Advertisement

Conservation Genetics

, Volume 12, Issue 2, pp 517–526 | Cite as

Historic DNA reveals contemporary population structure results from anthropogenic effects, not pre-fragmentation patterns

  • Lisa N. Tracy
  • Ian G. Jamieson
Research Article

Abstract

Contemporary patterns of genetic structure among fragmented populations can either result from historic patterns or arise from human-induced fragmentation. Use of historic samples collected prior to fragmentation allows for the origin of genetic structure to be established and appropriate management steps to be determined. In this study, we compare historic and contemporary levels of genetic diversity and structure of an endangered passerine, the New Zealand mohua or yellowhead (Mohoua ochrocephala), using nuclear microsatellites. We found that a significant amount of allelic richness has been lost over the last 100 years. Close to half of this was due to extinction of birds from entire regions, but almost as much was due to loss of genetic diversity within extant populations. We found a pattern of isolation by distance among contemporary populations, which could have resulted from historic structure due to limited gene flow along a latitudinal cline. However, we found that minimal genetic structure existed historically. The pattern of increased structure over time was confirmed by factorial correspondence analysis. We conclude that the genetic structure apparent today resulted from anthropogenic effects of recent fragmentation and isolation. We emphasize the importance of assessing genetic structure of populations prior to their fragmentation, when determining the significance of contemporary patterns. This study highlights the growing importance of museum specimens as a tool in the conservation of threatened and endangered species.

Keywords

Genetic structure Historic DNA Mohoua ochrocephala Microsatellites Genetic diversity Wildlife conservation 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the New Zealand Department of Conservation, including H. Edmonds, R. Cole, C. O’Donnell, G. Elliott, J. Kemp and especially to G. Loh and B. Lawrence for logistical support and collection of samples. We are also grateful to M. Efford, D. Dawson, R. Laws, R. Paterson, N. Babbage, B. Rhodes, B. Masuda, M. Somerville, G. Pickerell and D. Hegg for assistance in the field. Laboratory work was greatly facilitated by T. King and B. Star. We are indebted to S. Boessenkool for her advice and support in the laboratory, discussion of ideas and comments which greatly improved the manuscript. We thank all of the museums listed in Online Resource 1 for their willingness to contribute tissue samples. Funding for this research was provided by the Department of Conservation and Landcare Research (contract no. C09X0503), the University of Otago, Forest and Bird JS Watson Trust and N. Babbage of Mohua Inc. LNT was supported by the University of Otago Postgraduate Scholarship and Publishing Bursary. Permits to conduct this research included Department of Conservation research permits (SO-21285-FAU) and a University of Otago Animal Ethics permit (87/05).

Supplementary material

10592_2010_158_MOESM1_ESM.doc (318 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 317 kb)

