Advertisement

Conservation Genetics

, Volume 11, Issue 5, pp 1701–1710 | Cite as

Extreme population differentiation in a vulnerable slavemaking ant with a fragmented distribution

  • O. SanllorenteEmail author
  • R. L. Hammond
  • F. Ruano
  • L. Keller
  • A. Tinaut
Research Article

Abstract

Understanding levels of population differentiation and inbreeding are important issues in conservation biology, especially for social Hymenoptera with fragmented and small population sizes. Isolated populations are more vulnerable to genetic loss and extinction than those with extended continuous distributions. However, small populations are not always a consequence of a recent reduction of their habitat. Thus, determining the history of population isolation and current patterns of genetic variation of a species is crucial for its conservation. Rossomyrmex minuchae is a slave-making ant with patchy distribution in South Eastern Spain and is classified as vulnerable by the IUCN. In contrast, the other three known species of the genus are presumed to show more uniform distributions. Here we investigate the genetic diversity and population structure of R. minuchae and compare it with that found in two other species of the genus: R. anatolicus and R. quandratinodum. We conclude that although genetic diversity of R. minuchae is low, there is no evidence of a recent bottleneck, suggesting a gradual and natural fragmentation process. We also show extreme population differentiation at nuclear and mitochondrial markers, and isolation by distance at a local scale. Despite some evidence for inbreeding and low genetic variation within populations, we found almost no diploid males, a finding which contrasts with that expected in inbred Hymenoptera with single locus complementary sex determination. This could mean that sex is determined by another mechanism. We argue that continued low population size means that detrimental effects of inbreeding and low genetic variation are likely in the future. We suggest that a policy of artificial gene flow aimed at increasing within population variation is considered as a management option.

Keywords

Rossomyrmex minuchae Slave-making ant Vulnerable species Population differentiation Fragmented versus continuous distribution 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank the directorate of the National Park of Sierra Nevada for allowing us to sample there. A. Fernández, C. Karaman and Y. Kaz for helping us in nest search and excavations in Spain, Turkey and Kazakhstan, respectively. F. Mier and Y. Kaz kindly helped us with bureaucracy in Kazakhstan. J.G. Martínez offered technical help and J.D. Ibáñez-Álamo created the map. We also thank two anonymous reviewers for very useful comments. This research was supported by Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, Organismo Autónomo Parques Nacionales, project ref: 78/2003, a FPU grant to O.S. (Ministerio de Educación), the Plan Propio of the University of Granada and the Swiss NSF.

