Landscape Ecology

, Volume 34, Issue 11, pp 2615–2630 | Cite as

Topographical features and forest cover influence landscape connectivity and gene flow of the Caucasian pit viper, Gloydius caucasicus (Nikolsky, 1916), in Iran

  • Roya Adavodi
  • Rasoul Khosravi
  • Samuel A. Cushman
  • Mohammad KaboliEmail author
Research Article



The populations of the Caucasian pit viper are declining and face genetic threats because of habitat fragmentation. Landscape genetics facilitates effective connectivity conservation actions by providing methods to predict factors affecting gene flow.


We described the genetic diversity and structure of Caucasian pit viper populations in Iran. We also adopted an individual-based landscape genetics approach to determine the effects of landscape features on gene flow across the species’ range.


We evaluated the degree of genetic structuring using spatial and non-spatial clustering methods. Then, we used restricted multivariate optimization and maximum-likelihood population effects modeling to predict landscape resistance to gene flow. Finally, we compared the predictions based on maximum-likelihood population effects modeling and reciprocal causal modelling in the context of multivariate optimization.


Strong genetic structure was found between populations. Landscape genetics analysis showed that gene flow was related to forest cover density and topographic roughness. Gene flow was much higher in areas of low topographical roughness and was impeded by closed forests. We found an overall high similarity in multivariate optimization results obtained through reciprocal causal modeling and maximum-likelihood population effects modeling, suggesting that both approaches may produce consistent predictions.


Caucasian pit viper has limited dispersal abilities resulting in genetic structuring at short distances and gene flow appears to be influenced by natural features, in particular topographic roughness and forest cover density. Our findings have important implications for the species’ conservation and can be used to develop empirically supported prioritization of core habitats and corridors.


Caucasian pit viper Gene flow Landscape genetics Landscape resistance Multivariate optimization 



This study was licensed by the Iranian Department of Environment under permits Nos. 94/6049 and 96/3631.

Supplementary material

10980_2019_908_MOESM1_ESM.docx (3 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 3111 kb)


