Population isolation exacerbates conservation genetic concerns in the endangered Amargosa vole, Microtus californicus scirpensis

Biological Conservation

Volumn 143, Issue 9, 2010, Pages 2028-2038

  Neuwald, Jennifer L ^a  

^a SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

California; Genetic variation; Microsatellites; Natural habitat fragmentation; Population substructure

Indexed keywords

BAYESIAN ANALYSIS; CONSERVATION GENETICS; CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT; CONSPECIFIC; CYTOCHROME; DISPERSAL; ENDANGERED SPECIES; GENE FLOW; GENETIC MARKER; GENETIC VARIATION; HABITAT FRAGMENTATION; HUMAN ACTIVITY; ISOLATED POPULATION; MARSH; PATCHINESS; PLEISTOCENE; POPULATION STRUCTURE; RODENT; SPECIES CONSERVATION; SUBSPECIES;

AMARGOSA RIVER; CALIFORNIA; UNITED STATES;

MICROTUS CALIFORNICUS; MICROTUS CALIFORNICUS SCIRPENSIS; MURIDAE; RODENTIA;

EID: 77955092550     PISSN: 00063207     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2010.05.007     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. Adams, R.I., Hadly, E.A., 2010. High levels of gene flow in the California vole (Microtus californicus) are consistent across spatial scales. W. N. Am. Nat. 70.
2. Austin J.D., Lougheed S.C., Boag P.T. Controlling for the effects of history and nonequilibrium conditions in gene flow estimates in northern bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) populations. Genetics 2004, 168:1491-1506.
3. Bailey V. Revision of American voles of the genus Microtus. N. Am. Fauna 1900, 17:1-88.
4. Balloux F., Brunner H., Lugon-Moulin N., Hausser J., Goudet J. Microsatellites can be misleading: an empirical and simulation study. Evolution 2000, 54:1414-1422.
5. Bergman M.A., Ferson S., Akçakaya H.R. Risk Assessment in Conservation Biology 1993, Chapman and Hall, New York.
6. Bleich, V.C., 1980. Amargosa Vole Study. California Department of Fish and Game, Nongame Wildlife Investigation. Final Report, W-54-R-10.
7. Bouzat J.L., Cheng H.H., Lewin H.A., Westemeier R.L., Brawn J.D., Paige K.N. Genetic evaluation of a demographic bottleneck in the Greater Prairie Chicken. Conserv. Biol. 1998, 12:836-843.
8. Bowen B.S. Temporal dynamics of microgeographic structure of genetic variation in Microtus californicus. J. Mammal. 1982, 63:625-638.
9. California Department of Fish and Game, 1980. At the Crossroads: A Report on the Status of California's Endangered and Rare Fish and Wildlife, Sacramento.
10. Chan Y.L., Lacey E.A., Pearson O.P., Hadly E.A. Ancient DNA reveals Holocene loss of genetic diversity in a South American rodent. Biol. Lett. 2005, 1:423-426.
11. Conroy C.J., Neuwald J.L. Phylogeographic study of the California vole, Microtus californicus. J. Mammal. 2008, 89:755-767.
12. Coulon A., Cosson J.F., Angibault M., Cargnelutti B., Galan M., Morellet N., Petit E., Aulagnier S., Hewison J.M. Landscape connectivity influences gene flow in a roe deer population inhabiting a fragmented landscape: an individual-based approach. Mol. Ecol. 2008, 13:2841-2850.
13. Couvet D. Deleterious effects of restricted gene flow in fragmented populations. Conserv. Biol. 2002, 16:369-376.
14. Ehrlich P.R., Wilson E.O. Biodiversity studies: science and policy. Science 1991, 253:758-762.
15. Evanno G., Regnaut S., Goudet J. Detecting the number of clusters of individuals using the software STRUCTURE: a simulation study. Mol. Ecol. 2005, 14:2611-2620.
16. Faubet P., Waples R., Gaggiotti E. Evaluating the performance of a multilocus Bayesian method for the estimation of migration rates. Mol. Ecol. 2007, 16:1149-1166.
17. Gaines M.S., McClenaghan L.R., Rose R.K. Temporal patterns of allozymic variation in fluctuating populations of Microtus ochrogaster. Evolution 1978, 32:723-739.
18. Getz, L.L., 1985. Habitats. In: Tamarin, R.H. (Ed.) Biology of New World Microtus. Special Publication No. 8. American Society of Mammalogists.
