Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

Influence of geomorphology and surface features on the genetic structure of an important trogloxene, the secret cave cricket (Ceuthophilus secretus)

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Conservation Genetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Cave ecosystems supporting a variety of endemics depend on the carbon, nitrogen, and nutrients brought into caves by trogloxenic species, such as the secret cave cricket (Ceuthophilus secretus). Surface movements of trogloxenes may comprise the strongest ecological connections among caves. Our objective was to better understand dispersal patterns in C. secretus in order to inform management of this species and the cave endemics that depend upon them. We used microsatellite loci to estimate gene flow and genetic diversity among 42 karst features supporting C. secretus on the Fort Hood Military Reserve, Texas, USA. This sampling was used to assess the influences of karst topography and other landscape features on genetic diversity and population structure. Cave populations did not exhibit evidence of recent bottlenecks and genetic diversity was similar among sites, with the exception of one sample from an isolated cave. Samples exhibited a strong pattern of isolation by distance, but karst topology was also influential, with genetic differentiation being much higher between samples from separate ridges than among those on the same ridge. It appears that co-location on a ridge was an important factor facilitating dispersal among karst features. There was little evidence that other surface features such as forest cover, roads or streams influenced gene flow and genetic differentiation. The low genetic connectivity among ridges suggests that isolated caves on ridges where cricket habitat is uncommon or degraded might not be easily recolonized after extinction events, with potentially negative consequences for associated cave communities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+
from $39.99 /Month
  • Starting from 10 chapters or articles per month
  • Access and download chapters and articles from more than 300k books and 2,500 journals
  • Cancel anytime
View plans

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles and news from researchers in related subjects, suggested using machine learning.

References

  • Atkinson GL, Smith AR (2001) Geology of the Lampasas Cut Plain. In: Reddell JR (ed) The caves of the Lampasas Cut Plain. Texas Speleological Survey, Austin, pp 4–8

    Google Scholar 

  • Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y (1995) Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J R Stat Soc B Methodol 57:289–300

    Google Scholar 

  • Caccone A (1985) Gene flow in cave arthropods: a qualitative and quantitative approach. Evolution 39:1223–1235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caccone A, Sbordoni V (1987) Molecular evolutionary divergence among North American cave crickets. I. Allozyme variation. Evolution 41:1198–1214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castellano S, Balletto E (2002) Is the partial Mantel test inadequate? Evolution 56:1871–1873

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chen CE, Durand E, Forbes F, Francois O (2007) Bayesian clustering algorithms ascertaining spatial population structure: a new computer program and a comparison study. Mol Ecol Notes 7:747–756

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christman MC, Culver DC, Madden MK, White D (2005) Patterns of endemism of the eastern North American cave fauna. J Biogeogr 32:1441–1452

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cornuet JM, Luikart G (1996) Description and power analysis of two tests for detecting recent population bottlenecks from allele frequency data. Genetics 144:2001–2014

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Culver DC (1986) Cave faunas. In: Soule ME (ed) Conservation biology: the science of scarcity and diversity. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, pp 427–443

    Google Scholar 

  • Dirienzo A, Peterson AC, Garza JC, Valdes AM, Slatkin M, Freimer NB (1994) Mutational processes of simple-sequence repeat loci in human populations. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 91:3166–3170

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Evanno G, Regnaut S, Goudet J (2005) Detecting the number of clusters of individuals using the software structure: a simulation study. Mol Ecol 14:611–2620

    Google Scholar 

  • Frantz AC, Pourtois JT, Heuertz M, Schley L, Flamand MC, Krier A, Bertouille S, Chaumont F, Burke T (2006) Genetic structure and assignment tests demonstrate illegal translocation of red deer (Cervus elaphus) into a continuous population. Mol Ecol 15:3191–3203

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Frantz AC, Cellina S, Krier A, Schley L, Burke T (2009) Using spatial Bayesian methods to determine the genetic structure of a continuously distributed population: clusters or isolation by distance? J Appl Ecol 46:493–505

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goudet J (2002) FSTAT Version 2.9.3.2, a program to estimate and test gene diversities and fixation indices. Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland. Available from http://www2.unil.ch/popgen/softwares/fstat.htm. Accessed Nov 2014

  • Guillot G, Rousset F (2013) Dismantling the Mantel tests. Methods Ecol Evol 4:336–344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holsinger JR, Culver DC (1988) The invertebrate cave fauna of Virginia and a part of Eastern Tennessee. Brimleyana 14:1–162

    Google Scholar 

  • Howarth FG (1980) The zoogeography of specialized cave animals: a bioclimatic model. Evolution 34:394–406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hubisz MJ, Falush D, Stephens M, Pritchard JK (2009) Inferring weak population structure with the assistance of sample group information. Mol Ecol Resour 9:1322–1332

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Hutchison NL (2012) Population genetic structure of the cave cricket, Ceuthophilus secretus. Thesis, University of Louisiana at Lafayette

  • Hutchison N, Leberg PL, Lance RF (2013) Development of novel microsatellite markers for the secret cave cricket, Ceuthophilus secretus. J Insect Sci 13:64

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Jost L (2008) GST and its relatives do not measure differentiation. Mol Ecol 17:4015–4026

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kopelman NM, Mayzel J, Jakobsson M, Rosenberg NA, Mayrose I (2015) CLUMPAK: a program for identifying clustering modes and packaging population structure inferences across K. Mol Ecol Resour 15:1179–1191

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Latch EK, Dharmarajan G, Glaubitz JC, Rhodes OE Jr (2006) Relative performance of Bayesian clustering software for inferring population substructure and individual assignment at low levels of population differentiation. Conserv Genet 7:295–302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lavoie KH, Helf KL, Poulson TL (2007) The biology and ecology of North American cave crickets. J Cave Karst Stud 69:114–134

    Google Scholar 

  • McRae BH, Shah VB, Mohapatra TK (2013) Circuitscape 4 User Guide. The nature conservancy. Available from http://www.circuitscape.org. Accessed Nov 2014

  • Peakall R, Smouse PE (2006) Genalex 6: genetic analysis in Excel. Population genetic software for teaching and research. Mol Ecol Notes 6:288–295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pritchard JK, Stephens M, Donnelly P (2000) Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data. Genetics 155:945–959

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Raufaste N, Rousset F (2001) Are partial Mantel tests adequate? Evolution 55:1703–1705

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Raymond M, Rousset F (1995) GENEPOP (version 1.2): population genetics software for exact tests and ecumenism. J Hered 86:248–249

    Google Scholar 

  • Reddell JR, Fant J, Reyes M, Warton M (2009) Cave invertebrate research on Fort Hood, Bell and Coryell Counties, TX, vol 1, 28 Oct 2009. Unpublished report prepared for The Nature Conservancy of Texas, Fort Hood. James Reddell, Austin, TX, USA

  • Reddell JR, Veni G (2011) Management plan for the conservation of rare karst species on Fort Hood, Bell and Coryell Counties, TX. Unpublished report to Fort Hood Natural Resources Management Branch. James Reddell, Austin, TX, USA

  • Rousset F (2002) Partial Mantel tests: reply to Castellano and Balletto. Evolution 56:1874–1875

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smouse PE, Long JC, Sokal RR (1986) Multiple regression and correlation extensions of the Mantel test of matrix correspondence. Syst Zool 35:627–632

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor SJ, Krejca JK, Smith JE, Block VR, Hutto F (2003) Investigation of the potential for Red Imported Fire Ant (Solenopsis invicta) impacts on rare karst invertebrates at Fort Hood, Texas: a field study. Illinois Natural History Survey, Center for Biodiversity Technical Report 2003:28, Champaign

  • Taylor SJ, Hackley K, Krejca JK, Dreslik MJ, Greenberg SE, Raboin EL (2004) Examining the role of cave crickets (Rhaphidophoridae) in central Texas cave ecosystems: isotope ratios (δ13C, δ 15 N) and radio tracking. Illinois Natural History Survey, Center for Biodiversity Technical Report 2004:9, Champaign

  • Taylor SJ, Krejca JK, Denight ML (2005) Foraging range and habitat use of Ceuthophilus secretus (Orthoptera: Rhaphidophoridae), a key trogloxene in central Texas cave communities. Am Midl Nat 154:97–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor SJ, Weckstein JD, Takiya DM, Krejca JK, Murdoch JD, Veni G, Johnson KP, Reddell JR (2007) Phylogeography of cave crickets (Ceuthophilus spp.) in central Texas: A keystone taxon for the conservation and management of federally listed endangered cave arthropods. Illinois Natural History Survey Technical Report 2007:58, Champaign

  • 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 4:535–538

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Riel P, Jordaens K, Verhagen R, Frias Martins AM, Backeljau T (2003) Genetic differentiation reflects geological history in the Azorean land snail, Leptaxis azorica. Heredity 91:239–247

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Veni G (1994) Hydrogeology and evolution of caves and karst in the southwestern Edwards Plateau, Texas. In: Elliott WR, Veni G (eds) The caves and karst of Texas. National Speleological Society, Huntsville, pp 13–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang IJ (2013) Examining the full effects of landscape heterogeneity on spatial genetic variation: a multiple matrix regression approach for quantifying geographic and ecological isolation. Evolution 67:3403–3411

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Waples RS, Gaggiotti O (2006) What is a population? An empirical study of some genetic methods for identifying the number of gene pools and their degree of connectivity. Mol Ecol 15:1419–1439

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Weckstein JD, Johnson KP, Murdoch JD, Krejca JK, Takiya DM, Veni G, Reddell JR, Taylor SJ (2016 in press). Comparative phylogeography of two codistribued subgenera of cave crickets (Orthoptera: Rhaphidophoridae: Ceuthophilus spp.). J Biogeogr

  • Weir BS, Cockerham CC (1984) Estimating F-statistics for the analysis of population structure. Evolution 38:1358–1370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitlock MC, McCauley DE (1999) Indirect measures of gene flow and migration: F ST ≠ 1/(4Nm + 1). Heredity 82:117–126

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Worley K, Strobeck C, Arthur S, Carey J, Schwantje H, Veitch A, Coltman DW (2004) Population genetic structure of North American thinhorn sheep (Ovis dalli). Mol Ecol 13:2545–2556

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank many people who assisted with field sampling and logistics, including Zara Environmental LLC (J. Krejca, W. Larsen, J. Larsen), the Fort Hood Natural Resources Branch, and the Leberg Lab at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette (R. Davis, E. Tobin, B. Regime, S. Walter, P. Vasseur). We thank D. Lindsay and S. Bourne, US Army Engineer and Research Development Center (ERDC) Environmental Laboratory, for assistance with manuscript editing and figure production. The manuscript was benefited from the comments of two anonymous reviewers. This research was conducted in conjunction with and funded by US Army 6.1 Basic Research Program through ERDC. Permission was granted by the Chief of Engineers to publish this information. The views expressed in this manuscript are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government. The use of trade, product, or firm names in this paper is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biology, University of Louisiana at Lafayette, 410 East St. Mary Boulevard, Lafayette, LA, 70504, USA

    Nicole L. Hutchison & Paul. L. Leberg

  2. Environmental Laboratory, Environmental Processes Branch, US Army Engineer Research & Development Center, 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS, 39180, USA

    Richard F. Lance

  3. Environmental Division, United States Army Garrison-Fort Hood, Natural Resources Management Branch, 4622 Engineer Drive, Fort Hood, TX, 76544, USA

    Charles E. Pekins & Marion E. Noble

Authors
  1. Nicole L. Hutchison
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Richard F. Lance
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Charles E. Pekins
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Marion E. Noble
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Paul. L. Leberg
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul. L. Leberg.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 41 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hutchison, N.L., Lance, R.F., Pekins, C.E. et al. Influence of geomorphology and surface features on the genetic structure of an important trogloxene, the secret cave cricket (Ceuthophilus secretus). Conserv Genet 17, 969–983 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10592-016-0836-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10592-016-0836-3

Keywords