Advertisement

Conservation Genetics

, Volume 12, Issue 3, pp 745–751 | Cite as

The use of non-invasive molecular techniques to confirm the presence of mountain bongo Tragelaphus eurycerus isaaci populations in Kenya and preliminary inference of their mitochondrial genetic variation

  • P. J. FariaEmail author
  • G. D. Kavembe
  • J. O. Jung’a
  • C. N. Kimwele
  • L. D. Estes
  • P. R. Reillo
  • A. G. Mwangi
  • M. W. Bruford
Research Article

Abstract

The mountain bongo antelope Tragelaphus eurycerus isaaci has rapidly declined in recent decades, due to a combination of hunting, habitat degradation and disease. Endemic to Kenya, mountain bongo populations have shrunk to approximately 100 individuals now mainly confined to the Aberdares mountain ranges. Indirect observation of bongo signs (e.g. tracks, dung) can be misleading, thus methods to ensure reliable species identification, such as DNA-based techniques, are necessary to effectively study and monitor this species. We assessed bongo presence in four mountain habitats in Kenya (Mount Kenya National Park, Aberdare National Park, Eburu and Mau forests) and carried out a preliminary analysis of genetic variation by examining 466 bp of the first domain of the mtDNA control region using DNA extracted from faecal samples. Of the 201 dung samples collected in the field, 102 samples were molecularly identified as bongo, 97 as waterbuck, one as African buffalo and one as Aders’ duiker. Overall species-identification accuracy by experienced trackers was 64%, with very high error of commission when identifying bongo sign (37%), and high error of omission for waterbuck sign (82%), suggesting that the two species’ signs are easily confused. Despite high variation in the mtDNA control region in most antelope species, our results suggest low genetic variation in mountain bongo as only two haplotypes were detected in 102 samples analyzed. In contrast, the analysis of 63 waterbuck samples from the same sites revealed 21 haplotypes. Nevertheless, further examination using nuclear DNA markers (e.g. microsatellites) in a multi-locus approach is still required, especially because the use of mitochondrial DNA can result in population overestimation as distinct dung samples can potentially be originated from the same individual.

Keywords

Bongo antelope Non-invasive genetics Endangered species Genetic diversity mtDNA control region 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank the Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) for permission to collect samples and the University of Nairobi, Cardiff University and International Livestock Research Institute for facilitating the study. The Bongo Surveillance Team (BST) led by Michael Prettejohn and the BSP trackers on whose expertise and knowledge of the bongo habitats enabled the collection of the samples, are also thanked. Olivier Hannote and Doreen Adhoch both from International Livestock Research Institute assisted in organizing and shipment of the samples to Cardiff. Katherine Dunbar carried out the preliminary testing of the bongo sequences. The study was funded by the African fund for Endangered Wildlife (AFEW), Rhino Ark Charitable Trust and the Rare Species Conservatory Foundation (RSCF). This study was a part of GDK’s MSc thesis.

