Conservation Genetics

, Volume 12, Issue 4, pp 1115–1129 | Cite as

Depleted genetic variation of the European ground squirrel in Central Europe in both microsatellites and the major histocompatibility complex gene: implications for conservation

  • Štěpánka ŘíčanováEmail author
  • Josef Bryja
  • Jean-François Cosson
  • Csongor Gedeon
  • Lukáš Choleva
  • Michal Ambros
  • František Sedláček
Research Article


Habitat fragmentation may influence the genetic make-up and adaptability of endangered populations. To facilitate genetic monitoring of the endangered European ground squirrel (EGS), we analyzed 382 individuals from 16 populations in Central Europe, covering almost half of its natural range. We tested how fragmentation affects the genetic architecture of presumably selectively neutral (12 microsatellites) and non-neutral (the major histocompatibility class II DRB gene) loci. Spatial genetic analyses defined two groups of populations, “western” and “eastern”, with a significantly higher level of habitat fragmentation in the former group. The highly fragmented western populations had significantly lower genetic diversity in both types of markers. Only one allele of the DRB gene predominated in populations of the western group, while four alleles were evenly distributed across the eastern populations. Coefficient of inbreeding values (F IS) calculated from microsatellites were significantly higher in the western (0.27–0.79) than in eastern populations (−0.060–0.119). Inter-population differentiation was very high, but similar in both groups (western F ST = 0.23, eastern F ST = 0.25). The test of isolation by distance was significant for the whole dataset, as well as for the two groups analyzed separately. Comparison of genetic variability and structure on microsatellites and the DRB gene does not provide any evidence for contemporary selection on MHC genes. We suggest that genetic drift in small bottlenecked and fragmented populations may overact the role of balancing selection. Based on the resulting risk of inbreeding depression in the western populations, we support population management by crossbreeding between the western and eastern populations.


Souslik Endangered species Sciuridae Habitat fragmentation DRB MHC Class II 



We would like to thank to Ľudovít Ďureje for a substantial help in analysis of microsatellites and to Max Galan for his help with DRB analysis. Also we thank other colleagues who helped in the field work, namely Ivan Baláž, Ervin Hapl and Bedřich Hájek. We thank to David Hardekopf for an improvement of English. This research was supported by the European Science Foundation grant (ConGen EX/1141), South Bohemia University Grant Agency (53/2006/P-BF), GA of the ASCR (KJB601410816) and Ministry of Education CR (MSM 6007665801). JB was partially supported by Ministry of Education CR (Biodiversity Research Centre no. LC06073 and Long-term research plan MSM 0021622416). LC was supported from grant IRP IAPG AV0Z 50450515 provided by the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic and by the Biodiversity Research Centre no. LC06073.

Supplementary material

10592_2011_213_MOESM1_ESM.doc (44 kb)
Supplementary Table A List of microsatellite loci tested. NA = number of alleles. Letter above the name of a locus identifies the same amplification set (set A, B and C) (DOC 43 kb)
10592_2011_213_MOESM2_ESM.doc (56 kb)
Supplementary Table B Estimation of the presence of null alleles in each population and for each microsatellite locus and the DRB gene using FreeNA software (Chapuis and Estoup 2007). Only values higher than 0.15 are marked in grey, which are considered to represent a high probability of the presence of a null allele (DOC 55 kb)
10592_2011_213_MOESM3_ESM.doc (60 kb)
Supplementary Table C Pairwise F ST ENA values (from FreeNA, Chapuis and Estoup 2007) between EGS populations based on microsatellite data are above the diagonal, and values of F′ ST (according to Hedrick 2005) are below. Note: Marks of significance: * P < 0.05, NS-non significant (P > 0.05) (DOC 60 kb)
10592_2011_213_MOESM4_ESM.doc (30 kb)
Supplementary Table D Comparison of values of F ST in microsatellites and in MHC (DRB) using different corrections of F ST and confidential intervals for F ST in microsatellites (DOC 30 kb)


