Advertisement

Conservation Genetics

, Volume 15, Issue 6, pp 1447–1462 | Cite as

Connectivity and gene flow among Eastern Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum) populations in highly modified anthropogenic landscapes

  • Valorie R. TitusEmail author
  • Rayna C. Bell
  • C. Guilherme Becker
  • Kelly R. Zamudio
Research Article

Abstract

Fragmented landscapes resulting from anthropogenic habitat modification can have significant impacts on dispersal, gene flow, and persistence of wildlife populations. Therefore, quantifying population connectivity across a mosaic of habitats in highly modified landscapes is critical for the development of conservation management plans for threatened populations. Endangered populations of the eastern tiger salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum) in New York and New Jersey are at the northern edge of the species’ range and remaining populations persist in highly developed landscapes in both states. We used landscape genetic approaches to examine regional genetic population structure and potential barriers to migration among remaining populations. Despite the post-glacial demographic processes that have shaped genetic diversity in tiger salamander populations at the northern extent of their range, we found that populations in each state belong to distinct genetic clusters, consistent with the large geographic distance that separates them. We detected overall low genetic diversity and high relatedness within populations, likely due to recent range expansion, isolation, and relatively small population sizes. Nonetheless, landscape connectivity analyses reveal habitat corridors among remaining breeding ponds. Furthermore, molecular estimates of population connectivity among ponds indicate that gene flow still occurs at regional scales. Further fragmentation of remaining habitat will potentially restrict dispersal among breeding ponds, cause the erosion of genetic diversity, and exacerbate already high levels of inbreeding. We recommend the continued management and maintenance of habitat corridors to ensure long-term viability of these endangered populations.

Keywords

Ambystoma tigrinum Tiger salamander Landscape genetics Fragmentation 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Al Breisch and Dan Rosenblatt of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, and Dave Golden of the New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife, for support with population sampling and permits. All sample were collected according to approved Brookhaven National Laboratory IACUC #347. This research was funded in part by State Wildlife Grant T-2-2 from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), an Upstate Herpetological Association Research Grant to VT, and an NSF Population Evolutionary Processes award to KZ. RCB was supported by a Cornell University Presidential Life Sciences Fellowship and CGB was supported by a Fulbright/CAPES Fellowship.