References

  1. Austin JJ, Melville J (2006) Incorporating historical museum specimens into molecular systematic and conservation genetics research. Mol Ecol Notes 6:1089–1092CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Belkhir K, Porsa P, Chikhi L, Raugaste N, Bonhomme F (2004) Genetix v. 4.05, Logiciel sous Windows TM pour la génétique des populations. Laboratoire génome, populations, interactions, CNRS UMR 5171. Université de Montpellier II, MontpellierGoogle Scholar
  3. Boessenkool S, Austin JJ, Worthy TH, Scofield P, Cooper A, Seddon PJ, Waters JM (2009) Relict or colonizer? Extinction and range expansion of penguins in southern New Zealand. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 276:815–821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown JW, de Groot PJV, Birt TP, Seutin G, Boag PT, Friesen VL (2007) Appraisal of the consequences of the DDT-induced bottleneck on the level and geographic distribution of neutral genetic variation in Canadian peregrine falcons, Falco peregrinus. Mol Ecol 16:327–343PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Crooijmans RPMA, Dijkhof RJM, van der Poel JJ, Groenen MAM (1997) New microsatellite markers in chicken optimized for automated fluorescent genotyping. Anim Genet 28:427–437PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Double MC, Dawson D, Burke T, Cockburn A (1997) Finding the fathers in the least faithful bird: a microsatellite based genotyping system for the superb fairy-wren Malurus cyaneus. Mol Ecol 6:691–693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Eckert CG, Samis E, Lougheed C (2008) Genetic variation across species’ geographical ranges: the central-martinal hypothesis and beyond. Mol Ecol 17:1170–1188PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Edmands S (2007) Between a rock and a hard place: evaluating the relative risks of inbreeding and outbreeding for conservation and management. Mol Ecol 16:463–475PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Elderkin CL, Christian AD, Metcalfe-Smith JL, Berg DJ (2008) Population genetics and phylogeography of freshwater mussels in North America, Elliptio dilatata and Actinonaias ligamentina (Bivalvia: Unionidae). Mol Ecol 17:2149–2163PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Elliott GP (1990) The breeding biology and habitat relationships of the yellowhead. Unpublished PhD thesis, Victoria University of Wellington, WellingtonGoogle Scholar
  11. Gaze PD (1985) Distribution of yellowheads (Mohoua ochrocephala) in New Zealand. Notornis 32:261–269Google Scholar
  12. Gilpin ME, Soule ME (1986) Minimum viable populations: processes of species extinction. In: Conservation biology: the science of scarcity and diversity. Sinauer, Sunderland, MAGoogle Scholar
  13. Goldstein PZ, DeSalle R (2003) Calibrating phylogenetic species formation in a threatened insect using DNA from historical specimens. Mol Ecol 12:1993–1998PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Goudet J (1995) FSTAT (version 1.2): a computer program to calculate F-statistics. J Hered 86:485–486Google Scholar
  15. Guo SW, Thompson EA (1992) Performing the exact test of Hardy–Weinberg proportion for multiple alleles. Biometrics 48:361–372PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hansson B, Richardson DS (2005) Genetic variation in two endangered Acrocephalus species compared to a widespread congener: estimates based on functional and random loci. Anim Conserv 8:3–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hitchmough R, Bull L, Cromarty P (2007) New Zealand threat classification system lists—2005. Department of Conservation, WellingtonGoogle Scholar
  18. IUCN (2010) IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.4. http://www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed 30 May 2010
  19. Jamieson IG (2007a) Has the debate over genetics and extinction of island endemics truly been resolved? Anim Conserv 10:139–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jamieson IG (2007b) Role of genetic factors in extinction of island endemics: complementary or competing explanations? Anim Conserv 10:151–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jamieson IG, Grueber CE, Waters JM, Gleeson DM (2008) Managing genetic diversity in threatened populations: a New Zealand perspective. N Z J Ecol 32:130–137Google Scholar
  22. King CM (1984) Immigrant killers: introduced predators and the conservation of birds in New Zealand. Oxford University Press, AucklandGoogle Scholar
  23. Koumoundouros T, Sumner J, Clemann N, Stuart-Fox D (2009) Current genetic isolation and fragmentation contrasts with historical connectivity in an alpine lizard (Cyclodomorphus praealtus) threatened by climate change. Biol Conserv 142:992–1002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lara-Ruiz P, Chiarello AG, Santos FR (2008) Extreme population divergence and conservation implications for the rare endangered Atlantic Forest sloth, Bradypus torquatus (Pilosa: Bradypodidae). Biol Conserv 141:1332–1342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Leonard JA (2008) Ancient DNA applications for wildlife conservation. Mol Ecol 17:4186–4196PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Li YC, Korol AB, Fahima T, Beiles A, Nevo E (2002) Microsatellites: genomic distribution, putative functions and mutational mechanisms: a review. Mol Ecol 11:2453–2465PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Manel S, Schwartz MK, Luikart G, Taberlet P (2003) Landscape genetics: combining landscape ecology and population genetics. Trends Ecol Evol 16:189–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Manly BFJ (2007) Randomization, bootstrapping and Monte Carlo methods in biology, 3rd edn. CRC, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  29. Martinez-Cruz B, Godoy JA, Negro JJ (2007) Population fragmentation leads to spatial and temporal genetic structure in the endangered Spanish imperial eagle. Mol Ecol 16:477–486PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Marty PF (2005) Factors influencing error recovery in collections databases: a museum case study. Libr Q 75:295–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Miller CR, Waits LP (2003) The history of effective population size and genetic diversity in the Yellowstone grizzly (Ursus arctos): implications for conservation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:4334–4339PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mundy NI, Unitt P, Woodruff DS (1997) Skin from feet of museum specimens as a non-destructive source of DNA for avian genotyping. Auk 114:126–129Google Scholar