References

  1. Beukeboom L (1995) Sex determination in Hymenoptera—a need for genetic and molecular studies. Bioessays 17:813–817CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Boomsma JJ, Ratnieks FLW (1996) Paternity in eusocial Hymenoptera. Phil Trans R Soc B 351:947–975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brandt M, Fischer-Blass B, Heinze J, Foitzik S (2007) Population structure and the co-evolution between social parasites and their hosts. Mol Ecol 16:2063–2078CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Brunner E, Trindl A, Falk KH, Heinze J, D’Ettorre P (2005) Reproductive conflict in social insects: male production by workers in a slave-making ant. Evolution 59:2480–2482PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Buschinger A (1989) Evolution, speciation, and inbreeding in the parasitic ant genus Epimyrma (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). J Evol Biol 2:265–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chapman RE, Bourke AFG (2001) The influence of sociality on the conservation biology of social insects. Ecol Lett 4:650–662CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chapuisat M (1996) Characterization of microsatellite loci in Formica lugubris and their variability in other ant species. Mol Ecol 5:560–599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clémencet J, Viginier B, Doums C (2005) Hierarchical analysis of population genetic structure in the monogynous ant Cataglyphis cursor using microsatellite and mitochondrial DNA markers. Mol Ecol 14:3735–3744CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Cook JM, Crozier RH (1995) Sex determination and population biology in the Hymenoptera. TREE 10:281–286Google Scholar
  10. Crozier RH (1971) Heterozygosity and sex determination in haplodiploidy. Am Nat 105:399–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Darvill B, Ellis JS, Lye GC, Goulson D (2006) Population structure and inbreeding in a rare and declining bumblebee, Bombus muscorum (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Mol Ecol 15:601–611CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Fischer-Blass B, Heinze J, Foitzik S (2006) Microsatellite analysis reveals strong but differential impact of a social parasite on its two host species. Mol Ecol 15:863–872CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Foster KR, Ratnieks FLW, Raybould AF (2000) Do hornets have zombie workers? Mol Ecol 9:735–742CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Frankham R, Ballou JD, Briscoe DA (2002) Introduction to conservation genetics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  15. Goropashnaya AV, Seppä P, Pamilo P (2001) Social and genetic characteristics of geographically isolated populations in the ant Formica cinerea. Mol Ecol 10:2807–2818PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Goudet J (2002) FSTAT A program to estimate and test gene diversities and fixation indices (Version 2932) Available from www.unilch/izea/softwares/fstathtml
  17. Gyllenstrand N, Gertsch PJ, Pamilo P (2002) Polymophic microsatellite DNA markers in the ant Formica exsecta. Mol Ecol Notes 2:67–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hardy OJ, Vekemans X (2002) SPAGeDi: a versatile computer program to analyse spatial genetic structure at the individual or population levels. Mol Ecol 13:3621–3632Google Scholar
  19. Hardy OJ, Pearcy M, Aron S (2008) Small-scale spatial genetic structure in an ant species with sex-biased dispersal. Biol J Linn Soc 93:465–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hedrick PW (2005) A standardized genetic differentiation measure. Evolution 59:1633–1638PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Heinze J, Hölldobler B, Yamuchi K (1998) Male competition in Cardiocondyla ants. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 42:239–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Keller LF, Waller DM (2002) Inbreeding effects in wild populations. TREE 17:230–241Google Scholar
  23. Kumar S, Tamura K, Nei M (2004) MEGA3: integrated software for molecular evolutionary analysis and sequence alignment. Brief Bioinform 5:150–163CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Loftis DG, Echelle AA, Koike H, Van Den Bussche RA, Minckley CO (2009) Genetic structure of wild populations of the endangered Desert Pupfish complex (Cyprinodontidae: Cyprinodon). Conserv Genet 10:453–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Luikart G, Allendorf FW, Cornuet JM, Sherwin WB (1998) Distortion of allele frequency distributions provides a test for recent population bottlenecks. J Hered 89:238–247CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Mäki-Petäys H, Breen J (2007) Genetic vulnerability of a remnant ant population. Conserv Genet 8:427–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mäki-Petäys H, Zakharov A, Viljakainen L, Corander J, Pamilo P (2005) Genetic changes associated to declining populations of Formica ants in fragmented forest landscape. Mol Ecol 14:733–742CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Mantel M (1967) The detection of disease clustering and a generalized regression approach. Cancer Res 27:209–220PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Marikovsky PY (1974) The biology of the ant Rossomyrmex proformicarum K. W. Arnoldi (1928). Insect Soc 21:301–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Martínez-Ibáñez MD, Tinaut A, Ruano F (2006) Rossomyrmex minuchae Tinaut 1981. In: Verdú JR, Galante E (eds) Libro Rojo de los Invertebrados de España. Dirección General para la Biodiversidad Ministerio de Medio. Ambiente, Madrid, pp 1167–1170Google Scholar