References

  1. Amos W, Balmford A (2001) When does conservation genetics matter? Heredity 87:257–265PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersen LW, Fog K, Damgaard C (2004) Habitat fragmentation causes bottlenecks and inbreeding in the European tree frog (Hyla arborea). Proc R Soc Lond B 271:1293–1302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Apodaca JJ, Rissler LJ, Godwin JC (2012) Population genetic structure and gene flow in a heavily disturbed habitat: implications for the management of the imperiled Red Hills salamander (Phaeognathus hubrichti). Conserv Genet 13:913–923CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Becker CG, Fonseca CR, Haddad CFB, Batista RF, Prado PI (2007) Habitat-split and the global decline of amphibians. Science 318:1775–1777PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beebee TJC (2005) Conservation genetics of amphibians. Heredity 95:423–427PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beebee TJC (2010) Genetics in field ecology and conservation. In: Dodd CK (ed) Amphibian conservation and ecology: a handbook of techniques. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 407–427Google Scholar
  7. Beebee TJC, Griffiths RA (2005) The amphibian decline crisis: a watershed for conservation biology? Biol Conserv 125(271–285):405Google Scholar
  8. Chiucci JE, Gibbs HL (2010) Similarity of contemporary and historical geneflow among highly fragmented populations of an endangered rattlesnake. Mol Ecol 19:5435–5458Google Scholar
  9. Church SA, Kraus JM, Mitchell JC, Church DR, Taylor DR (2003) Evidence for multiple Pleistocene refugia in the postglacial expansion of the eastern tiger salamander, Ambystoma tigrinum tigrinum. Evolution 52:372–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Compton BW, McGarigal K, Cushman SA, Gamble LR (2007) A resistant-kernel model of connectivity for amphibians that breed in vernal pools. Conserv Biol 21:788–799PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Curtis JMR, Taylor EB (2003) The genetic structure of costal giant salamanders (Dicamptodon tenebrosus) in a managed forest. Biol Conserv 115:45–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cushman SA (2006) Effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on amphibians: a review and prospectus. Biol Conerv 139:247–257Google Scholar
  13. Cushman SA, Wasserman TN, Landguth EL, Shirk AJ (2013) Re-evaluating causal modeling with mantel tests in landsacpe genetics. Diversity 5:51–72Google Scholar
  14. Dudaniec RY, Spear SF, Richardson JS, Storfer A (2012) Current and historical drivers of landscape genetic structure differ in core and peripheral salamander populations. PLoS One 7(5):e36769PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Earl DA, vonHoldt BM (2011) STRUCTURE HARVESTER: a website and program for 19 visualizing STRUCTURE output and implementing the Evanno method. 4:359–361. Conserv Genet Res 4:359–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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
  17. Edenhamn E, Höggren M, Carlson A (2000) Genetic diversity and fitness in peripheral and central populations of the European tree frog Hyla arborea. Hereditas 133:115–122PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. Frankham R (1995) Effective population size ratios in wildlife: a review. Genet Res 66:95–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Frankham R (2005) Genetics and extinction. Biol Conserv 126:131–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Frankham R, Ballou JD, Briscoe DA (2002) Introduction to conservation genetics. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fry J, Xian G, Jin S, Dewitz J, Homer C, Yang L, Barnes C, Herold N, Wickham J (2011) Completion of the 2006 National Land Cover Database for the Conterminous United States. PE&RS 77:858–864Google Scholar
  24. Funk WC, Tallmon DA, Allendorf FW (1999) Small effective population size in the long-toed salamander. Mol Ecol 8:1633–1640PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Garner TWJ, Pearman PB, Angelone S (2004) Genetic diversity across a vertebrate species’ range: a test of the central-peripheral hypothesis. Mol Ecol 13:1047–1053PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gibbs JP (1998) Distribution of woodland amphibians along a forest fragmentation gradient. Landscape Ecol 13:263–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gopurenko D, Williams RN, McCormick CR, DeWoody JA (2006) Insights into the mating habits of the tiger salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum tigrinum) as revealed by genetic parentage analyses. Mol Ecol 15:1917–1928PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Goudet J (1995) FSTAT (version 1.2): a computer program to calculate F-statistics. J Hered 86:485–486Google Scholar
  29. Goudet J, Raymond M, DeMeeus T, Rousset F (1996) Testing differentiation in diploid 20 populations. Genetics 144:1933–1940PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Greenwald KR, Purrenhage JL, Savage WK (2009a) Landcover predicts isolation in Ambystoma salamanders across region and species. Biol Conserv 142:2493–2500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Greenwald KR, Gibbs HL, Waite TA (2009b) Efficacy of land-cover models in predicting isolation of marbled salamander populations in a fragmented landscape. Conserv Biol 25:1232–1241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Guillot G, Rousset F (2013) Dismantling the Mantel tests. Methods Ecol Evol 4:336–344Google Scholar
  33. Hoban S, Borkowski DS, Brosi SL, McCleary TL, Thompson LM, McLachlan JS, Pereira MA, Schlarbaum SE, Romero-Severson J (2010) Range-wide distribution of genetic diversity in the North American tree Juglans cinerea: a product of range shifts, not ecological marginality or recent population decline. Mol Ecol 19:4876–4891PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hunter Guerry (2002) Amphibian distributions in a landscape of forests and agriculture: an examination of landscape composition and configuration. Conserv Biol 16:745–754CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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 23:1801–1806PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jehle R, Arntzen JW (2002) Review: microsatellite markers in amphibian conservation genetics. Herpetol J 12:9Google Scholar
  37. Johansson M, Primmer CR, Merlia J (2006) History vs. current demography: explaining the genetic population structure of the common frog, Rana temporaria. Mol Ecol 15:975–983PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Jones OR, Wang J (2009) COLONY: a program for parentage and sibship inference from multilocus genotype data. Mol Ecol Res 10:551–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lamoureux VS, Madison DM (1999) Overwintering habitats of radio-implanted green frogs, Rana clamitans. J Herpetol 33:430–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lamoureux VS, Maerz JC, Madison DM (2002) Premigratory autumn foraging forays in the green frog, Rana clamitans. J Herpetol 36:245–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lande R (1998) Anthropogenic, ecological and genetic factors in extinction and conservation. Res Popul Ecol 40:259–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lesica P, Allendorf FW (1995) When are peripheral populations valuable for conservation? Conserv Biol 9:753–760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Loss SR, Will T, Marra PP (2013) The impact of free-ranging domestic cats on wildlife of the United States. Nat Commun 4:1396PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Loyd KAT, Hernandez SM, Carroll JP, Abernathy KJ, Marshall GJ (2013) Quantifying free-roaming domestic cat predation using animal-borne video cameras. Biol Conserv 160:183–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Madison DM, Farrand L (1998) Habitat use during breeding and emigration in radio-implanted tiger salamanders, Ambystoma tigrinum. Copeia 1998:402-410Google Scholar