19. Gould, G.I., Bleich, V.C., 1977. Amargosa vole Study. California Department of Fish and Game, Nongame Wildlife Investigation. Final Report. W-54-R-9.
20. Graur D., Li W.-H. Fundamentals of Molecular Evolution 2000, Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts. second ed.
21. Hadly E.A., Ramakrishnan U., Chan Y.L., van Tuinen M., O'Keefe K., Spaeth P.A., Conroy C.J. Genetic response to climatic change: insights from ancient DNA and phylochronology. PLoS Biol. 2004, 2:1600-1609.
22. Hall E.R. The Mammals of North America, vol. 2 1981, John Wiley, New York. second ed.
23. Hall T.A. BioEdit: a user-friendly biological sequence alignment editor and analysis program for Windows 95/98/NT. Nucl. Acids. Symp. Ser. 1999, 41:95-98.
24. Hubisz M., Falush D., Stephens M., Pritchard J.K. Inferring weak population structure with the assistance of sample group information. Mol. Ecol. Res. 2009, 9:1322-1332.
25. Ishibashi Y., Yoshinaga Y., Saitoh T., Abe S., Iida H., Yoshida M.C. Polymorphic microsatellite DNA markers in the field vole, Microtus montebelli. Mol. Ecol. 1999, 8:163-164.
26. Jefferson G.T. Rancholabrean age vertebrates from the southern Mojave Desert, California. Crossing the Borders: Quaternary Studies in eastern California and southwestern Nevada 1991, San Bernardino County Museum Association, Redlands, California. R.E. Reynolds (Ed.).
27. Jensen J.L., Bohonak A.J., Kelley S.T. Isolation by distance, web service. BMC Genetics 2005, 6:13.
28. Kinnison M.T., Hairston N.G. Eco-evolutionary conservation biology: contemporary evolution and the dynamics of persistence. Funct. Ecol. 2007, 21:444-454.
29. Lande R. Extinction risks from anthropogenic, ecological, and genetic factors. Genetics and the Extinction of Species: DNA and the conservation of biodiversity 1999, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. L.F. Landweber, A.P. Dobson (Eds.).
30. Librado P., Rozas J. DnaSP v.5: a software for comprehensive analysis of DNA polymorphism data. Bioinformatics 2009, 25:1451-1452.
31. Matocq M.D., Villablanca F.X. Low genetic diversity in an endangered species: recent or historic pattern?. Biol. Conserv. 2001, 98:61-68.
32. McClenaghan Jr., L.R., Montgomery, S.J., 1998. Distribution and Abundance of the Amargosa Vole (Microtus californicus scirpensis). California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento.
33. Newman D., Pilson D. Increased probability of extinction due to decreased genetic effective population size: experimental populations of Clarkia pulchella. Evolution 1997, 51:354-362.
34. Nowak R.M. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; determination of endangered status and critical habitat for the Amargosa vole. Final Rule. Fed. Reg. 1984, 49:45160-45163.
35. Ostfeld R.S., Klosterman L.L. Demographic substructure in a California vole population inhabiting a patchy environment. J. Mammal. 1986, 67:693-704.
36. Otis D.L., Burnham K.P., White G.C., Anderson D.R. Statistical inference from capture data on closed animal populations. Wildlife Monogr. 1978, 62:1-135.
37. Peterson M.A., Denno R.F., Robinson L. Apparent widespread gene flow in the predominantly flightless planthopper Tumidagena minuta. Ecol. Entomol. 2001, 26:629-637.
38. Pritchard J.K., Stephens M., Donnelly P. Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data. Genetics 2000, 155:945-959.
39. Pritchard, J.K., Wen, X., Falush, D., 2007. Documentation for Structure software: Version 2.2. http://pritch.bsd.uchicago.edu/software.
40. Rado, T., Rowlands, P., 1984. A Small Mammal Survey and Plant Inventory of Wetland Habitats in Amargosa Canyon and Grimshaw Lake Areas of Critical Environmental Concerns. US Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Report No. 20310.3(C-068.26).
41. Randall D.A., Pollonger J.P., Argaw K., Macdonald D.W., Wayne R.K. Fine-scale genetic structure in Ethiopian wolves imposed by sociality, migration, and population bottlenecks. Conserv. Genet. 2010, 11:89-101.
