Advertisement

Conservation Genetics

, Volume 16, Issue 5, pp 1025–1039 | Cite as

Defining population structure and genetic signatures of decline in the giant gartersnake (Thamnophis gigas): implications for conserving threatened species within highly altered landscapes

  • Dustin A. WoodEmail author
  • Brian J. Halstead
  • Michael L. Casazza
  • Eric C. Hansen
  • Glenn D. Wylie
  • Amy G. Vandergast
Research Article

Abstract

Anthropogenic habitat fragmentation can disrupt the ability of species to disperse across landscapes, which can alter the levels and distribution of genetic diversity within populations and negatively impact long-term viability. The giant gartersnake (Thamnophis gigas) is a state and federally threatened species that historically occurred in the wetland habitats of California’s Great Central Valley. Despite the loss of 93 % of historic wetlands throughout the Central Valley, giant gartersnakes continue to persist in relatively small, isolated patches of highly modified agricultural wetlands. Gathering information regarding genetic diversity and effective population size represents an essential component for conservation management programs aimed at this species. Previous mitochondrial sequence studies have revealed historical patterns of differentiation, yet little is known about contemporary population structure and diversity. On the basis of 15 microsatellite loci, we estimate population structure and compare indices of genetic diversity among populations spanning seven drainage basins within the Central Valley. We sought to understand how habitat loss may have affected genetic differentiation, genetic diversity and effective population size, and what these patterns suggest in terms of management and restoration actions. We recovered five genetic clusters that were consistent with regional drainage basins, although three northern basins within the Sacramento Valley formed a single genetic cluster. Our results show that northern drainage basin populations have higher connectivity than among central and southern basins populations, and that greater differentiation exists among the more geographically isolated populations in the central and southern portion of the species’ range. Genetic diversity measures among basins were significantly different, and were generally lower in southern basin populations. Levels of inbreeding and evidence of population bottlenecks were detected in about half the populations we sampled, and effective population size estimates were well below recommended minimum thresholds to avoid inbreeding. Efforts focused on maintaining and enhancing existing wetlands to facilitate dispersal between basins and increase local effective population sizes may be critical for these otherwise isolated populations.

Keywords

Population structure Genetic diversity Thamnophis gigas Microsatellite Bottleneck Effective population size Fragmentation 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank Tag N. Engstrom for contributing tissues and DNAs from previous studies. We also wish to thank Jimmy Jo Rabbers for his assistance with the copious number of DNA extractions. Finally, we thank Erica Fleishman, Jonathan Richmond, and anonymous reviewers for their comments that greatly improved this manuscript. Support for this project was provided by the Brookfield Natomas LLC and the Western Ecological Research Center. Samples for this project were collected under U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recovery permit TE-157216-2 and California Scientific Collecting Permit 003004 and accompanying Memorandum of Understanding. Support for tissues collected by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife at Gray Lodge Wildlife Area was provided through an Endangered Species Act Section 6 grant administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This study was approved by the Western Ecological Research Center Animal Care and Use Committee in association with the University of California, Davis. Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

Supplementary material

10592_2015_720_MOESM1_ESM.docx (1.4 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 1457 kb)

References

  1. Anderson CD, Gibbs HL, Douglas ME, Holycross AT (2009) Conservation genetics of the desert massasauga rattlesnake (Sistrurus catenatus edwardsii). Copeia 2009:740–747CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brook BW, Sodhi NS, Bradshaw CJA (2008) Synergies among extinction drivers under global change. Trends Ecol Evol 23:453–460CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Chiucchi JE, Gibbs HL (2010) Similarity of contemporary and historical gene flow among highly fragmented populations of an endangered rattlesnake. Mol Ecol 19:5345–5358CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Clark RW, Brown WS, Stechert R, Zamudio KR (2008) Integrating individual behaviour and landscape genetics: the population structure of timber rattlesnake hibernacula. Mol Ecol 17:719–730PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Cornuet JM, Luikart G (1996) Description and power analysis of two tests for detecting recent population bottlenecks from allele frequency data. Genetics 144:2001–2014PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Dickert C (2005) Giant garter snake surveys at some areas of historic occupation in the grassland ecological area, Merced County, and Mendota Wildlife Area, Fresno County, Califorina. Calif Fish Game 91:255–269Google Scholar
  7. Earl D, vonHoldt B (2012) STRUCTURE HARVESTER: a website and program for visualizing STRUCTURE output and implementing the Evanno method. Conserv Genet Resour 4:359–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Engstrom TN (2010) Genetic analysis of giant garter snake (Thamnophis gigas) populations in the San Joaquin and Sacramento Valleys. Prepared for the Central Valley Project Conservation Program/Habitat Restoration ProgramGoogle Scholar
  9. Evanno G, Regnaut S, Goudet J (2005) Detecting the number of clusters of individuals using the software STRUCTURE: a simulation study. Mol Ecol 14:2611–2620CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 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 131:479–491PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Fahig L (1997) Relative effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on species extinction. J Wildl Manag 61:603–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Falush D, Stephens M, Pritchard JK (2003) Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data: linked loci and correlated allele frequencies. Genetics 164:1567–1587PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Fischer J, Lindenmayer DB (2007) Landscape modification and habitat fragmentation: a synthesis. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 16:265–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fitch H (1941) The feeding habits of California garter snakes. Calif Fish Game 27:2–32Google Scholar
  15. Forman R et al (2003) Road ecology: science and solutions. Island Press, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  16. Frankham R (2005) Genetics and extinction. Biol Conserv 126:131–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Frankham R, Ralls K (1998) Conservation biology: inbreeding leads to extinction. Nature 392:441–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Frankham R, Ballou JD, Briscoe DA (2010) Introduction to conservation genetics, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Frankham R, Bradshaw CJA, Brook BW (2014) Genetics in conservation management: revised recommendations for the 50/500 rules, Red List criteria and population viability analyses. Biol Conserv 170:56–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Frayer WE, Peters DD, Pywell HR (1989) Wetlands of the Califorina Central Valley: status and trends 1939 to mid-1980s. US Fish and Wildlife Service Report, PortlandGoogle Scholar
  21. Garone P (2007) The fall and rise of the wetlands of California’s Great Central Valley: a historical and ecological study of an endangered resource of the Pacific Flyway. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  22. Gates PW (1975) Public land disposal in California. Agric Hist 49:158–178Google Scholar
  23. Gautschi B, Widmer A, Joshi J, Koella J (2002) Increased frequency of scale anomalies and loss of genetic variation in serially bottlenecked populations of the dice snake, Natrix tessellata. Conserv Genet 3:235–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gilpin M, Soulé ME (1986) Minimum viable populations: processes of species extinction. In: Soulé ME (ed) Conservation biology: the science of scarcity and diversity. Sinauer Associates, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  25. Goudet J (1995) FSTAT (version 1.2): a computer program to calculate F-statistics. J Hered 86:485–486Google Scholar
  26. Guillot G, Leblois R, Coulon A, Frantz AC (2009) Statistical methods in spatial genetics. Mol Ecol 18:4734–4756CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Halstead BJ, Wylie GD, Casazza ML (2010) Habitat suitability and conservation of the giant gartersnake (Thamnophis gigas) in the Sacramento Valley of California. Copeia 2010:591–599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hansen GE (1988) Review of the status of the giant garter snake (Thamnophis couchi gigas) and it supporting habitat. Final Report for California Department of Fish and Game Standard Agreement No C-2060Google Scholar
  29. Hansen EC (2008) Implementation of priority 1, priority 2, and priority 3 recovery tasks for giant garter snake (Thamnophis gigas)—continuing surveys in Merced County, California, with an expansion to northern Fresno County. Report prepared for the US Fish and Wildlife Service pursuant to FWS Agreement No 802707G112, 15 April 2008Google Scholar
  30. Hansen GE, Brode JM (1980) Status of the giant garter snake, Thamnophis couchii gigas. Inland Fish Endanger Species Progr Spec Publ 80–5:1–14Google Scholar
  31. Jakobsson M, Rosenberg NA (2007) CLUMPP: a cluster matching and permutation program for dealing with label switching and multimodality in analysis of population structure. Bioinformatics 23:1801–1806CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Jamieson IG, Allendorf FW (2012) How does the 50/500 rule apply to MVPs? Trends Ecol Evol 27:578–584CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Jensen JL, Bohonak AJ, Kelley ST (2005) Isolation by distance, web service. BMC Genet 6:13CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Kuchler AW (1977) The map of the natural vegetation of California. University of Kansas, LawrenceGoogle Scholar
  35. Leblois R, Estoup A, Streiff R (2006) Genetics of recent habitat contraction and reduction in population size: does isolation by distance matter? Mol Ecol 15:3601–3615CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Luikart G, Cornuet J-M (1998) Empirical evaluation of a test for identifying recently bottlenecked populations from allele frequency data. Conserv Biol 12:228–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Madsen T, Stille B, Shine R (1996) Inbreeding depression in an isolated population of adders Vipera berus. Biol Conserv 75:113–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Manier MK, Arnold SJ (2005) Population genetic analysis identifies source–sink dynamics for two sympatric garter snake species (Thamnophis elegans and Thamnophis sirtalis). Mol Ecol 14:3965–3976CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Mantel N (1967) The detection of disease clustering and a generalized regression approach. Cancer Res 27:209–220PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Marshall JC Jr, Kingsbury BA, Minchella DJ (2008) Microsatellite variation, population structure, and bottlenecks in the threatened copperbelly water snake. Conserv Genet 10:465–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Meirmans PG, Van Tienderen PH (2004) Genotype and genodive: two programs for the analysis of genetic diversity of asexual organisms. Mol Ecol Notes 4:792–794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Miller JR, Hobbs RJ (2002) Conservation where people live and work. Conserv Biol 16:330–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Miller W, Wright SJ, Zhang Y, Schuster SC, Hayes VM (2010) Optimization methods for selecting founder individuals for captive breeding or reintroduction of endangered species. Pac Symp Biocomput 15:43–53Google Scholar
  44. Miller MP, Haig SM, Mullins TD, Popper KJ, Green M (2012) Evidence for population bottlenecks and subtle genetic structure in the yellow rail. The Condor 114:100–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Narum S (2006) Beyond bonferroni: less conservative analyses for conservation genetics. Conserv Genet 7:783–787CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Nei M (1987) Molecular Evolutionary Genetics. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  47. Paquin M, Wylie GD, Routman EJ (2006) Population structure of the giant garter snake, Thamnophis gigas. Conserv Genet 7:25–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Peakall R, Smouse P (2012) GenAlEx 6.5: genetic analysis in Excel. Population genetic software for teaching and research—an update. Bioinformatics 28:2537–2539CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Peery MZ et al (2012) Reliability of genetic bottleneck tests for detecting recent population declines. Mol Ecol 21:3403–3418CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Peterson RH (1974) The failure to reclaim: California state swamp land policy and the Sacramento Valley, 1850-1866. South Calif Q 56:45–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Petit RJ, El Mousadik A, Pons O (1998) Identifying populations for conservation on the basis of genetic markers. Conserv Biol 12:844–855CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Piry S, Luikart G, Cornuet J-M (1999) Computer note. BOTTLENECK: a computer program for detecting recent reductions in the effective size using allele frequency data. J Hered 90:502–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pritchard JK, Stephens M, Donnelly P (2000) Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data. Genetics 155:945–959PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Raymond M, Rousset F (1995) GENEPOP (version 1.2): population genetics software for exact tests and ecumenicism. J Hered 86:248–249Google Scholar
