| Literature DB >> 32303177 |
Jennifer Brunke1, Isa-Rita M Russo2, Pablo Orozco-terWengel2, Elke Zimmermann3, Michael W Bruford2,4, Benoit Goossens5,6,7,8, Ute Radespiel9.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Constraints in migratory capabilities, such as the disruption of gene flow and genetic connectivity caused by habitat fragmentation, are known to affect genetic diversity and the long-term persistence of populations. Although negative population trends due to ongoing forest loss are widespread, the consequence of habitat fragmentation on genetic diversity, gene flow and genetic structure has rarely been investigated in Bornean small mammals. To fill this gap in knowledge, we used nuclear and mitochondrial DNA markers to assess genetic diversity, gene flow and the genetic structure in the Bornean tree shrew, Tupaia longipes, that inhabits forest fragments of the Lower Kinabatangan Wildlife Sanctuary, Sabah. Furthermore, we used these markers to assess dispersal regimes in male and female T. longipes.Entities:
Keywords: Borneo; Cytochrome b; Forest fragmentation; Genetic differentiation; Microsatellites; Migration; Population structure; Sex-biased dispersal; Tupaia longipes
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32303177 PMCID: PMC7164274 DOI: 10.1186/s12863-020-00849-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Genet ISSN: 1471-2156 Impact factor: 2.797
Fig. 1Map of the Lower Kinabatangan Wildlife Sanctuary (LKWS) showing the distribution of sampling locations (circles) and respective forest sites (coloration). The smaller black square highlights the study area within the LKWS
Genetic characteristics of analysed loci (upper half) and sites (lower half). Number of alleles per locus (Na), the size range of each locus, allelic richness, unbiased expected heterozygosity (He), observed heterozygosity (Ho), fixation index (FIS), deviations from HW equilibrium, total number of analysed samples (n), number of males and females, number of sequenced samples and haplotypes, haplotype diversity (h) and nucleotide diversity (π) for each site and riverside, respectively
| Locus | Na | Size range [bp] | Allelic richness | He | Ho | FIS | Sites out of HWE | |||
| Js 22 | 7 | 172–186 | 2.670 | 0.496 | 0.483 | 0.027 | ||||
| Js 183 | 11 | 134–144 | 4.373 | 0.794 | 0.759 | 0.044 | ||||
| Js 188 | 15 | 182–201 | 4.542 | 0.789 | 0.759 | 0.039 | ||||
| TB 8 | 4 | 404–420 | 2.831 | 0.621 | 0.595 | 0.043 | NA, ND | |||
| TB 14 | 36 | 457–569 | 7.115 | 0.966 | 0.482 | 0.503** | all, exc. SI | |||
| TB 15 | 31 | 284–344 | 6.601 | 0.942 | 0.905 | 0.040 | ||||
| TB 16 | 16 | 170–203 | 4.174 | 0.697 | 0.655 | 0.060 | ||||
| TB 18 | 32 | 408–544 | 6.452 | 0.933 | 0.888 | 0.049* | ||||
| Site | n | Males/Females | Allelic richness | He | Ho | FIS | Sequences/Haplotypes | Area [km2] | ||
| NA | 11 | 6 / 5 | 4.911 | 0.725 | 0.727 | −0.004 | 8 / 6 | 0.893 | 0.008 | 22.17 |
| NB | 18 | 10 / 8 | 5.105 | 0.788 | 0.786 | 0.003 | 7 / 4 | 0.714 | 0.007 | 41.60 |
| NC | 5 | 4 / 1 | 4.571 | 0.698 | 0.771 | −0.119 | 2 / 2 | 1.000 | 0.012 | 9.66 |
| ND | 17 | 9 / 8 | 5.013 | 0.731 | 0.714 | 0.024 | 10 / 5 | 0.800 | 0.008 | 73.17 |
| North | 51 | 29 / 22 | 4.962 | 0.761 | 0.748 | 0.017 | 27 / 11 | 0.889 | 0.009 | 146.60 |
| SE | 11 | 8 / 3 | 4.257 | 0.740 | 0.753 | −0.019 | 6 / 3 | 0.733 | 0.005 | 47.99 |