  33. O’Donnell CFJ (1996) Monitoring mohua (yellowhead) populations in the South Island, New Zealand, 1983–93. N Z J Zool 23:221–228Google Scholar
  34. O’Donnell CFJ, Roberts A, Lyall J (2002) Mohua (yellowhead) recovery plan 2002–2012. Threatened species recovery plan series 6. Department of Conservation, WellingtonGoogle Scholar
  35. Pääbo S, Poinar H, Serre D, Jaenicke-Després V, Hebler J, Rohland N, Kuch M, Krause J, Vigilant L, Hofreiter M (2004) Genetic analyses from ancient DNA. Annu Rev Genet 38:645–679PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Peakall R, Smouse PE (2006) GENALEX 6: genetic analysis in Excel. Population genetic software for teaching and research. Mol Ecol Notes 6:288–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Peakall R, Smouse PE, Huff DR (1995) Evolutionary implications of allozyme and RAPD variation in diploid populations of dioecious buffalo grass Buchloe dactyloides. Mol Ecol 4:135–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Primmer CR, Møller AP, Ellegren H (1995) Resolving genetic relationships with microsatellite markers: a parentage testing system for the swallow Hirundo rustica. Mol Ecol 4:493–498PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Primmer CR, Møller AP, Ellegren H (1996) A wide-range survey of cross-species microsatellite amplification in birds. Mol Ecol 4:365–378Google Scholar
  40. Pritchard JK, Stephens M, Donnelly P (2000) Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data. Genetics 155:945–959PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Pritchard JK, Wen X, Falush D (2007) Documentation for structure software: version 2.2. Department of Human Genetics, University of Chicago, Chicago, ILGoogle Scholar
  42. Pujol B, Pannell JR (2008) Reduced responses to selection after species range expansion. Science 321:96PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Raymond M, Rousset F (1995) GENEPOP (version 1.2): population genetics software for exact tests and ecumenicism. J Hered 86:248–249Google Scholar
  44. Reding DM, Freed LA, Cann RL, Fleischer RC (2010) Spatial and temporal patterns of genetic diversity in an endangered Hawaiian honeycreeper, the Hawaii Akepa (Loxops coccineus coccineus). Conserv Genet 11:225–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Robertson CJR, Hyvönen P, Fraser MJ, Pickard CR (2007) Atlas of bird distribution in New Zealand 1999–2004. The Ornithological Society of New Zealand Inc., WellingtonGoogle Scholar
  46. Rogell B, Thörngren H, Palm S, Laurila A, Höglund J (2010) Genetic structure in peripheral populations of the natterjack toad, Bufo calamita, as revealed by AFLP. Conserv Genet 11:173–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rousset F (1997) Genetic differentiation and estimation of gene flow from F-statistics under isolation by distance. Genetics 145:1219–1228PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Schwartz MK, Luikart G, Waples RS (2007) Genetic monitoring as a promising tool for conservation and management. Trends Ecol Evol 22:25–33PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sefc KM, Payne RB, Sorenson MD (2003) Microsatellite amplification from museum feather samples: effects of fragment size and template concentration on genotyping errors. Auk 120:982–989CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Seutin G, White BN, Boag PT (1991) Preservation of avian blood and tissue samples for DNA analyses. Can J Zool 69:82–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Shepherd LD, Lambert DM (2008) Ancient DNA and conservation: lessons from the endangered kiwi of New Zealand. Mol Ecol 17:2174–2184PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Slatkin M (1987) Gene flow and geographic structure of natural populations. Science 236:787–792PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Smulders MJM, Snoek LB, Booy G, Vosman B (2003) Complete loss of MHC genetic diversity in the Common Hamster (Cricetus cricetus) population in the Netherlands. Conserv Genet 4:441–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Stenzler LM, Fitzpatrick JW (2002) Isolation of microsatellite loci in the Florida Scrub-Jay. Mol Ecol Notes 2:547–550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Tracy LN (2008) Conservation genetics of mohua. Unpublished MSc Thesis, University of Otago, DunedinGoogle Scholar
  56. Van Oosterhout C, Hutchinson WF, Wills DPM, Shipley P (2004) MICRO-CHECKER: software for identifying and correcting genotyping errors in microsatellite data. Mol Ecol Notes 4:535–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Walsh PS, Metzger DA, Higuchi R (1991) Chelex-100 as a medium for simple extraction of DNA for PCR-based typing from forensic material. Biotechniques 10:506–513PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Wandeler P, Hoeck PEA, Keller LF (2007) Back to the future: museum specimens in population genetics. Trends Ecol Evol 22:634–642PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Weir BS, Cockerham CC (1984) Estimating F-statistics for the analysis of population structure. Evolution 38:1358–1370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Westerdahl H, Wittzell H, von Schantz T (2000) Mhc diversity in two passerine birds: no evidence for a minimal essential Mhc. Immunogenetics 52:92–100PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wilmshurst JM, Anderson AJ, Higham TFG, Worthy TH (2008) Dating the late prehistoric dispersal of Polynesians to New Zealand using the commensal Pacific rat. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:7676–7680PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wright S (1969) The theory of gene frequencies. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, ILGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of ZoologyUniversity of OtagoDunedinNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations