Conservation Genetics

, Volume 13, Issue 1, pp 153–164 | Cite as

Microsatellite diversity and structure of Carpathian brown bears (Ursus arctos): consequences of human caused fragmentation

  • Martin Straka
  • Ladislav Paule
  • Ovidiu Ionescu
  • Jozef Štofík
  • Michal Adamec
Research Article

Abstract

The formerly large, continuous brown bear population of the Carpathians has experienced a radical decrease in population size due to human activities which have resulted in splitting the population into the larger Eastern Carpathian and the smaller Western Carpathian subpopulations. In the Western Carpathians, brown bears came close to extinction at the beginning of 1930s, but thanks to both conservation and management efforts the bear population has begun to recover. In contrast, the Eastern Carpathian subpopulation in Romania has never dropped below 800 individuals, potentially preserving the original amount of genetic variation. In this paper we present results of a genetic study of brown bear subpopulations distributed in the Slovak and Romanian sections of the Carpathians using 13 nuclear microsatellites. The documented level of genetic differentiation between the Western and Eastern Carpathian subpopulations reflects the isolation which lasted almost 100 years. Furthermore, the existence of two, different, genetic clusters within the Western Carpathians despite close geographic proximity indicates that human-caused fragmentation and isolation have resulted in significant genetic divergence. Although the subpopulations display an indication of genetic bottleneck, the level of genetic diversity is within the range commonly observed in different brown bear populations. The results presented here point out the significance of human exploitation to the population structure of this large carnivore species. Future management efforts should be aimed at securing and restoring the connectivity of forested habitats, in order to preserve the genetic variation of the Carpathian brown bear subpopulations and to support the gene flow between them.