  1. Aaltonen K, Bryant AA, Hostetler JA, Oli MK (2009) Reintroducing endangered Vancouver Island marmots: survival and cause-specific mortality rates of captive-born versus wild-born individuals. Biol Conserv 142:2181–2190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aguilar A, Garza JC (2007) Patterns of historical balancing selection on the salmonid major histocompatibility complex class II beta gene. J Mol Evol 65:34–43PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aguilar A, Roemer G, Debenham S, Binns M, Garcelon D, Wayne RK (2004) High MHC diversity maintained by balancing selection in an otherwise genetically monomorphic mammal. Proc Natl Acad Sci 101:3490–3494PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Allendorf FW, Luikart G (2007) Conservation and the genetics of populations. Blackwell Publishing, MaldenGoogle Scholar
  5. Ambros M (2000) Návrh genofondovej siete lokalít sysľa pasienkového (Spermophilus citellus L.) na Slovensku [Proposal for genofund network of the European ground squirrel sites in Slovakia]. In: Urban P (ed) Výskum a ochrana cicavcov na Slovensku, 4 [Mammals research and conservation in Slovakia] (in Slovak, with the English abstract), pp 99–106Google Scholar
  6. Ambros M (2008) Stav poznania rozšírenia sysľa pasienkového (Spermophilus citellus) na Slovensku v rokoch 1996 až 2008 [Current knowledge on the distribution of the European Ground Squirrel (Spermophilus citellus) in Slovakia in 1996–2008]. Lynx n.s., Praha, 39(2):219–333Google Scholar
  7. Avise JC (2000) Phylogeography: the history and formation of species. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  8. Babik W, Durka W, Radwan J (2005) Sequence diversity of the MHC DRB gene in the Eurasian beaver (Castor fiber). Mol Ecol 14:4249–4257PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bates JM (2002) The genetic effects of forest fragmentation on five species of Amazonian birds. J Avian Biol 33:276–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Beaumont MA, Balding DJ (2004) Identifying adaptive genetic divergence among populations from genome scans. Mol Ecol 13:969–980PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Beaumont MA, Nichols RA (1996) Evaluating loci for use in the genetic analysis of population structure. Proc R Soc B: Biol Sci 263:1619–1626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Belkhir K, Borsa P, Chikhi L, Raufaste N, Bonhomme F (1996–2004) GENETIX 4.05, logiciel sous Windows TM pour la genetique des populations. Laboratoire Genome, Populations, Interactions, CNRS UMR 5171, Universite de Montpellier II, Montpellier (France)Google Scholar
  13. Biedrzycka A, Radwan J (2008) Population fragmentation and major histocompatibility complex variation in the spotted suslik, Spermophilus suslicus. Mol Ecol 17:4801–4811PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brown JH, Jardetzky TS, Saper MA, Samraoui B, Bjorkman PJ, Wiley DC (1988) A hypothetical model of foreign antigen binding site of class II histocompatibility molecules. Nature 332:845–850PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Brown JH, Jardetzky TS, Gorga JC (1993) Three-dimensional structure of the human class II histocompatibility antigen HLADR1. Nature 64:33–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Brown LM, Ramey RR, Tamburini B, Gavin TA (2004) Population structure and mitochondrial DNA variation in sedentary Neotropical birds isolated by forest fragmentation. Conserv Genet 5:743–757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bryja J, Galan M, Charbonnel N, Cosson JF (2005) Analysis of major histocompatibility complex class II gene in water voles using capillary electrophoresis-single stranded conformation polymorphism. Mol Ecol Notes 5:173–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Bryja J, Charbonnel N, Berthier K, Galan M, Cosson JF (2007) Density-related Ganges in selection pattern for major histocompatility complex genes in fluctuating populations voles. Mol Ecol 16:5084–5097PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Buzan EE, Kryštufek B, Bryja J (2010) Microsatellite markers confirm extensive population fragmentation of the endangered Balkan palaeoendemic Martino’s vole (Dinaromys bogdanovi). Conserv Genet 11:1783–1794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cepáková E, Hulová Š (2002) Current distribution of the European souslik (Spermophilus citellus) in the Czech Republic. Lynx 33:89–103Google Scholar
  21. Chapuis MP, Estoup A (2007) Microsatellite null alleles and estimation of population differentiation. Mol Biol Evol 24(3):621–631PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Charlesworth B, Nordborg M, Charlesworth D (1997) The effects of local selection, balanced polymorphism and background selection on equilibrium patterns of genetic diversity in subdivided inbreeding and outcrossing populations. Genetics Res 70:155–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Clark AG (1997) Neutral behaviour of shared polymorphism. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 94:7730–7734PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Corander J, Waldmann P, Sillanpää MJ (2003) Bayesian analysis of genetic differentiation between populations. Genetics 163:367–374PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Dempster AP, Laird NM, Rubin DB (1977) Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm. J R Stat Soc Soc B 39:1–38Google Scholar
