Are species genetically more sensitive to habitat fragmentation on the periphery of their range compared to the core? A case study on the sand lizard (Lacerta agilis)
- 668 Downloads
Species show different sensitivity to habitat loss and fragmentation depending on their specialization. Populations of a species at the range margin are generally assumed to be more stenoecious than populations at the core of the distribution and should therefore be more sensitive to habitat fragmentation.
We evaluated the hypothesis that fragmentation effects species more strongly at the range periphery of their range compared to the core, resulting in lower genetic variability in comparable patch sizes and lower gene flow among populations.
We compared the genetic diversity and structure of five sand lizard (Lacerta agilis) populations at the margin of its range in Bulgaria and of 11 populations at the core of its distribution in Germany. We based the analysis on microsatellites, comprising 15 loci in Bulgaria and 12 in Germany.
All diversity indices declined with patch size. For medium-sized patches all diversity indices were lower at the range periphery compared to the core, with two of them being significant. AICc based model selection showed strong support for core/periphery and patch size effects for observed and expected heterozygosity but only a patch size effect for allelic richness. There was no isolation-by-distance and each sampled population was allocated to a separate cluster with high probability for both countries, indicating that all populations are (almost) completely isolated.
Our study indicates an increased sensitivity of a species to fragmentation at the periphery compared to the core of its distribution. This differential sensitivity should be accounted for when prioritizing species based on their fragmentation sensitivity in landscape management.
KeywordsLacertidae Fragmentation sensitivity Genetic variability Genetic structure Isolation-by-distance Patch size Range core Range periphery
We thank Conrad Helm, Stefan Schaffer, Ana María Prieto Ramírez, Ronny Wolf and Nico Hesselbarth for assisting in the field and Heiko Stukkas for assistance concerning some of the statistical analyses.
- Böhme W, Rödder D (2008) Amphibien und Reptilien: Verbreitungs- und Verhaltensänderungen aufgrund der Erderwärmung. In: Lozán JL, Graß H, Jendritzky G, Karbe L, Reise K (eds) Warnsignal Klima: Erderwärmung. Wissenschaftliche Auswertungen. GEO, Hamburg, pp 103–107Google Scholar
- Burnham KP, Anderson AR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference. A practical information–theoretic approach. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Elbing K, Günther R, Rahmel U (1996) Zauneidechse—Lacerta agilis Linnaeus, 1758. In: Günther R (ed) Die Amphibien und Reptilien Deutschlands. Fischer, Jena, pp 535–557Google Scholar
- ESRI (2011) ArcGIS Desktop: Release 10. Environmental Systems Research Institute, RedlandsGoogle Scholar
- Fontaine MC, Baird SJE, Piry S, Ray N, Tolley KA, Duke S, Birkun A, Ferreira M, Jauniaux T, Llavona A, Öztürk B, Öztürk AA, Ridoux V, Rogan E, Sequeira M, Siebert U, Vikingsson GA, Bouquegneau J-M, Johan R, Michaux JR (2007) Rise of oceanographic barriers in continuous populations of a cetacean: the genetic structure of harbour porpoises in Old World waters. BMC Biol 5(30). doi: 10.1186/1741-7007-5-30
- Goslee S, Urban D (2012) ecodist: Dissimilarity-based functions for ecological analysis. Version 1.2.7. Available from http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/ecodist/index.html. Accessed November 2013
- Grosse W-R (2009) Verbreitung der Kriechtiere (Reptilia) in der Stadt Leipzig (Sachsen). Jahresschr Feldherpetol Ichthyofaun Sachsen 11:47–75Google Scholar
- Kalyabina SA, Milto KD, Ananjeva NB, Legal L, Joger U, Wink M (2001) Phylogeography and systematics of Lacerta agilis based on mitochondrial cytochrome B gene sequences: first results. Russ J Herpetol 8:149–158Google Scholar
- Märtens B (1999) Demographisch ökologische Untersuchung zu Habitatqualität, Isolation und Flächenanspruch der Zauneidechse (Lacerta agilis, Linnaeus, 1758) in der Porphyrkuppenlandschaft bei Halle (Saale) Bremen. PhD University of Bremen, BremenGoogle Scholar
- Mazerolle MJ (2013) AICcmodavg: model selection and multimodal inference based on (Q)AIC(c). Version 1.33. http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/AICcmodavg/index.html. Accessed 11 Nov 2013
- R Core Team (2015) A language and environment for statistical computing. Version 3.1.1. Available at: http://www.r-project.org/
- Raymond M, Rousset F (1995) GENEPOP (Version 1.2): Population genetics software for exact tests and ecumenicism. J Hered 86:9–10Google Scholar
- Sillero N, Campos J, Bonardi A, Corti C, Creemers R, Crochet P-A, Crnobrnja Isailovic J, Denoël M, Ficetola GF, Gonçalves J, Kuzmin S, Lymberakis P, de Pous P, Rodríguez A, Sindaco R, Speybroeck J, Toxopeus B, Vieites DR, Vences M (2014) Updated distribution and biogeography of amphibians and reptiles of Europe. Amphib Reptil 35:1–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Soulé ME (1986) Viable populations for conservation. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Stoyanov A, Tzankov N, Naumov B (2011) Die Amphibien und Reptilien Bulgariens. Chimaira, Frankfurt am MainGoogle Scholar
- Tukey JW (1959) A quick, compact two-sample test to Duckworth’s specifications. Technometrics 1:31–48Google Scholar
- Wright S (1978) Evolution and the genetics of populations. Genetics 16:97–159Google Scholar