42. Raymond M., Rousset F. Genepop. Version 1.2. Population genetics software for exact tests and ecumenicism. J. Hered. 1995, 86:248-249.
43. Rosenberg N.A. Distruct: a program for the graphical display of population structure. Mol. Ecol. Notes. 2004, 4:137-138.
44. Schneider S., Roessli D., Excoffier L. Arlequin Version 2.0: A Software for Population Genetics Data Analysis 2000, Genetics and Biometry Laboratory, University of Geneva, Switzerland.
45. Schumacher F.X., Eschmeyer R.W. The estimation of fish populations in lakes and ponds. J. Tenn. Acad. Sci. 1943, 18:228-249.
46. Shaffer M.L. Minimum viable populations: coping with uncertainty. Viable Populations for Conservation 1987, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. M.E. Soule (Ed.).
47. Slatkin M. Isolation by distance in equilibrium and non-equilibrium populations. Evolution 1993, 47:264-279.
48. Slatkin M. A measure of population subdivision based on microsatellite allele frequencies. Genetics 1995, 139:457-462.
49. Smith M.F., Patton J.L. The diversification of South American murid rodents: evidence from mitochondrial DNA sequence data for the akodontine tribe. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 1993, 50:149-177.
50. Soule M.E. Thresholds for survival: maintaining fitness and evolutionary potential. Conservation Biology: An Evolutionary-Ecological Perspective 1980, 151-169. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts. M.E. Soule, B.A. Wilcox (Eds.).
51. Spaeth P.A., van Tuinen M., Chan Y.L., Terca D., Hadly E.A. The phylogeography of the long-tailed vole, Microtus longicaudus, in the tectonically and glacially dynamic landscape of the Central Rocky Mountains. J. Mammal. 2009, 90:571-584.
52. Taitt M.J., Krebs C.J. Population dynamics and cycles. Biology of New World Microtus. Special Publication No. 8 1985, American Society of Mammalogists. R.H. Tamarin (Ed.).
53. Tamarin R.H., Adler G.H., Sheridan M., Zwicker K. Similarity of spring population densities of the island beach vole (Microtus breweri), 1972-1986. Can. J. Zool. 1987, 65:2039-2041.
54. Templeton A.R. The crisis of partial extinction. Nat. Areas J. 1982, 2:35-38.
55. Templeton A.R. The reality and importance of founder speciation in evolution. Bioessays 2008, 30:470-479.
56. Templeton A.R., Shaw K., Routman E., Davis S.K. The genetic consequences of habitat fragmentation. Ann. Miss. Bot. Gard. 1990, 77:13-27.
57. Templeton A.R., Robertson R.J., Brisson J., Strasburg J. Disrupting evolutionary processes: the effect of habitat fragmentation on collared lizards of the Missouri Ozarks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 2001, 98:5426-5432.
58. Templeton A.R., Neuwald J.L., Brazeal H., Robertson R.J. Restoring demographic processes in translocated populations of collared lizards in the Missouri Ozarks through prescribed forest fires. Isr. J. Ecol. Evol. 2007, 53:179-196.
59. Thompson J.D., Higgins D.G., Gibson T.J. CLUSTAL W: improving the sensitivity of progressive multiple sequence alignment through sequence weighting, positions-specific gap penalties and weight matrix choice. Nucl. Acids Res. 1994, 22:4673-4680.
60. USFW, 1993. Amargosa Vole (Microtus californicus scirpensis) Recovery Plan. Portland, Oregon.
61. United States Fish and Wildlife Service Amargosa Vole (Microtus californicus scirpensis) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation 2009, Ventura, California.
62. Valdes A.M., Slatkin M., Freimer N.B. Allele frequencies at microsatellite loci: the stepwise mutation model revisited. Genetics 1993, 133:737-749.
63. Weir B.S. Genetic Data Analysis 1996, Sinaur Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts. second ed.
64. Weir B.S., Cockerham C.C. Estimating F-statistics for the analysis of population structure. Evolution 1984, 38:1358-1370.
65. Wilson G.A., Rannala B. Bayesian inference of recent migration rates using multilocus genotypes. Genetics 2003, 163:1177-1191.