  55. Rosenberg NA (2004) Distruct: a program for the graphical display of population structure. Mol Ecol Notes 4:137–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rousset F (2008) Genepop’007: a complete re-implementation of the genepop software for Windows and Linux. Mol Ecol Resour 8:103–106CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Sousa CL, Sloan J (2007) San Joaquin Valley giant garter snake trapping effort 2006. Report prepared for the Califorina Department of Fish and Game, Resource Assessment Program, Los Banos Wildlife Area Publication Number 30Google Scholar
  58. Tallmon DA, Koyuk A, Luikart G, Beaumont MA (2008) COMPUTER PROGRAMS: onesamp: a program to estimate effective population size using approximate Bayesian computation. Mol Ecol Resour 8:299–301CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Traill LW, Brook BW, Frankham RR, Bradshaw CJA (2010) Pragmatic population viability targets in a rapidly changing world. Biol Conserv 143:28–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Tzika AC, Koenig S, Miller R, Garcia G, Remy C, Milinkovitch MC (2008) Population structure of an endemic vulnerable species, the Jamaican boa (Epicrates subflavus). Mol Ecol 17:533–544CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2006) Giant garter snake (Thamnophis gigas) 5-year review: summary and evaluation. Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, Sacramento, p 46Google Scholar
  62. Újvári B, Madsen T, Kotenko T, Olsson M, Shine R, Wittzell H (2002) Low genetic diversity threatens imminent extinction for the Hungarian meadow viper (Vipera ursinii rakosiensis). Biol Conserv 105:127–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. U.S. Department of the Interior (1994) The impact of federal programs on wetlands, vol. II, a report to Congress by the Secretary of the Interior. Washington, D. C., March 1994Google Scholar
  64. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1993) Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; determination of threatened status for the giant garter snake. Fed Regist 58:54053–54066Google Scholar
  65. Valcarcel PM (2011) Giant Gartersnake spatial ecology in agricultural and constructed wetlands. Masters Thesis, Oregon State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  66. 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
  67. Weir BS, Cockerham CC (1984) Estimating F-statistics for the analysis of population structure. Evolution 38:1358–1370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wylie GD, Amarello MA (2006) Results of 2006 monitoring for giant garter snakes (Thamnophis gigas) for the bank protection project on the left bank of the Colusa Basin drainage canal in Reclamation District 108, Sacramento River Bank Project, Phase II Prepared for the Environmental Planning Section U S Army Corps of Engineers by the US Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division, Dixon Field Station, Dixon, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  69. Wylie GD, Amarello MA (2008) Surveys for the current distribution and abundance of Giant Gartersnakes (Thamnophis gigas) in the southern San Joaquin Valley. Prepared for the US Bureau of Reclamation by the US Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division, Dixon Field Station, Dixon, California:24 ppGoogle Scholar
  70. Wylie G, Hothem R, Bergen D, Martin L, Taylor R, Brussee B (2009) Metals and trace elements in giant garter snakes (Thamnophis gigas) from the Sacramento Valley, California, USA. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 56:577–587CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. Wylie GD, Casazza ML, Gregory CJ, Halstead BJ (2010) Abundance and Sexual Size dimorphism of the Giant Gartersnake (Thamnophis gigas) in the Sacramento Valley of California. J Herpetol 44:94–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht (outside the USA) 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dustin A. Wood
    • 1
    Email author
  • Brian J. Halstead
    • 2
  • Michael L. Casazza
    • 2
  • Eric C. Hansen
    • 3
  • Glenn D. Wylie
    • 2
  • Amy G. Vandergast
    • 1
  1. 1.U.S. Geological SurveyWestern Ecological Research CenterSan DiegoUSA
  2. 2.U.S. Geological SurveyWestern Ecological Research CenterDixonUSA
  3. 3.Consulting Environmental BiologistSacramentoUSA

Personalised recommendations