  26. Ditchkoff SS, Hoofer SR, Lochmiller RL, Masters RE, Van Den Bussche RA (2005) MHC-DRB evolution provides insight into parasite resistance in white-tailed deer. Southwest Nat 50(1):57–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Eckert CG, Samis KE, Lougheed SC (2008) Genetic variation across species’ geographical ranges: the central-marginal hypothesis and beyond. Mol Ecol 17:1170–1188PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Edwards SV, Hedrick PW (1998) Evolution and ecology of MHC molecules: from genomics to sexual selection. Trends Ecol Evol 13:305–311PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ellegren H, Hartman G, Johanson M, Anderson L (1993) Major histocompatibility complex monomorphism and low levels of DNA fingerprinting variability in a reintroduced and rapidly expanding population of beavers. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 90:8150–8153PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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
  31. Falush D, Stephens M, Pritchard JK (2003) Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data: linked loci and correlated allele frequencies. Genetics 164:1567–1587PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Feiler A (1988) Über das ehemalige Zieselvorkommen in der DDR (Rodentia, Sciuridae, Spermophilus citellus L. 1766). Rudolfstädter naturhistorischen Schriften 1:115–118Google Scholar
  33. Figueroa F, Günther E, Klein J (1988) MHC polymorphism pre-dating speciation. Nature 335:265–267PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Frankham R (2005) Genetics and extinction. Biol Conserv 126:131–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Frankham R, Ballou JD, Briscoe DA (2002) Introduction to conservation genetics. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  36. Freeland JR (2005) Molecular ecology. Wiley, ChisesterGoogle Scholar
  37. Froeschke G, Sommer S (2005) MHC Class II DRB constitution and parasite load in the striped mouse, Rhabdomys pumilio, in the Southern Kalahari. Mol Biol Evol 22:1254–1259PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Garner A, Rachlow JL, Waits LP (2005) Genetic diversity and population divergence in fragmented habitats: conservation of Idaho ground squirrel. Conserv Genet 6:759–774CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Gondek A, Verduijn M, Wolff K (2006) Polymorphic microsatellite markers for endangered spotted suslik, Spermophilus suslicus. Mol Ecol Notes 6:359–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Goudet J (2002) FSTAT: a program to estimate and test gene diversities and fixation indices. v., Institut d’Ecologie, Laboratoire de Zoologie, Lausanne, Switzerland. Cited 5 Apr 2002; verified 19 Feb 2004
  41. Grulich I (1960) Sysel obecný Citellus citellus L. v ČSSR [European ground squirrel Citellus citellus L. in Czechoslovakia]. Práce brněn Zákl ČSAV 32(11):473–563 (in Czech, with the summary in English)Google Scholar
  42. Gündüz I, Jaarola M, Tez C, Yeniyurt C, Polly PD, Searle JB (2007) Multigenic and morphometric differentiation of ground squirrels (Spermophilus, Sciuridae, Rodentia) in Turkey, with description of a new species. Mol Phylogenet Evol 43:916–935PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hanslik S, Kruckenhauser L (2000) Microsatellite loci for two European sciurid species (Marmota marmota, Spermophilus citellus). Mol Ecol 9:2163–2165PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Harris JH, Leitner P (2005) Long-distance movements of juvenile Mohave ground squirrel Spermophilus mohavensis. Southwest Nat 50(2):188–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hedrick PW (2005) A standardized genetic differentiation measure. Evolution 59:1633–1638PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Hedrick PW, Kalinowski ST (2000) Inbreeding depression in conservation biology. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 31:139–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Hughes AL, Yeager M (1998) Natural selection at major histocompatibility complex loci of vertebrates. Annu Rev Genet 32:415–434PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Hulová Š, Sedláček F (2008) Population genetic structure of the European ground squirrel in the Czech Republic. Conserv Genet 9:615–625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. IUCN (2009) IUCN red list of threatened species. Version 2009.2.