  31. Meirmans PG (2006) Using the AMOVA framework to estimate a standardized genetic differentiation measure. Evolution 60:2399–2402PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Mockford SW, Herman TB, Snyder M, Wright JM (2007) Conservation genetics of Blanding’s turtle and its application in the identification of evolutionarily significant units. Conserv Genet 8:209–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Moilanen A, Sundström L, Pedersen JS (2004) MateSoft: a program for deducing parental genotypes and estimating mating system statistics in haplodiploid species. Mol Ecol Notes 4:795–797CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Moritz C (1994) Defining evolutionarily-significant-units for conservation. TREE 9:373–375Google Scholar
  35. New TR (1995) An introduction to invertebrate conservation biology. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  36. Pabijan M, Babik W, Rafinski J (2005) Conservation units in north-eastern populations of the Alpine newt (Triturus alpestris). Conserv Genet 6:307–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pamilo P (1993) Polyandry and allele frequency differences between sexes in the ant Formica aquilonia. Heredity 70:472–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pamilo P, Crozier RH (1997) Population biology of social insect conservation. Mem Mus Vic 56:411–419Google Scholar
  39. Pearcy M, Clemencet J, Chameron S, Aron S, Doums C (2004) Characterization of nuclear DNA microsatellite markers in the ant Cataglyphis cursor. Mol Ecol Notes 4:642–644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Queller DC, Goodnight KF (1989) Estimating relatedness using genetic markers. Evolution 43:258–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Raymond M, Rousset F (1995) GENEPOP: population genetics software for exact tests and ecumenicism. J Hered 86:248–249Google Scholar
  42. Ross KG, Keller L (1995) Ecology and evolution of social organization: insights from fire ants and other highly eusocial insects. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 26:631–656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rousset F (1997) Genetic differentiation and estimation of gene flow from F-statistics under isolation by distance. Genetics 145:1219–1228PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Ruano F, Tinaut A (1999) Raid process activity pattern and influence of abiotic conditions in Rossomyrmex minuchae (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) a slave-maker species. Insect Soc 46:341–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ruano F, Tinaut A (2005) Mating behaviour in a slave-making ant Rossomyrmex minuchae (Hymenoptera Formicidae). Naturwissenschaften 92:328–331CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Ruano F, Tinaut A, Sanllorente O, Fernández-Zambrano A (2007) Nuevas localidades para Rossomyrmex minuchae (Hymenoptera Formicidae). Bol Asoc esp Ent 31:209–211Google Scholar
  47. Samways MJ (1994) Insect conservation biology. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  48. Samways MJ (2005) Insect diversity conservation. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Schrempf A, Reber C, Tinaut A, Heinze J (2005) Inbreeding and local mate competition in the ant Cardiocondyla batesii. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 57:502–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Schrempf A, Aron S, Heinze J (2006) Sex determination and inbreeding depression in an ant with regular sib-mating. Heredity 97:75–80CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Sundström L, Keller L, Chapuisat M (2003) Inbreeding and sex-biased gene flow in the ant Formica exsecta. Evolution 57:1552–1561PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Sundström L, Seppä P, Pamilo P (2005) Genetic population structure and dispersal patterns in Formica ants—a review. Ann Zool Fennici 42:163–177Google Scholar
  53. Thomas JA (1994) Why small cold-blooded insects pose different conservation problems to birds in modern landscapes. Ibis 137:S112–S119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Tinaut A, Ruano F, Sanllorente O, Fernández-Zambrano A, Karaman C and Kaz Y (2010) Nest composition and worker relatedness in three slave making ants of the genus Rossomyrmex Arnoldi and their Proformica Ruzsky hosts (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). Insect Sci 17Google Scholar
  55. Trontti K, Aron S, Sundström L (2006) The genetic population structure of the ant Plagiolepis xene-implications for genetic vulnerability of obligate social parasites. Conserv Genet 7:241–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. van Wilgenburg E, Driessen G, Beukeboom LW (2006) Single locus complementary sex determination in Hymenoptera: an “unintelligent” design? Front Zool 3:1CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Weir BS, Cockerham CC (1984) Estimating F-statistics for the analysis of population structure. Evolution 38:1358–1370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wilson EO (1971) The insect societies. Belknap Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  59. Woyke J (1963) What happens to diploid drone larvae in a honeybee colony. J Apic Res 2:73–75Google Scholar
  60. Zayed A, Packer L (2005) Complementary sex determination substantially increases extinction proneness of haplodiploid populations. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102:10742–10746CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • O. Sanllorente
    • 1
    Email author
  • R. L. Hammond
    • 2
  • F. Ruano
    • 1
  • L. Keller
    • 3
  • A. Tinaut
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Animal BiologyUniversity of GranadaGranadaSpain
  2. 2.Department of Biological SciencesUniversity of HullHullUK
  3. 3.Department of Ecology and EvolutionUniversity of LausanneLausanneSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations