| Literature DB >> 34249365 |
Alexandre Azevedo1,2, Liam Bailey3, Victor Bandeira4, Carlos Fonseca4,5, Jella Wauters1, Katarina Jewgenow1.
Abstract
Understanding the causes of range expansions in abundant species can help predict future species distributions. During range expansions, animals are exposed to novel environments and are required to cope with new and unpredictable stressors. Glucocorticoids (GCs) are mediators of the hormonal and behavioural mechanisms allowing animals to cope with unpredictable changes in the environment and are therefore expected to differ between populations at expansion edge and the historic range. However, to date, very few studies have evaluated the relationship between GCs and range expansion. The Egyptian mongoose has been rapidly expanding its range in Portugal over the past 30 years. In this study, we applied an information theoretic approach to determine the most important spatial and environmental predictors of hair GCs (hGCs) in the population, after controlling for normal patterns of hGC variation in the species. We observed a decrease in hGC as distance from the historic range increased (i.e. closer to the expansion front). This distance term was present in all of the top models and had a 95% confidence interval (95% CI) that did not overlap with zero, strongly supporting its influence on hGC. We estimated a 0.031 pg/mg (95% CI: -0.057, -0.004) decrease in hGCs for each kilometre distance to the Tagus River, which was once the limit of the species' distribution. Our results indicate that the species' expansion is unlikely to be limited by mechanisms related to or mediated by the physiological stress response. The decrease in hGC levels towards the expansion edge coupled with limited evidence of a negative effect of human population density suggests that the species' northward expansion in Portugal could continue.Entities:
Keywords: Egyptian mongoose; Herpestes ichneumon; hair glucocorticoids; range expansion; stress
Year: 2021 PMID: 34249365 PMCID: PMC8253928 DOI: 10.1093/conphys/coab050
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Conserv Physiol ISSN: 2051-1434 Impact factor: 3.079
Figure 1Geographic distribution of the Egyptian mongoose in Portugal. The species was confined to the South of the Tagus River (dark grey area). In the past three decades, it has been rapidly expanding northward (light grey area). Circles represent number of specimens sampled in each location.
hGC values (mean ± SD in pg/mg) and number of Egyptian mongoose specimens from each region, age cohort and sex included in statistical analyses
| Historic region 19.03 ± 5.68(n = 173) | Expansion region 18.83 ± 4.65(n = 61) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female | Male | Female | Male | |
| Adult | 18.49 ± 4.26 | 19.16 ± 5.47 | 17.84 ± 4.75 | 20.23 ± 3.96 |
| Sub-adult | 17.1 ± 2.4 | 24.97 ± 9.47 | 16.38 ± 2.11 | 18.24 ± 2.45 |
| Juvenile 2 | 16.77 ± 4.12 | 16.62 ± 4.48 | 18.5 ± 2.94 | 17.96 ± 9.85 |
| Juvenile 1 | 20.53 ± 4.9 | 25.07 ± 10.65 | 22.32 ± 5.35 | 21.15 ± 3.7 |
Model selection table; top ranked models with ΔAICc ≤ 2.0 are shown here (for full model selection table see Table S1); R2 and adjusted R2 (Adj. R2) values for each model are included (Nakagawa and Schielzeth, 2013); w indicates model weights
| Age | Region | Sex | Season | Mongoose | Rabbit | BCS | Habitat | Population | STL | Storage | Age:STL | D. river | Sex:STL | R2 | Adj.R2 | df | AICc | ΔAICc |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| + | − | 2.10 | + | −1.14 | 1.27 | −1.86 | − | 1.09 | −5.34 | −3.78 | − | + | − | 0.33 | 0.33 | 17.00 | 1397.29 | 0.00 | 0.017 |
| + | − | 2.11 | + | −1.44 | 1.28 | −1.91 | − | − | −5.62 | −3.64 | − | + | − | 0.32 | 0.32 | 16.00 | 1397.34 | 0.05 | 0.016 |
| + | − | 2.09 | + | −1.20 | 1.23 | −1.77 | − | 1.09 | −5.05 | −3.84 | − | + | −1.74 | 0.34 | 0.34 | 18.00 | 1397.50 | 0.22 | 0.015 |
| + | − | 2.10 | + | −1.50 | 1.24 | −1.81 | − | − | −5.33 | −3.70 | − | + | −1.74 | 0.33 | 0.33 | 17.00 | 1397.56 | 0.27 | 0.015 |
| + | − | 2.01 | + | − | 1.18 | −1.73 | − | 1.43 | −5.17 | −3.94 | − | + | − | 0.32 | 0.32 | 16.00 | 1397.84 | 0.55 | 0.013 |
| + | − | 2.00 | + | − | 1.14 | −1.64 | − | 1.45 | −4.89 | −4.00 | − | + | −1.61 | 0.33 | 0.33 | 17.00 | 1398.36 | 1.07 | 0.010 |