  50. Kimura M (1983) The neutral theory of molecular evolution. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  51. Klein J (1986) Natural history of the major histocompatibility complex. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  52. Klein J, Satta Y, O’hUigin C, Takahata N (1993) The molecular descent of the major histocompatibility complex. Annu Rev Immunol 11:269–295PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Klein J, Sato A, Nagl S, O′hUigín C (1998) Molecular trans-species polymorphism. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 29:1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Knapp LA (2005) The ABCs of MHC. Evol Anthropol 14:28–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Kosakovsky Pond SL, Frost SDW, Muse SV (2005) HyPhy: hypothesis testing using phylogenies. Bioinformatics 21(5):676–679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Kosakovsky Pond SL, Posada D, Gravenor MB, Woelk CH, Frost SDW (2006) GARD: a genetic algorithm for recombination detection. Bioinformatics 22(24):3096–3098PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Kruckenhauser L, Bryant AA, Griffin SC, Amish AJ, Pinsker W (2009) Patterns of within and between-colony microsatellite variation in the endangered Vancouver Island marmot (Marmota vancouverensis): implications for conservation. Conserv Genet 10:1759–1772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Kryštufek B, Bryja J, Bužan EV (2009) Mitochondrial phylogeography of the European ground squirrel, Spermophilus citellus, yields evidence on refugia for steppic taxa in the southern Balkans. Heredity 103:129–135Google Scholar
  59. Lacy RC, Petric AM, Warneke M (1993) Inbreeding and outbreeding depression in captive populations of wild species. In: Thornhill NW (ed) The natural history of inbreeding and outbreeding. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 352–374Google Scholar
  60. Lenz TL, Wells K, Pfeiffer M, Sommer S (2009) Diverse MHC IIB allele repertoire increases parasite resistance and body condition in the long-tailed giant rat (Leopoldamys sabanus). BMC Evol Biol 9:269. doi: 10.1186/1471-2148-9-269 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Ložek V (1973) Příroda ve čtvrtohorách [Nature in quaternary]. Academia, Praha (in Czech language)Google Scholar
  62. Matějů J, Nová P, Uhlíková J, Hulová Š, Cepáková E (2008) Distribution of the European ground squirrel (Spermophilus citellus) in the Czech Republic in 2002–2008. Lynx 39(2):277–294Google Scholar
  63. Matějů J, Hulová Š, Nová P, Cepáková E, Marhoul P, Uhlíková J (2010) Action plan for the European Ground Squirrel (Spermophilus citellus) in the Czech Republic. Charles University, Faculty of Science, Prague, Czech RepublicGoogle Scholar
  64. May B, Gavin TA, Sherman PW, Korves TM (1997) Characterization of microsatellite loci in the Northern Idaho ground squirrel Spermophilus brunneus brunneus. Mol Ecol 6:399–400PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Meirmans PG (2006) Using the AMOVA framework to estimate a standardised genetic differentiation measure. Evolution 60:2399–2402PubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Meirmans PG, Hedrick PW (2011) Assessing population structure: FST and related measures. Mol Ecol Res 11:5–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Mikko S, Andersson L (1995) Low major histocompatibility complex class II diversity in European and North moose. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 92:4259–4263PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Mikko S, Roed K, Schmutz S, Anderson L (1999) Monomorphism and polymorphism at MHC DRB loci in domestic and wild ruminants. Immunol Rev 167:169–178PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Mitchell-Jones AJ, Amori G, Bogdanowicz W, Kryštufek B, Reijnders PJH, Spitzenberger F, Stube M, Thissen JBM, Vohralík V, Zima J (1999) The atlas of European mammals. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  70. Muirhead CA (2001) Consequences of population structure on genes under balancing selection. Evolution 55:1532–1541PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. Neumann K, Jansman H, Kayser A, Maak S, Gattermann R (2004) Multiple bottlenecks in threatened western European populations of the common hamster Cricetus cricetus (L.). Conserv Genet 5:181–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Piertney SB, Oliver MK (2006) The evolutionary ecology of the major histocompatibility complex. Heredity 96:7–21PubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. Posada D, Crandall KA (1998) Modeltest: testing the model of DNA substitution. Bioinformatics 14(9):817–818PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Pritchard JK, Wen W (2003) Documentation for structure software, version 2.
  75. Pritchard JK, Stephens M, Donnelly P (2000) Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data. Genetics 155:945–959PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. Promerova M, Albrecht T, Bryja J (2009) Extremely high MHC class I variation in a population of a long-distance migrant, the Scarlet Rosefinch (Carpodacus erythrinus). Immunogenetics 61:451–461PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Radwan J, Biedrzycka A, Babik W (2009) Does MHC diversity decrease viability of vertebrate populations? Biol Conserv. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2009.07.026