References

  1. Alpers DL, van Vuuren BJ, Arctander P, Robinson TJ (2004) Population genetics of the roan antelope (Hippotragus equinus) with suggestions for conservation. Mol Ecol 13:1771–1784PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Altschul SF, Madden TL, Schaffer AA (1997) Gapped BLAST and PSI-BLAST: a new generation of protein database search programs. Nucleic Acids Res 25:3389–3402PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arnason U, Gullberg A, Widegren B (1993) Cetacean mitochondrial DNA control region: sequences of all extant baleen whales and two sperm whale species. Mol Biol Evol 10:960–970PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Birungi J, Arctander P (2000) Large sequence divergence of mitochondrial DNA genotypes of the control region within population of the African antelope, kob (Kobus kob). Mol Ecol 9:1997–2008PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bosley LF (2003) International studbook for Bongo Antelope (Tragelaphus eurycerus isaaci), vol XVIII. Fort Worth Zoo, TexasGoogle Scholar
  6. Bowkett AE, Plowman AB, Stevens JR, Davenport TRB, van Vuuren BJ (2009) Genetic testing of dung identification for antelope surveys in the Udzungwa Mountains, Tanzania. Conserv Genet 10:251–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. East R (1999) African Antelope Database 1998. IUCN/SSC Antelope Specialist Group. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  8. Estes LD, Okin GS, Mwangi AG, Shugart HH (2008) Habitat selection by a rare forest antelope: a multi-scale approach combining field data and imagery from three sensors. Remote Sens Environ 112:2033–2050CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Estes LD, Reillo PR, Mwangi AG, Okin GS, Shugart HH (2010) Remote sensing of structural complexity indices for habitat and species distribution modeling. Remote Sens Environ 114:792–804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Farrell LE, Romant J, Sunquist ME (2000) Dietary separation of sympatric carnivores identified by molecular analysis of scats. Mol Ecol 9:1583–1590PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hibert F, Fritz H, Poilecot P, Abdou HN, Dulieu D (2008) Morphological criteria to identify faecal pellets of sympatric ungulates in West African savanna and estimates of associated error. Afr J Ecol 46:523–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kholodva MV, Milner-Gulland EJ, Easton AJ, Amgalan L, Arylov Lu A, Bekenov A, Grachev Lu A, Lushchekina AA, Ryder O (2006) Mitochondrial DNA variation and population structure of the critically endangered SAIGA antelope Saiga tatarica. Oryx 40:103–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kingdon J (1982) East African mammals: an atlas of evolution in Africa. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Kock RA, Wambua JM, Mwanzia J, Wamwayi H, Ndungu EK, Barrett T, Kock ND, Rossiter PB (1999) Rinderpest epidemic in wild ruminants in Kenya 1993–97. Vet Rec 145:275–283PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lorenzen ED, Masembe C, Arctander P, Siegismund HR (2010) A long-standing Pleistocene refugium in southern Africa and a mosaic of refugia in East Africa: insights from mtDNA and the common eland antelope. J Biogeogr 37:571–581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lunt N, Bowkett AE, Plowman AB (2006) Implications of assumption violation in density estimates of antelope from dung-heap counts: a case study on grey duiker (Sylvicapar grimmia) in Zimbabwe. Afr J Ecol 45:382–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. McKelvey KS, Aubry KB, Schwartz MK (2008) Using anecdotal occurrence data for rare or elusive species: the illusion of reality and a call for evidentiary standards. Bioscience 58:549–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Neff DJ (1968) The pellet-group count technique for big game trend, census, and distribution: a review. J Wildl Manage 32:597–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Nei M (1987) Molecular evolutionary genetics. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Nersting L, Arctander P (2001) Phylogeography and conservation of impala and greater kudu. Mol Ecol 10:711–719PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ntie S, Johnston AR, Mickala P, Bowkett AE, Van Vuuren BJ, Colyn M, Telfer P, Maisels F, Hymas O, Rouyer RL, Wallace RA, LeBlanc K, van Vliet N, Sonet G, Verheyen E, Pires D, Wickings EJ, Lahm SA, Anthony NM (2010) A molecular diagnostic for identifying Central African forest artiodactyls from faecal pellets. Anim Conserv 13:80–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Perez T, Vazquez F, Naves J, Fernandez A, Corao A, Albornoz J, Dominguez A (2009) Non-invasive genetic study of the endangered cantabrian brown bear (Ursus arctos). Conserv Genet 10:291–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Prettejohn M (2004) Encounters with the bongo. Swara 27:28–30Google Scholar
  24. Putman RJ (1984) Facts from faeces. Mammal Rev 14:79–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Reillo P (2002) Repatriation of mountain bongo to Kenya. Antelope Specialist Group Gnusletter 21:11–15Google Scholar
  26. Rovero F, Marshall AR (2004) Reliability of line transect techniques for estimating abundance of forest antelopes: a case from the Udzungwa Mountains, Tanzania. Trop Zool 17:267–277Google Scholar
  27. Rozas J, Sanchez-Delbarrio J, Messeguer X, Rozas R (2003) DnaSP: DNA sequence polymorphism analysis by coalescent and other methods. Bioinformatics 19:2496–2497PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ruan XD, He PJ, Zhang JL, Wan QH, Fang SG (2005) Evolutionary history and current population relationships of the chiru (Pantholops hodgsonii) inferred from mtDNA variation. J Mammal 86:881–886CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sastre N, Francino O, Lampreave G, Bologov VV, López-Martín JM, Sánchez A, Ramírez O (2009) Sex identification of wolf (Canis lupus) using non-invasive samples. Conserv Genet 10:555–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Simonsen BT, Siegismund HR, Arctander P (1998) Population structure of African buffalo inferred from mtDNA sequences and microsatellite loci: high variation but low differentiation. Mol Ecol 7:225–237PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. van Vliet N, Nasi R, Lumaret JP (2008a) Factors influencing duiker dung decay in north-east Gabon: are dung beetles hiding duikers? Afr J Ecol 40:40–47Google Scholar
  32. van Vliet N, Zundel S, Miquel C, Taberlet P, Nasi R (2008b) Distinguishing dung from blue, red and yellow-backed duikers through noninvasive genetic techniques. Afr J Ecol 46:411–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Zhan XJ, Li M, Zhang ZJ, Goossens B, Wang HJ, Chen YP, Bruford MW, Wei FW (2006) Molecular censusing doubles giant panda population estimate in a key nature reserve. Curr Biol 16:451–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. J. Faria
    • 1
    Email author
  • G. D. Kavembe
    • 2
  • J. O. Jung’a
    • 2
    • 3
  • C. N. Kimwele
    • 4
  • L. D. Estes
    • 5
    • 6
  • P. R. Reillo
    • 5
  • A. G. Mwangi
    • 7
  • M. W. Bruford
    • 1
  1. 1.School of BiosciencesCardiff UniversityCardiffUK
  2. 2.Department of Animal Production, Faculty of Veterinary MedicineUniversity of NairobiNairobiKenya
  3. 3.Department of Animal Physiology and Anatomy, Faculty of Veterinary MedicineUniversity of NairobiNairobiKenya
  4. 4.Department of Molecular GeneticsInstitute of Primate Research (IPR)NairobiKenya
  5. 5.Rare Species Conservatory FoundationLoxahatcheeUSA
  6. 6.Center for Regional Environmental Studies, Department of Environmental ScienceUniversity of VirginiaCharlottesvilleUSA
  7. 7.Rhino Ark Charitable TrustNairobiKenya

Personalised recommendations