  1. Asadi A, Montgelard C, Nazarizadeh M, Moghaddasi A, Fatemizadeh F, Simonov E, Kami HG, Kaboli M (2019) Evolutionary history and postglacial colonization of an Asian pit viper (Gloydius halys caucasicus) into Transcaucasia revealed by phylogenetic and phylogeographic analyses. Sci Rep 9(1):1224PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Balkenhol N, Cushman SA, Storfer A, Waits LP (2016) Introduction to landscape genetics–concepts, methods, applications. Landsc Genet. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Behrooz R, Kaboli M, Nourani E, Ahmadi M, Shabani AA, Yousefi M, Asadi A, Rajabizadeh M (2015) Habitat modeling and conservation of the endemic Latifi’s Viper (Montivipera latifii) in Lar National Park, Northern Iran. Herpetol Conserv Biol 10(2):572–582Google Scholar
  4. Carlsson J (2008) Effects of microsatellite null alleles on assignment testing. J Hered 99(6):616–623PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Castillo JA, Epps CW, Davis AR, Cushman SA (2014) Landscape effects on gene flow for a climate-sensitive montane species, the American pika. Mol Ecol 23(4):843–856PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Clarke RT, Rothery P, Raybould AF (2002) Confidence limits for regression relationships between distance matrices: estimating gene flow with distance. J Agric Biol Environ Stat 7(3):361Google Scholar
  7. Cox CL, Streicher JW, Sheehy CM III, Campbell JA, Chippindale PT (2012) Patterns of genetic differentiation among populations of Smilisca fodiens. Herpetologica 68(2):226–235Google Scholar
  8. Cushman SA, McKelvey KS, Hayden J, Schwartz MK (2006) Gene flow in complex landscapes: testing multiple hypotheses with causal modeling. Am Nat 168(4):486–499PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Cushman SA, Shirk A, Landguth EL (2012) Separating the effects of habitat area, fragmentation and matrix resistance on genetic differentiation in complex landscapes. Landscape Ecol 27(3):369–380Google Scholar
  10. Cushman SA, Wasserman TN, Landguth EL, Shirk AJ (2013) Re-evaluating causal modeling with Mantel tests in landscape genetics. Diversity 5(1):51–72Google Scholar
  11. Earl DA, Vonholdt BM (2012) STRUCTURE HARVESTER: a website and program for visualizing STRUCTURE output and implementing the Evanno method. Conserv Genet Resour 4(2):359–361Google Scholar
  12. Elliot NB, Cushman SA, Macdonald DW, Loveridge AJ (2014) The devil is in the dispersers: predictions of landscape connectivity change with demography. J Appl Ecol 51(5):1169–1178Google Scholar
  13. Evans JS, Oakleaf J, Cushman SA, Theobald D (2014) An ArcGIS toolbox for surface gradient and geomorphometric modeling, version 2.0-0. Accessed 21 Mar 2007
  14. Fitch HS (1963) Natural history of the racer Coluber constrictor. University of Kansas, LawrenceGoogle Scholar
  15. Fontenot BE, Makowsky R, Chippindale PT (2011) Nuclear–mitochondrial discordance and gene flow in a recent radiation of toads. Mol Phylogenet Evol 59(1):66–80PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Gangloff EJ, Reding DM, Bertolatus D, Reigel CJ, Gagliardi-Seeley JL, Bronikowski AM (2017) Snakes in the city: population structure of sympatric Gartersnakes (Thamnophis spp.) in an urban landscape. Herpetol Conserv Biol 12(2):509–521Google Scholar
  17. Goudet J (2001) FSTAT, a program to estimate and test gene diversities and fixation indices, version 2.9. 3.
  18. Guillot G (2008) Inference of structure in subdivided populations at low levels of genetic differentiation—the correlated allele frequencies model revisited. Bioinformatics 24(19):2222–2228PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Guillot G, Mortier F, Estoup A (2005) GENELAND: a computer package for landscape genetics. Mol Ecol Notes 5(3):712–715Google Scholar
  20. Hardy OJ, Vekemans X (2002) SPAGeDi: a versatile computer program to analyse spatial genetic structure at the individual or population levels. Mol Ecol Notes 2(4):618–620Google Scholar
  21. 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(14):1801–1806PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. Keogh JS, Webb JK, Shine R (2007) Spatial genetic analysis and long-term mark–recapture data demonstrate male-biased dispersal in a snake. Biol Lett 3(1):33–35PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Klug PE, Wisely SM, Kimberly WA (2011) Population genetic structure and landscape connectivity of the Eastern Yellowbelly Racer (Coluber constrictor flaviventris) in the contiguous tallgrass prairie of northeastern Kansas, USA. Landscape Ecol 26(2):281–294Google Scholar
  24. Landguth E, Cushman S, Schwartz M, McKelvey K, Murphy M, Luikart G (2010) Quantifying the lag time to detect barriers in landscape genetics. Mol Ecol 19(19):4179–4191PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Latifi M (2000) Snakes of Iran. Department of the Environment, TehranGoogle Scholar
  26. Mateo-Sánchez MC, Balkenhol N, Cushman S, Pérez T, Domínguez A, Saura S (2015) A comparative framework to infer landscape effects on population genetic structure: are habitat suitability models effective in explaining gene flow? Landscape Ecol 30(8):1405–1420Google Scholar
