Conservation Genetics

, Volume 13, Issue 6, pp 1685–1689 | Cite as

A decade of amphibian population genetic studies: synthesis and recommendations

Short Communication


Amphibians are declining globally, and a comprehensive understanding of the spatial distribution of genetic diversity will inform conservation efforts. However, studies that estimate amphibian population genetic structure and gene flow have not yet been synthesized. Our search of literature from 2001 to 2010 yielded 552 amphibian population and landscape genetic studies, of which 139 explicitly estimated gene flow or genetic structure. We examined these works for general trends and conducted a meta-analysis of reported FST values. The majority of studies took place in temperate forests in North America and Europe, with no studies of caecilians and few studies of direct-developing species. Among landscape genetic studies, rivers, roads, and mountain ridges were the predominant barriers identified. Conservation status was the only factor that showed a significant relationship with FST, with the least concern IUCN status differing significantly from the near threatened (NT) status as well as from any combination of IUCN statuses that included NT. Recent technological advances will help researchers fill taxonomic and geographic research gaps, thereby facilitating management plans that address a greater diversity of amphibian species.


Amphibian Gene flow Population genetics Landscape genetics Conservation 



The Washington State University Libraries provided access to Web of Science. We would like to thank David Crowder and Jesse Brunner for statistical assistance with the meta-analysis. We also thank Daryl Trumbo and Steven Micheletti for comments on the manuscript.

Supplementary material

10592_2012_407_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (58 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 58 kb)


  1. Allendorf FW, Luikart G (2007) Conservation and the genetics of populations. Blackwell, MaldenGoogle Scholar
  2. Collins JP, Storfer A (2003) Global amphibian declines: sorting the hypotheses. Divers Distrib 9:89–98. doi:10.1046/j.1472-4642.2003.00012.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Guichoux E, Lagache L, Wagner S, Chaumeil P, Léger P, Lepais O, Lepoittevin C, Malausa T, Revardel E, Salin F, Petit RJ (2011) Current trends in microsatellite genotyping. Mol Ecol Resour 11:591–611. doi:10.1111/j.1755-0998.2011.03014.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. IUCN, Conservation International, NatureServe (2011) An analysis of amphibians on the 2008 IUCN Red List. Accessed 27 Jan 2012
  5. Marko PB, Hart MW (2011) The complex analytical landscape of gene flow inference. Trends Ecol Evol 26:448–456. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2011.05.007 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Morin PA, Luikart G, Wayne RK, the SNP workshop group (2004) SNPs in ecology, evolution and conservation. Trends Ecol Evol 19:208–216. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2004.01.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ouberg NJ, Piquot Y, van Groenendael JM (1999) Population genetics, molecular markers and the study of dispersal in plants. J Ecol 87:551–568. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2745.1999.00389.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Rousset F (1997) Genetic differentiation and estimation of gene flow from F-statistics under isolation by distance. Genetics 145:1219–1228PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. SAS Institute (2011) SAS/STAT 9.3 user’s guide. SAS Institute Inc., CaryGoogle Scholar
  10. Segelbacher G, Cushman SA, Epperson BK, Fortin MJ, Francois O, Hardy OJ, Holderegger R, Taberlet P, Waits LP, Manel S (2010) Applications of landscape genetics in conservation biology: concepts and challenges. Conserv Genet 11:375–385. doi:10.1007/s10592-009-0044-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Storfer A, Murphy MA, Evans JS, Goldberg CS, Robinson S, Spear SF, Dezzani R, Delmelle E, Vierling L, Waits LP (2007) Putting the ‘landscape’ in landscape genetics. Heredity 98:128–142. doi:10.1038/sj.hdy.6800917 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Storfer A, Murphy MA, Spear SF, Holderegger R, Waits LP (2010) Landscape genetics: where are we now? Mol Ecol 19:3496–3514. doi:10.1111/j.1365-294X.2010.04691.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Stuart SN, Chanson JS, Cox NA, Young BE, Rodrigues ASL, Fischman DL, Waller RW (2004) Status and trends of amphibian declines and extinctions worldwide. Science 306:1783–1786. doi:10.1126/science.1103538 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Vignal A, Milan D, SanCristobal M, Eggen A (2002) A review on SNP and other types of molecular markers and their use in animal genetics. Genet Sel Evol 34:275. doi:10.1186/1297-9686-34-3-275 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Whitlock MC, McCauley DE (1999) Indirect measures of gene flow and migration: FST ≠ 1/(4Nm + 1). Heredity 82:117–125. doi:10.1038/sj.hdy.6884960 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Biological SciencesWashington State UniversityPullmanUSA

Personalised recommendations