Conservation Genetics

, Volume 18, Issue 1, pp 181–196

Evolutionary history and species delimitations: a case study of the hazel dormouse, Muscardinus avellanarius

  • A. Mouton
  • A. Mortelliti
  • A. Grill
  • M. Sara
  • B. Kryštufek
  • R. Juškaitis
  • A. Latinne
  • G. Amori
  • E. Randi
  • S. Büchner
  • B. Schulz
  • S. Ehlers
  • J. Lang
  • P. Adamik
  • G. Verbeylen
  • M. Dorenbosch
  • R. Trout
  • M. Elmeros
  • G. Aloise
  • S. Mazzoti
  • F. Matur
  • F. Poitevin
  • J. R. Michaux
Research Article

DOI: 10.1007/s10592-016-0892-8

Cite this article as:
Mouton, A., Mortelliti, A., Grill, A. et al. Conserv Genet (2017) 18: 181. doi:10.1007/s10592-016-0892-8

Abstract

Robust identification of species and significant evolutionary units (ESUs) is essential to implement appropriate conservation strategies for endangered species. However, definitions of species or ESUs are numerous and sometimes controversial, which might lead to biased conclusions, with serious consequences for the management of endangered species. The hazel dormouse, an arboreal rodent of conservation concern throughout Europe is an ideal model species to investigate the relevance of species identification for conservation purposes. This species is a member of the Gliridae family, which is protected in Europe and seriously threatened in the northern part of its range. We assessed the extent of genetic subdivision in the hazel dormouse by sequencing one mitochondrial gene (cytb) and two nuclear genes (BFIBR, APOB) and genotyping 10 autosomal microsatellites. These data were analysed using a combination of phylogenetic analyses and species delimitation methods. Multilocus analyses revealed the presence of two genetically distinct lineages (approximately 11 % cytb genetic divergence, no nuclear alleles shared) for the hazel dormouse in Europe, which presumably diverged during the Late Miocene. The phylogenetic patterns suggests that Muscardinus avellanarius populations could be split into two cryptic species respectively distributed in western and central-eastern Europe and Anatolia. However, the comparison of several species definitions and methods estimated the number of species between 1 and 10. Our results revealed the difficulty in choosing and applying an appropriate criterion and markers to identify species and highlight the fact that consensus guidelines are essential for species delimitation in the future. In addition, this study contributes to a better knowledge about the evolutionary history of the species.

Keywords

Muscardinus avellanarius Species delimitation Evolutionary significant unit Evolutionary history 

Supplementary material

10592_2016_892_MOESM1_ESM.docx (42 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 41 kb)

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Mouton
    • 1
  • A. Mortelliti
    • 2
  • A. Grill
    • 3
  • M. Sara
    • 4
  • B. Kryštufek
    • 5
  • R. Juškaitis
    • 6
  • A. Latinne
    • 1
    • 7
  • G. Amori
    • 8
  • E. Randi
    • 9
    • 23
  • S. Büchner
    • 10
  • B. Schulz
    • 11
  • S. Ehlers
    • 12
  • J. Lang
    • 13
  • P. Adamik
    • 14
  • G. Verbeylen
    • 15
  • M. Dorenbosch
    • 16
  • R. Trout
    • 17
  • M. Elmeros
    • 18
  • G. Aloise
    • 19
  • S. Mazzoti
    • 20
  • F. Matur
    • 21
  • F. Poitevin
    • 22
  • J. R. Michaux
    • 1
    • 24
  1. 1.Institut de Botanique, Bâtiment 22Université de Liège (Sart Tilman)LiègeBelgium
  2. 2.Department of Wildlife Ecology, Fisheries and Conservation BiologyUniversity of MaineOronoUSA
  3. 3.Department for Botany and Biodiversity Research University of ViennaViennaAustria
  4. 4.Dipartimento Biologia Ambientale e BiodiversitàLaboratorio di Zoogeografia ed Ecologia AnimalePalermoItaly
  5. 5.Slovenian Museum of Natural HistoryLjubljanaSlovenia
  6. 6.Institute of Ecology of Nature Research CentreVilniusLithuania
  7. 7.EcoHealth AllianceNew YorkUSA
  8. 8.CNR, Institute of Ecosystem StudiesRomeItaly
  9. 9.Laboratorio di GeneticaIstituto Superiore per la Protezione e la Ricerca Ambientale (ISPRA)Ozzano EmiliaItaly
  10. 10.MarkersdorfGermany
  11. 11.Stiftung Naturschutz Schleswig-HolsteinMolfseeGermany
  12. 12.KielGermany
  13. 13.Working Group for Wildlife BiologyJustus Liebig University GiessenGiessenGermany
  14. 14.Department of ZoologyPalacky UniversityOlomoucCzech Republic
  15. 15.Natuurpunt Studie/Mammal Working GroupMechelenBelgium
  16. 16.NatuurbalansRadboud UniversiteitNijmegenNetherlands
  17. 17.Holtside BungalowFarnhamUK
  18. 18.Department of Bioscience-Wildlife Ecology and BiodiversityAarhus UniversityRøndeDenmark
  19. 19.Museo di Storia Naturale della Calabria e Orto BotanicoRendeItaly
  20. 20.Museo di Storia NaturaleFerraraItaly
  21. 21.Department of Biology, Science and Art FacultyBülent Ecevit UniversityZonguldakTurkey
  22. 22.CEFE UMR 5175, CNRS-Université de Montpellier-Université Paul-Valéry Montpellier-EPHE – Laboratory Biogeography and Vertebrate EcologyMontpellierFrance
  23. 23.Department of Biotechnology, Chemistry and Environmental EngineeringAalborg UniversityAalborgDenmark
  24. 24.CIRAD Animal et Gestion Intégrée des Risques (AGIRs)Montpellier Cedex 5France