  78. Raymond M, Rousset F (1995) GENEPOP (version 1.2): population genetics software for exact tests and ecumenicism. J Hered 86:248–249Google Scholar
  79. Schad J, Sommer S, Ganzhorn JU (2004) MHC variability of small lemur in the littoral forest fragments of southeastern Madagascar. Conserv Genet 5:299–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Schierup MH, Vekemans X, Charlesworth D (2000) The effect of subdivision on variation at multi-allelic loci under balancing selection. Genet Res 76:51–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Seddon JM, Ellegren H (2004) A temporal analysis shows major histocompatibility complex loci in the Scandinavian wolf population are consistent with neutral evolution. Proc R Soc Lond B 271:2283–2291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Smith S, Belov K, Hughes J (2010) MHC screening for marsupial conservation: extremely low levels of class II diversity indicate population vulnerability for endangered Australian marsupial. Conserv Genet 11:269–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Smulders MJM, Snoek LB, Booy G, Vosman B (2003) Complete loss of MHC genetic diversity in the common hamster (Cricetus cricetus) population in The Netherlands. Consequences for conservation strategies. Conserv Genet 4:441–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Sommer S (2005) The importance of immune gene variability (MHC) in evolutionary ecology and conservation. Front Zool 2:16PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Spurgin LG, Richardson DS (2010) How pathogens drive genetic diversity: MHC, mechanisms and misunderstandings. Proc R Soc 277:979–988CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Storey JD, Tibshirani R (2003) Statistical significance for genome-wide experiments. Proc Natl Acad Sci 100:9440–9445PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Swofford DL (2003) Paup*. Phylogenetic analysis using parsimony (*and other methods). Version 4. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MAGoogle Scholar
  88. Tollenaere C, Bryja J, Galan M, Cadet P, Deter J, Chaval Y, Berthier K, Ribas Salvador A, Voutilainen L, Laakkonenen J, Henttonen H, Cosson JF, Charbonnel N (2008) Multiple parasites mediate balancing selection at two MHC class II genes in the fossorial water vole: insights from multivariate analyses and population genetics. J Evol Biol 21:1307–1320PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Trizio I, Crestanello B, Galbusera P, Wauters A, Tosi G, Matthysen E, Hauffe HC (2005) Geographical distance and physical barriers shape the genetic structure of Eurasian red squirrel (Sciurus vulgaris) in the Italian Alps. Mol Ecol 14:469–481PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Váczi O, Bakó B, Bősze Sz, Groó Z (2008) Volunteers involved in nation-wide monitoring programmes on Red squirrel, European ground squirrel and three dormouse species in Hungary. In: Poster, monitoring biodiversity in Europe, (volunteers, efficiency and costs) conference, UFZ, Leipzig, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  91. Van Coillie S, Galbusera P, Roeder AD, Schempp W, Stevens JMG, Leus K, Reinartz G, Pereboom Z (2008) Molecular paternity determination in captive bonobos and the impact of inbreeding on infant mortality. Anim Conserv 11:306–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. van Oosterhout C, Joyce DA, Cummings SM, Blais J, Barson NJ, Ramnarine IW, Mohammed RS, Persad N, Cable J (2006) Balancing selection, random genetic drift and genetic variation at the major histocompatibility complex in two wild populations of guppies (Poecilia reticulata). Evolution 60:2562–2574PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Wilson D, Reeder DA (eds) (2005) Mammal species of the World. A taxonomic and geographic reference, 3rd edn. Johns Hopkins University Press, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Štěpánka Říčanová
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Josef Bryja
    • 2
    • 3
  • Jean-François Cosson
    • 4
  • Csongor Gedeon
    • 5
  • Lukáš Choleva
    • 6
  • Michal Ambros
    • 7
  • František Sedláček
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Zoology, Faculty of ScienceUniversity of South BohemiaČeské BudějoviceCzech Republic
  2. 2.Department of Population BiologyInstitute of Vertebrate BiologyBrnoCzech Republic
  3. 3.Department of Botany and Zoology, Faculty of ScienceMasaryk UniversityBrnoCzech Republic
  4. 4.Centre de Biologie et Gestion des PopulationsINRAMontferrier-sur-LezFrance
  5. 5.Research Institute of Soil Biology and Agricultural ChemistryHungarian Academy of SciencesBudapestHungary
  6. 6.Department of Vertebrate Evolutionary Biology and Genetics, Institute of Animals Physiology and GeneticsASCRLiběchovCzech Republic
  7. 7.Ponitrie Landscape Protected AreaNitraSlovakia

Personalised recommendations