| SF | 21 | 9 / 12 | 3.902 | 0.685 | 0.674 | 0.018 | 7 / 4 | 0.810 | 0.005 | 1.25 |
| SG | 29a | 14 / 14 | 3.888 | 0.689 | 0.714 | −0.037 | 17 / 3 | 0.581 | 0.004 | 17.14 |
| SI | 4 | 3 / 1 | 3.286 | 0.628 | 0.571 | 0.103 | 3 / 2 | 0.667 | 0.012 | 16.14 |
| South | 65a | 34 / 30 | 3.895 | 0.718 | 0.699 | 0.026 | 33 / 6 | 0.695 | 0.006 | 82.52 |
| All | 116a | 63 / 52 | 4.414 | 0.753 | 0.720 | 0.044** | 60 / 14 | 0.878 | 0.008 | 229.12 |
*p ≤ 0.05, **p ≤ 0.01, aone individual of unknown sex
Fig. 2Spatial distribution of mitochondrial cyt b haplotypes (above) and Bayesian STRUCTURE plot (below) showing the membership of individuals for k = 2 clusters (based on nuclear microsatellite genotypes)
Migration rates between pairs of forest sites from the northern (NA–ND) and southern (SE–SI) riverside. The values for each forest site (row) are the proportion of migrants (± SD) deriving from another site (column). Migration values ≥0.10 are highlighted in bold
| Migrants | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NA | NB | NC | ND | SE | SF | SG | SI | Residents | |
| NA | 0.0171 | 0.0180 | 0.0185 | 0.0221 | 0.0209 | 0.0175 | |||
| ± 0.0383 | ± 0.0164 | ± 0.0170 | ± 0.0174 | ± 0.0204 | ± 0.0196 | ± 0.0166 | ± 0.0169 | ||
| NB | 0.0135 | 0.0135 | 0.0148 | 0.0141 | 0.0172 | 0.0386 | 0.0136 | ||
| ± 0.0128 | ± 0.0129 | ± 0.0151 | ± 0.0135 | ± 0.0159 | ± 0.0361 | ± 0.0129 | ± 0.0436 | ||
| NC | 0.0261 | 0.0253 | 0.0255 | 0.0258 | 0.0271 | 0.0255 | |||
| ± 0.0245 | ± 0.0452 | ± 0.0236 | ± 0.0238 | ± 0.0235 | ± 0.0249 | ± 0.0236 | ± 0.0236 | ||
| ND | 0.0133 | 0.0133 | 0.0140 | 0.0151 | 0.0177 | 0.0133 | |||
| ± 0.0129 | ± 0.0337 | ± 0.0127 | ± 0.0132 | ± 0.0150 | ± 0.0196 | ± 0.0126 | ± 0.0164 | ||
| SE | 0.0181 | 0.0233 | 0.0178 | 0.0174 | 0.0689 | 0.0179 | |||
| ± 0.0170 | ± 0.0213 | ± 0.0172 | ± 0.0164 | ± 0.0619 | ± 0.0566 | ± 0.0170 | ± 0.0180 | ||
| SF | 0.0118 | 0.0163 | 0.0117 | 0.0122 | 0.0126 | 0.0737 | 0.0113 | ||
| ± 0.0114 | ± 0.0155 | ± 0.0112 | ± 0.0117 | ± 0.0121 | ± 0.0747 | ± 0.0110 | ± 0.0760 | ||
| SG | 0.0093 | 0.0153 | 0.0093 | 0.0092 | 0.0098 | 0.0092 | |||
| ± 0.0091 | ± 0.0144 | ± 0.0091 | ± 0.0091 | ± 0.0095 | ± 0.0831 | ± 0.0089 | ± 0.0824 | ||
| SI | 0.0277 | 0.0455 | 0.0277 | 0.0278 | 0.0279 | 0.0298 | |||
| ± 0.0258 | ± 0.0348 | ± 0.0253 | ± 0.0256 | ± 0.0258 | ± 0.0292 | ± 0.0476 | ± 0.0259 | ||
Relatedness (r, mean ± SD), amount of related dyads (r ≥ 0.25) and interindividual distance (mean ± SD) for all related male and female pairwise comparisons. Within riversides results of within and among sampling location comparisons are given. The mean (mAIc ± SD) and variance (vAIc) of corrected assignment indices are given for the overall male and female subset. Parameters differing significantly between sexes are given in bold (details of statistical tests are in Additional file 1, Table S3)
| Males | Females | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. of dyads | r | related dyads [%] | distance [km] | mAIc | vAIc | No. of dyads | r | related dyads [%] | distance [km] | mAIc | vAIc | |
| All | 1953 | 5.38 | 0.0310 ±1.6967 | 1326 | 6.86 | −0.0419 ±2.4774 | ||||||
| within riversides, within sampling locations | 94 | 0.1187 ±0.2101 | 23.40 | 0.06 ±0.05 | 81 | 0.1302 ±0.2250 | 27.16 | 0.06 ±0.05 | ||||
| within riversides, among sampling locations | 873 | 7.67 | 585 | 9.23 | ||||||||
* p ≤ 0.05, **p ≤ 0.01