  27. McRae BH (2006) Isolation by resistance. Evolution 60(8):1551–1561PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Okello JBA, Wittemyer G, Rasmussen H,Douglas-Hamilton I, Nyakaana S, Arctander P, Siegismund HR (2005) Noninvasive genotyping and Mendelian analysis of microsatellites in African savannah elephants. J Hered 96(6):679–687PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Oksanen J, Blanchet FG, Kindt R, Legendre P, Minchin PR, O’hara R, Simpson GL, Solymos P, Stevens MHH, Wagner H (2013) Package ‘vegan’. Community ecology package, version 2(9)Google Scholar
  30. Orlov NL, Barabanov AV (1999) Analysis of nomenclature, classification, and distribution of the Agkistrodon halysAgkistrodon intermedius complexes: a critical review. Russ J Herpetol 6(3):167–192Google Scholar
  31. Peterman WE (2014) ResistanceGA: an R package for the optimization of resistance surfaces using genetic algorithms. Methods Ecol Evol 9(6):1638–1647Google Scholar
  32. Pritchard JK, Stephens M, Donnelly P (2000) Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data. Genetics 155(2):945–959PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. Rastegar-Pouyani E, Oraie H, Khosravani A, Akbari A (2018) Phylogenetic position of Iranian pitvipers (Viperidae, Crotalinae, Gloydius) inferred from mitochondrial cytochrome b sequences. Trop Zool 31(2):55–67Google Scholar
  34. Raymond M, Rousset F (1995) An exact test for population differentiation. Evolution 49(6):1280–1283PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Reddy PA, Cushman SA, Srivastava A, Sarkar MS, Shivaji S (2017) Tiger abundance and gene flow in Central India are driven by disparate combinations of topography and land cover. Divers Distrib 23(8):863–874Google Scholar
  36. Reddy P, Puyravaud JP, Cushman S, Segu H (2019) Spatial variation in the response of tiger gene flow to landscape features and limiting factors. Anim Conserv. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Roffler GH, Schwartz MK, Pilgrim KL, Talbot SL, Sage GK, Adams LG, Luikart G (2016) Identification of landscape features influencing gene flow: how useful are habitat selection models? Evol Appl 9(6):805–817PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. Rousset F (2000) Genetic differentiation between individuals. J Evol Biol 13:58–62Google Scholar
  39. Sambrook J, Fritsch EF, Maniatis T (1989) Molecular cloning: a laboratory manual. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  40. Sanderson EW, Jaiteh M, Levy MA, Redford KH, Wannebo AV, Woolmer G (2002) The human footprint and the last of the wild: the human footprint is a global map of human influence on the land surface, which suggests that human beings are stewards of nature, whether we like it or not. Bioscience 52(10):891–904Google Scholar
  41. Schwartz MK, Copeland JP, Anderson NJ, Squires JR, Inman RM, McKelvey KS, Pilgrim KL, Waits LP, Cushman SA (2009) Wolverine gene flow across a narrow climatic niche. Ecology 90(11):3222–3232PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Shirk A, Cushman S, Landguth E (2012) Simulating pattern-process relationships to validate landscape genetic models. Int J Ecol 2012:8Google Scholar
  43. Shirk AJ, Landguth EL, Cushman SA (2018) A comparison of regression methods for model selection in individual-based landscape genetic analysis. Mol Ecol Resour 18(1):55–67PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Shirk A, Wallin D, Cushman S, Rice C, Warheit K (2010) Inferring landscape effects on gene flow: a new model selection framework. Mol Ecol 19(17):3603–3619PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Sunny A, Monroy-Vilchis O, Zarco-González MM, Mendoza-Martínez GD, Martínez-Gómez D (2015) Genetic diversity and genetic structure of an endemic Mexican Dusky Rattlesnake (Crotalus triseriatus) in a highly modified agricultural landscape: implications for conservation. Genetica 143(6):705–716PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Van Oosterhout C, Hutchinson WF, Wills DP, Shipley P (2004) MICRO-CHECKER: software for identifying and correcting genotyping errors in microsatellite data. Mol Ecol Notes 4(3):535–538Google Scholar
  47. Vergara M, Cushman SA, Ruiz-González A (2017) Ecological differences and limiting factors in different regional contexts: landscape genetics of the stone marten in the Iberian Peninsula. Landscape Ecol 32(6):1269–1283Google Scholar
  48. Wagner P, Tiutenko A, Mazepa G, Borkin LJ, Simonov E (2016) Alai! Alai!–a new species of the Gloydius halys (Pallas, 1776) complex (Viperidae, Crotalinae), including a brief review of the complex. Amphibia-Reptilia 37(1):15–31Google Scholar
  49. Wasserman TN, Cushman SA, Schwartz MK, Wallin DO (2010) Spatial scaling and multi-model inference in landscape genetics: Martes americana in northern Idaho. Landscape Ecol 25(10):1601–1612Google Scholar
  50. Wright S (1969) Evolution and the genetics of populations: Vol. 2. In: Cook LM, Harris H (eds) The theory of gene frequencies. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  51. Zeller KA, Creech TG, Millette KL, Crowhurst RS, Long RA, Wagner HH, Balkenhol N, Landguth EL (2016) Using simulations to evaluate Mantel-based methods for assessing landscape resistance to gene flow. Ecolo Evol 6(12):4115–4128Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roya Adavodi
    • 1
  • Rasoul Khosravi
    • 2
  • Samuel A. Cushman
    • 3
  • Mohammad Kaboli
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Natural ResourcesUniversity of TehranKarajIran
  2. 2.Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Engineering, School of AgricultureShiraz UniversityShirazIran
  3. 3.Rocky Mountain Research StationUSDA Forest ServiceFlagstaffUSA

Personalised recommendations