 0.29 | 0.18 | 0.18 | 0.44 | 0.27 | 0.28 |
| EDR | 245 ± 19.2 | 240 ± 11.5 | 241 ± 10.2 | 7.83 | 4.8 | 4.24 | 208.9 | 217.8 | 220.8 | 287.8 | 265.6 | 263 |
| DS | 1.92 ±0.35 | 1.19 ± 0.17 | 1.25 ± 0.17 | 18.2 | 14.1 | 13.5 | 1.33 | 0.90 | 0.95 | 2.76 | 1.59 | 1.63 |
| ES | 1.53 ± 0.10 | 2.29 ± 0.18 | 2.02 ± 0.18 | 6.74 | 8.2 | 8.87 | 1.33 | 1.93 | 1.68 | 1.75 | 2.72 | 2.42 |
| D | 2.94 ± 0.57 | 2.75 ± 0.44 | 2.51 ± 0.40 | 19.46 | 16.3 | 16.2 | 1.99 | 1.99 | 1.82 | 4.32 | 3.80 | 3.46 |
| N | 65 ± 12.6 | 61 ± 9.9 | 57 ± 9.2 | 19.46 | 16.3 | 16.2 | 44 | 44 | 41 | 96 | 84 | 79 |
*p, probability of detection under the curve; n/k, encounter rate; EDR, effective detection radius; DS, group density; ES, group size; D, individual density; N, population.
Fig 1Frequency of sighting of hog deer during population estimation in Keibul Lamjao National Park, India.
(a) frequency of sighting versus time and (b) frequency of sighting versus distance.
Fig 2Population trend of hog deer in Keibul Lamjao National Park, India.
(a) Population trend during 2003–2008 and (b) Population trend during 2006–2008.
Fig 3Age structure of hog deer population during population estimation in Keibul Lamjao National Park, India.
(a) Age structure for 2006, (b) Age structure for 2007, (c) Age structure for 2008 and (d) Overall age structure for 2006–2008.
Estimated numbers of hog deer in the various age and sex classes on the basis of the relative proportions seen during the population estimation exercise conducted in 2006–08 in Keibul Lamjao National Park, India and the estimated total population size.
| Year | Adult male | Adult female | Juvenile | Fawn | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | 95% lower CI | 95% upper CI | Mean | 95% lower CI | 95% upper CI | Mean | 95% lower CI | 95% upper CI | Mean | 95% lower CI | 95% upper CI | |
| 2006 | 13 | 9 | 20 | 39 | 27 | 58 | 6 | 4 | 9 | 11 | 7 | 16 |
| 2007 | 12 | 9 | 17 | 35 | 26 | 49 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 6 | 4 | 8 |
| 2008 | 13 | 9 | 18 | 40 | 28 | 55 | 5 | 3 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 7 |
| Mean | 13 | 9 | 18 | 38 | 27 | 54 | 4 | 3 | 6 | 7 | 5 | 11 |
| SEM | 0.37 | 0.19 | 0.88 | 1.34 | 0.86 | 2.69 | 1.01 | 0.66 | 1.55 | 1.67 | 1.05 | 2.64 |
Details of microsatellite loci tested on wild population of Axis porcinus at Keibul Lamjao National Park, India (a total of 27 individual samples were used in this study).