  46. Marsack K, Swanson BJ (2009) A genetic analysis of the impact of generation time and road- based habitat fragmentation on eastern box turtles (Terrapene c. carolina). Copeia 4:647–652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. McDonough C, Paton PWC (2007) Salamander dispersal across a forested landscape fragmented by a golf course. J Wildl Manag 71:1163–1169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. McRae BH, Shah VB (2009) Circuitscape user’s guide. The University of California, Santa Barbara. http://www.circuitscape.org
  49. Mech SG, Storfer A, Ernst JA, Reudink MW, Maloney SC (2003) Polymorphic microsatellite loci for tiger salamanders, Ambystoma tigrinum. Mol Ecol Notes 3:79–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Parra-Olea G, Recuero E, Zamudio KR (2007) Polymorphic microsatellite markers for Mexican salamanders of the genus Ambystoma. Mol Ecol Notes 7:818–820CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Peakall R, Smouse PE (2006) GENALEX 6: genetic analysis in Excel. Population genetic software for teaching and research. Mol Ecol Notes 6:288–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Pritchard JK, Stephens M, Donnelly P (2000) Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data. Genetics 155:945–959PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Queller DC, Goodnight KF (1989) Estimating relatedness using genetic markers. Evolution 43:258–275CrossRefGoogle 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. Rittenhouse TAG, Semlitsch RD (2006) Grasslands as movement barriers for a forest-associated salamander: migration behavior of adult and juvenile salamanders as a distinct habitat edge. Biol Conserv 131:14–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rittenhouse TAG, Semlitsch RD (2007) Postbreeding habitat use of wood frogs in a Missouri oak-hickory forest. J Herpetol 41:645–653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Rosenberg MS, Anderson CD (2011) Passage: pattern analysis, spatial statistics, and geographic exegesis. V. 2. Methods Ecol Evol 2:229–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Rosenburg NA (2004) DISTRUCT: a program for the graphical display of population structure. Mol Ecol Notes 4:137–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Rothermel BB, Semlitsch RD (2002) An experimental investigation of landscape resistance of forest versus old-field habitats to emigrating juvenile amphibians. Con Biol 16(1324–502):1332Google Scholar
  60. Routman E (1993) Population structure and genetic diversity of metamorphic and paedomorphic populations of the tiger salamander, Ambystoma tigrinum. J Evol Biol 6:329–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Savage WK, Fremier AK, Shaffer HB (2010) Landscape genetics of alpine Sierra Nevada salamanders reveal extreme population subdivision in space and time. Mol Ecol 19:3301–3314PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Schneider S, Roessli D, Excoffier L (2000) ARLEQUIN: A software program for population genetics data analysis (version 2.0). Genetics and Biometry Lab, Department of Anthropology, University of Geneva SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  63. Semlitsch RD (1998) Biological delineation of terrestrial buffer zones for pond-breeding salamanders. Conserv Biol 12:1113–1119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Semlitsch RD (2008) Differentiating migration and dispersal processes for pond-breeding amphibians. J Wildl Manag 72:260–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Semlitsch RD, Bodie JR (2003) Biological criteria for buffer zones around wetlands and riparian habitats for amphibians and reptiles. Conserv Biol 17:1219–1228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Spear SF, Peterson CR, Matocq MD, Storfer A (2005) Landscape genetics of the blotched tiger salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum melanostictum). Mol Ecol 14:2553–2564PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Spear SF, Peterson CR, Matocq MD, Storfer A (2006) Molecular evidence for historical and recent population size reductions of tiger salamanders (Ambysotma tigrinum) in Yellowstone National Park. Conserv Genet 7:605–611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Storfer A (1999) Gene flow and population subdivision in the streamside salamander, Ambystoma barbouri. Copeia 1999:174–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Tallmon DA, Funk WC, Dunlap WW, Allendorf FW (2000) Genetic differentiation among long- toed salamander (Ambystoma macrodactylum) populations. Copeia 2000:27–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Titus VR, (2013) Movements, connectivity, and management: conserving the New York State 23 endangered eastern tiger salamander. Dissertation, Binghamton UniversityGoogle Scholar
  71. 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
  72. Wang IJ (2009) A new method for estimating effective population sizes from a single sample of multilocus genotypes. Mol Ecol 18:2148–2164PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Wang IJ, Savage WK, Shaffer HB (2009) Landscape genetics and least-cost path analysis reveal unexpected dispersal routes in the California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense). Mol Ecol 18:1365–1374PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Wang IJ, Johnson JR, Johnson BB, Shaffer HB (2011) Effective population size is strongly correlated with breeding pond size in the endangered California tiger salamander, Ambystoma californiense. Conserv Genet 12:911–920CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Weir BS, Cockerham CC (1984) Estimating F-statistics for the analysis of population structure. Evolution 38:1358–1370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Williams RN, DeWoody JA (2004) Fluorescent dUTP helps characterize 10 novel tetranucleotide microsatellites from an enriched salamander (Ambystoma texanum) genomic library. Mol Ecol Notes 4:17–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Zamudio KR, Wieczorek AM (2007) Fine-scale spatial genetic structure and dispersal among spotted salamander (Ambystoma maculatum) breeding populations. Mol Ecol 16:257–274PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Zellmer AJ, Knowles L (2009) Disentangling the effects of historic vs. contemporary landscape structure on population genetic divergence. Mol Ecol 18:3593–3602PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Valorie R. Titus
    • 1
    Email author
  • Rayna C. Bell
    • 2
  • C. Guilherme Becker
    • 2
  • Kelly R. Zamudio
    • 2
  1. 1.Natural Resource ManagementGreen Mountain CollegePoultneyUSA
  2. 2.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyCornell UniversityIthacaUSA

Personalised recommendations