| + | − | 2.17 | − | −1.47 | 1.08 | −1.58 | − | 1.16 | −5.42 | − | − | + | − | 0.30 | 0.30 | 13.00 | 1398.82 | 1.53 | 0.008 |
| + | − | 2.00 | + | −1.10 | − | −1.77 | − | 1.11 | −4.67 | −3.93 | − | + | −1.84 | 0.33 | 0.33 | 17.00 | 1399.05 | 1.76 | 0.007 |
| + | − | 2.01 | + | −1.03 | − | −1.87 | − | 1.11 | −4.96 | −3.87 | − | + | − | 0.32 | 0.32 | 16.00 | 1399.07 | 1.79 | 0.007 |
| + | − | 1.94 | + | − | − | −1.75 | − | 1.42 | −4.83 | −4.01 | − | + | − | 0.31 | 0.31 | 15.00 | 1399.09 | 1.80 | 0.007 |
| + | − | 2.16 | − | −1.52 | 1.06 | −1.49 | − | 1.15 | −5.15 | − | − | + | −1.67 | 0.30 | 0.31 | 14.00 | 1399.14 | 1.85 | 0.007 |
| + | − | 2.01 | + | −1.41 | − | −1.82 | − | − | −4.95 | −3.79 | − | + | −1.84 | 0.32 | 0.32 | 16.00 | 1399.20 | 1.91 | 0.006 |
| + | − | 2.02 | + | −1.34 | − | −1.92 | − | − | −5.25 | −3.73 | − | + | − | 0.31 | 0.31 | 15.00 | 1399.21 | 1.93 | 0.006 |
| + | − | 2.20 | − | −1.55 | 1.02 | −1.57 | − | 1.23 | −5.26 | −1.96 | − | + | − | 0.30 | 0.30 | 14.00 | 1399.25 | 1.96 | 0.006 |
| + | − | 2.18 | − | −1.61 | 1.00 | −1.47 | − | 1.23 | −4.95 | −2.09 | − | + | −1.81 | 0.31 | 0.31 | 15.00 | 1399.25 | 1.96 | 0.006 |
| + | −0.78 | 2.07 | + | −1.43 | 1.26 | −1.88 | − | − | −5.65 | −3.67 | − | + | − | 0.32 | 0.33 | 17.00 | 1399.29 | 2.00 | 0.006 |
Legend: BCS, body condition score; STL, snout–tail length; Age:STL, interaction between age and snout–tail length; D. river, distance to the Tagus River for animals captured in the expansion region; sex:STL, interaction between sex and snout–tail length; df, degrees of freedom; AICc, Akaike information criteria; ΔAICc, difference in AICc to the model with lowest AICc; w, Akaike weight. ‘+’ indicates a categorical variable that was included in the model, while ‘−’ indicates a variable that was not present.
Relative importance of predictors based on the sum of Akaike weights in the complete set of 6656 candidate models
| Sum of weights | N containing models | |
|---|---|---|
| STL | 1.00 | 4608 |
| Sex | 0.99 | 4096 |
| Age | 0.98 | 4096 |
| BCS | 0.84 | 3328 |
| Mongoose | 0.72 | 3328 |
| D. river | 0.69 | 3328 |
| Storage | 0.63 | 3328 |
| Season | 0.61 | 3328 |
| Rabbit | 0.60 | 3328 |
| Population | 0.52 | 3328 |
| Sex:STL | 0.48 | 1536 |
| Region | 0.34 | 3328 |
| Habitat | 0.29 | 3328 |
| Age:STL | 0.13 | 1536 |
Legend: BCS, body condition score; STL, snout–tail length; Age:STL, interaction between age and snout–tail length; D. river, distance to the Tagus River for animals captured in the expansion region.
Model averaging results presented as estimates and 95% confidence intervals
| Standardized variables | Untransformed variables | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Factor | Estimate | 95% Confidence interval | Estimate | 95% Confidence interval | ||
| Intercept | 20.26 | 18.20 | 22.33 | 58.68 | 41.86 | 75.50 |
| Age (juvenile 1) | −2.39 | −5.89 | 1.11 | −2.39 | −5.89 | 1.11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Age (Sub-adult) | −1.91 | −3.99 | 0.17 | −1.91 | −3.99 | 0.17 |
|
|
|
|
| 5.14 | −4.25 | 14.53 |
| Season (spring) | 1.24 | −0.73 | 3.22 | 1.24 | −0.73 | 3.22 |
| Season (summer) | −1.43 | −3.31 | 0.45 | −1.43 | −3.31 | 0.45 |
| Season (winter) | 0.92 | −1.39 | 3.22 | 0.92 | −1.39 | 3.22 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Rabbit | 1.19 | −0.05 | 2.42 | 0.01 | −4.0e−4 | 0.02 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Human population | 1.22 | −0.18 | 2.62 | 0.01 | −9.0e−4 | 0.01 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Sex × body size (STL) | −1.74 | −4.10 | 0.62 | −0.08 | −0.18 | 0.03 |
| Region (historic) | −0.78 | −3.28 | 1.72 | −0.78 | −3.28 | 1.72 |
Legend: estimates are presented for model averaging using input variables standardized on two standard deviations following Gelman (2008) and using untransformed input variables. Confidence intervals not including zero are highlighted in bold as variables are considered to significantly influence hGC concentration.
Figure 2Model predictions of the effect of distance from the historic range (limited by the Tagus River) on hGC levels in the Egyptian mongoose. The plot shows model predictions and 95% CI (grey band) based on parametric bootstrapping with 5000 iterations.