| Name of locus | Repeat | Size range | Ta | NA | Ho/He | HWE/LD† | PIC | PID ID (Sibs)† | Fixation | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ca18 | Di | 194–212 | 52 | 5 | 0.63/0.73 | Yes/No | 0.675 | 0.421 | 0.123 | Gaur et al. 2003 [ |
| T507 | Tetra | 174–186 | 58 | 3 | 0.44/0.65 | Yes/No | 0.568 | 0.479 | 0.308 | Jones et al. 2002 [ |
| ILSTS005 | Di | 180–182 | 50 | 2 | 0.577/0.49 | Yes/No | 0.366 | 0.605 | -0.198 | Zhang et al. 2005 [ |
| BM4208 | Di | 162–164 | 54 | 2 | 0.370/0.475 | Yes/No | 0.358 | 0.615 | 0.206 | Say et al 2005 [ |
| T123 | Tetra | 148–152 | 58 | 2 | 0.259/0.23 | Yes/No | 0.2 | 0.793 | -0.149 | Jones et al. 2002 [ |
| T108 | Tetra | 128–154 | 58 | 2 | 0.556/0.51 | Yes/No | 0.375 | 0.593 | -0.111 | Jones et al. 2002 [ |
| Ca42 | Di | 164–178 | 60 | 2 | 0.407/0.44 | Yes/No | 0.338 | 0.638 | 0.056 | Gaur et al. 2003 [ |
| OarFCB193 | Di | 100–126 | 54 | 2 | 0.26/0.33 | Yes/No | 0.272 | 0.715 | 0.201 | DeYoung et al 2003 [ |
| Cervid1 | Di | 144–168 | 54 | 4 | 0.56/0.71 | Yes/No | 0.642 | 0.437 | 0.204 | DeYoung et al 2003 [ |
| BM6506 | Di | 198–200 | 54 | 2 | 0.37/0.45 | Yes/No | 0.346 | 0.629 | 0.167 | Anderson et al 2002 [ |
| RT27 | Di | 130–144 | 56 | 2 | 0.33/0.41 | Yes/No | 0.321 | 0.659 | 0.169 | Poetsch et al. 2001 [ |
| CelJP27 | Di | 154–164 | 59 | 4 | 0.519/0.72 | Yes/No | 0.647 | 0.434 | 0.264 | Coulson et al 1998 [ |
| MAF70 | Di | 124–128 | 50 | 3 | 0.44/0.64 | Yes/No | 0.559 | 0.486 | 0.296 | Zhang et al. 2005 [ |
| RT6 | Di | 98–104 | 50 | 3 | 0.407/0.6 | Yes/No | 0.526 | 0.512 | 0.312 | Poetsch et al. 2001 [ |
| BM4107 | Di | 152–190 | 50 | 3 | 0.33/0.51 | Yes/No | 0.449 | 0.575 | 0.333 | Zhang et al. 2005 [ |
| T193 | Tetra | 176–186 | 59 | 3 | 0.407/0.53 | Yes/No | 0.443 | 0.566 | 0.219 | Jones et al. 2002 [ |
| RT1 | Di | 206–208 | 54 | 2 | 0.26/0.23 | Yes/No | 0.2 | 0.793 | -0.149 | Poetsch et al. 2001 [ |
| T156 | Tetra | 128–130 | 59 | 2 | 0.35/0.45 | Yes/No | 0.343 | 0.632 | 0.213 | Jones et al. 2002 [ |
| CSSM16 | Di | 164–166 | 55 | 2 | 0.407/0.33 | Yes/No | 0.272 | 0.715 | -0.256 | Zhang et al. 2005 [ |
| INRA011 | Di | 212–220 | 54 | 3 | 0.444/0.56 | Yes/No | 0.449 | 0.55 | 0.193 | DeYoung et al 2003 [ |
| D-F/R | Di | 154–190 | 54 | 3 | 0.5/0.68 | Yes/No | 0.588 | 0.466 | 0.245 | Anderson et al 2002 [ |
| INRABERN185 | Di | 102–114 | 52 | 4 | 0.41/0.66 | Yes/No | 0.675 | 0.473 | 0.373 | Zhang et al. 2005 [ |
| NVHRT48 | Di | 102–106 | 52 | 2 | 0.37/0.43 | Yes/No | 0.33 | 0.648 | 0.112 | Poetsch et al. 2001 [ |
*Loci required for unambiguous individual identification.
†Ho, observed heterozygosity; He, expected heterozygosity; PIC, polymorphic information content; HWE, Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium; PID, probability of identity, the probability that two different individuals will share the same multilocus genotype at a given number of loci; PIDID(Sibs), the probability that a pair of siblings will share the same genotype; Ta, annealing temperature; NA, number of alleles; LD, linkage disequilibrium.