Keywords

Ursus arctos Carpathians Genetic structure Microsatellites 

References

  1. Adams JR, Waits LP (2007) An efficient method for screening faecal DNA genotypes and detecting new individuals and hybrids in the red wolf (Canis rufus) experimental population area. Conserv Genetics 8:123–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anonymous (2007) Management and action plan for the bear population in Romania. Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Rural Development, Ministry of Environment and Water Management. Bucureşti, pp 1–79. Available at http://www.icas.ro/DOCS/Bear%20Management%20Plan.pdf
  3. Aurelle D, Cattaneo-Berrebi G, Berrebi P (2002) Natural and artificial secondary contact in brown trout (Salmo trutta L.) in the French western Pyrenees assessed by allozymes and microsatellites. Heredity 89:171–183PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Belkhir K, Borsa P, Chikhi L, Raufaste N, Bonhomme F (1996–2004) genetix 4.05, logiciel sous Windows TM pour la génétique des populations. Laboratoire Génome, Populations, Interactions, CNRS UMR 5000, Université de Montpellier II, MontpellierGoogle Scholar
  5. Bellemain E, Taberlet P (2004) Improved noninvasive genotyping method: application to brown bear (Ursus arctos) faeces. Mol Ecol Notes 4:519–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bierne N, Borsa P, Daguin C et al (2003) Introgression patterns in the mosaic hybrid zone between Mytilus edulis and M. galloprovincialis. Mol Ecol 12:447–461PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Caro TM, Laurenson MK (1994) Ecological and genetic factors in conservation: a cautionary tale. Science 263:485–486PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cornuet JM, Luikart G (1996) Description and power analysis of two tests for detecting recent population bottlenecks from allele frequency data. Genetics 144:2001–2014PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Crnokrak P, Roff DA (1999) Inbreeding depression in the wild. Heredity 83:260–270PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dahle B, Swenson JE (2003) Home ranges in adult Scandinavian brown bears (Ursus arctos): effect of mass, sex, reproductive category, population density and habitat type. J Zool 260:329–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Di Rienzo A, Peterson AC, Garza JC et al (1994) Mutational processes of simple-sequence repeat loci in human populations. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 91:3166–3170PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ehrich D, Gaudeul M, Assefa A et al (2007) Genetic consequences of Pleistocene range shifts: contrast between the Arctic, the Alps and the East African mountains. Mol Ecol 16:2542–2559PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Evanno G, Regnaut S, Goudet J (2005) Detecting the number of clusters of individuals using the software structure: a simulation study. Mol Ecol 14:2611–2620PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Evett I, Weir B (1998) Interpreting DNA evidence: statistical genetics for forensic scientists. Sinauer Associates, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  15. Excoffier L, Smouse PE, Quattro JM (1992) Analysis of molecular variance inferred from metric distances among DNA haplotypes: application to human mitochondrial DNA restriction data. Genetics 131:479–491PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Excoffier L, Laval G, Schneider S (2005) Arlequin ver. 3.0: an integrated software package for population genetics data analysis. Evol Bioinf Online 1:47–50Google Scholar
  17. Finďo S, Skuban M, Koreň M (2007) Brown bear corridors in Slovakia. Identification of critical segments of the main road transportation corridors with wildlife habitats. Carpathian Wildlife Society, Zvolen, pp 1–68Google Scholar
  18. Garza JC, Williamson EG (2001) Detection of reduction in population size using data from microsatellite loci. Mol Ecol 10:305–318PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Glaubitz JC (2004) Convert: a user-friendly program to reformat diploid genotypic data for commonly used population genetic software packages. Mol Ecol Notes 4:309–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gouin N, Grandjean F, Souty-Grosset C (2006) Population genetic structure of the endangered crayfish Austropotamobius pallipes in France based on microsatellite variation: biogeographical inferences and conservation implications. Freshw Biol 51:1369–1387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hartl GB, Hell P (1994) Maintanence of high-levels of allelic variation in spite of a severe bottleneck in population size–the brown bear (Ursus arctos) in the Western Carpathians. Biodivers Conserv 3:546–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hell P, Slamečka J (1999) Bear in Slovak Carpathians and in the world [in Slovak]. PaRPRESS, BratislavaGoogle Scholar
  23. Ionescu O (1999) Status and management of the brown bear in Romania. In: Servheen C, Herrero S, Peyton B (eds) Bears: status survey and conservation action plan. International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Switzerland, pp 93–96Google Scholar
  24. Jakubiec Z (2001) The Brown bear Ursus arctos L. in the Polish part of the Carpathians (in Polish). Polska Akademia Nauk, Instytut Ochrony Przyrody, Studia Naturae 47 Google Scholar
  25. Jiménez JA, Hughes KA, Alaks G, Graham L, Lacy RC (1994) An experimental study of inbreeding depression in a natural habitat. Science 266:271–273PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jombart T, Pontier D, Dufour AB (2009) Genetic markers in the playground of multivariate analysis. Heredity 102:330–341PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Karamanlidis AA, Drosopoulou E, Hernando MG, Georgiadis L, Krambokoukis L, Pllaha S, Zedrosser A, Scouras Z (2010) Noninvasive genetic studies of brown bears using power poles. Eur J Wildl Res 56:693–702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kocijan I, Galov A, Ćetković H, Kusak J, Gomerčić T, Huber D (2011) Genetic diversity of Dinaric brown bears (Ursus arctos) in Croatia with implications for bear conservation in Europe. Mammalian Biology, doi:10.1016/j.mambio.2010.12.003
  29. Kohn M, Knauer F, Stoffella A, Schröder W, Pääbo S (1995) Conservation genetics of the European brown bear–a study using excremental PCR of nuclear and mitochondrial sequences. Mol Ecol 4:95–103PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lacy RC (1993) Impacts of inbreeding in natural and captive populations of vertebrates: implications for conservation. Perspect Biol Med 36:480–496Google Scholar
  31. Lande R (1988) Genetics and demography in biological conservation. Science 241:1455–1460PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Manoukis NC (2007) Formatomatic: a program for converting diploid allelic data between common formats for population genetic analysis. Mol Ecol Notes 7:592–593PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Miller CR, Joyce P, Waits LP (2002) Assessing allelic dropout and genotype reliability using maximum likelihood. Genetics 160:357–366PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Paetkau D, Strobeck C (1994) Microsatellite analysis of genetic variation in black bear populations. Mol Ecol 3:489–495PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Paetkau D, Calvert W, Stirling I, Strobeck C (1995) Microsatellite analysis of population structure in Canadian polar bears. Mol Ecol 4:347–354PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Paetkau D, Waits LP, Craighead L, Clarkson P, Strobeck C (1998) Variation in genetic diversity across the range of North American brown bears. Conserv Biol 12:418–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Paetkau D, Slade R, Burden M, Estoup A (2004) Genetic assignment methods for direct, real-time estimation of migration rate: a simulation-based exploration of accuracy and power. Mole Ecol 13:55–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Paszlavsky J (1918) Classis Mammalia. Fauna regni Hungariae, Mammalia. Regia Societas Scientia Naturalium Hungarica, Budapest, 43 ppGoogle Scholar
  39. Piry S, Luikart G, Cornuet JM (1999) BOTTLENECK: a computer program for detecting recent reductions in the effective population size using allele frequency data. J Hered 90:502–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Piry S, Alapetite A, Cornuet JM et al (2004) Geneclass2: a software for genetic assignment and first-generation migrant detection. J Heredity 95:536–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pompanon F, Bonin A, Bellemain E, Taberlet P (2005) Genotyping errors: causes, consequences and solutions. Nat Rev Genetics 6:847–859CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pritchard JK, Stephens M, Donnelly P (2000) Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data. Genetics 155:945–959PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Pritchard JK, Wen X, Falush D (2007) Documentation for structure software: Version 2.2. Avaiable at http://pritch.bsd.uchicago.edu/software/structure2_2.html
  44. Ralls K, Ballou JD, Templeton A (1988) Estimates of lethal equivalents and the cost of inbreeding in mammals. Conserv Biol 2:185–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rannala B, Mountain JL (1997) Detecting immigration by using multilocus genotypes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 94:9197–9201PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rosenberg NA, Pritchard JK, Weber JL et al (2002) Genetic structure of human populations. Science 298:2381–2385PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Saccheri I, Kuussaari M, Kankare M et al (1998) Inbreeding and extinction in a butterfly metapopulation. Nature 392:491–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sambrook J, Fritsch EF, Maniatis T (1989) Molecular cloning: a laboratory manual, 2nd edn. Cold Spring Laboratory Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  49. Servheen C (1990) Status and conservation of the bears of the world. International conference on bear research and management No. 2, 34 ppGoogle Scholar
  50. Shaw PW, Pierce GJ, Boyle PR (1999) Subtle population structuring within a highly vagile marine invertebrate, the veined squid Loligo forbesi, demonstrated with microsatellite DNA markers. Mol Ecol 8:407–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Swenson JE, Wabakken P, Sandegren F, Bjärvall A, Franzén R, Söderberg A (1995) The near extinction and recovery of brown bears in Scandinavia in relation to the bear management policies of Norway and Sweden. Wildl Biol 1:11–25Google Scholar
  52. Swenson JE, Dahle B, Gerstl N, Zedroser A (2000) Action plan for conservation of the brown bear in Europe. Convention on the Conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats (Bern Convention), nature and environment, Nr. 114. Council of Europe Publishing, StrasbourgGoogle Scholar
  53. Taberlet P, Bouvet J (1994) Mitochondrial DNA polymorphism, phylogeography, and conservation genetics of brown bear (Ursus arctos) in Europe. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B 255:195–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Taberlet P, Luikart G (1999) Non-invasive genetic sampling and individual identification. Biol J Linn Soc 68:41–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Taberlet P, Swenson JE, Sandegren F, Bjärvall A (1995) Localization of a contact zone between two highly divergent mitochondrial DNA lineages of brown bear Ursus arctos in Scandinavia. Conserv Biol 9:1255–1261Google Scholar
  56. Taberlet P, Camarra JJ, Griffin S et al (1997) Noninvasive genetic tracking of the endangered Pyrenean brown bear population. Mol Ecol 6:869–876PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Tobiáš J (1933) Bears in Turiec region [in Slovak]. Lovec 6:4–8Google Scholar
  58. Valière N (2002) Gimlet: a computer program for analyzing genetic individual identification data. Mol Ecol Notes 2:377–379Google Scholar
  59. Van Oosterhout C, Hutchinson WF, Wills DPM, Shipley P (2004) MICRO-CHECKER: software for identifying and correcting genotyping errors in microsatellite data. Mol Ecol 4:535–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Waits L, Taberlet P, Swenson JE, Sandergren F, Franzén R (2000) Nuclear analysis of genetic diversity and gene flow in the Scandinavian brown bear (Ursus arctos). Mol Ecol 9:421–431PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wright S (1931) Evolution in Mendelian populations. Genetics 16:97–159PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Zachos FE, Otto M, Unici R, Lorenzini R, Hartl GB (2008) Evidence of a phylogeographic break in the Romanian brown bear (Ursus arctos) population from the Carpathians. Mammalian Biol 73:93–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Žuffa A (1932) Game in Tatras (in Slovak). Lovec 21:1–2Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martin Straka
    • 1
  • Ladislav Paule
    • 1
  • Ovidiu Ionescu
    • 2
  • Jozef Štofík
    • 3
  • Michal Adamec
    • 4
  1. 1.Faculty of ForestryTechnical University in ZvolenZvolenSlovakia
  2. 2.Faculty of Silviculture and Forest ExploitationTransylvania UniversityBraşovRomania
  3. 3.National Park PoloninyStakčínSlovakia
  4. 4.State Nature Conservancy of the Slovak RepublicBanská BystricaSlovakia

Personalised recommendations