Conservation Genetics

, Volume 19, Issue 2, pp 337–348 | Cite as

Microsatellite polymorphism in the endangered snail kite reveals a panmictic, low diversity population

  • Ellen P. Robertson
  • Robert J. FletcherJr.
  • James D. Austin
Research Article

Abstract

Genetic structure and genetic diversity are key population characteristics that can inform conservation decisions, such as delineating management units or assessing potential risks for inbreeding depression. Evidence of genetic structuring or low genetic diversity in the critically endangered snail kite (Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus) would have implications for monitoring and planning decisions. Recent work on understanding connectivity across the snail kite range indicated that there is less dispersal between northern and southern parts of the current range, and that dispersal is shaped by individual habitat preference. We examine whether there is neutral genetic structure and the amount of genetic variation in the population by non-lethally sampling 235 nestlings from unique nests across the entire breeding range between 2013 and 2014. Data on 15 microsatellite revealed low diversity (e.g., N a = 2.54, H e = 0.37) and range-wide panmixia based on AMOVA, Bayesian clustering, spatial autocorrelation, isolation by distance, and spatially explicit ordination analyses. Our results emphasize that long-term recovery goals and management strategies should be based on viewing snail kites as a single genetic population, despite evidence for non-random dispersal between wetlands over ecological time scales. These results also highlight the need to understand potential effects of low genetic diversity on population dynamics and viability of snail kites. More broadly, these results add to the growing evidence for potential discrepancies between dispersal and genetic patterns, emphasizing that care should be taken if using one to interpret the other, particularly for widely-ranging species.

Keywords

Population structure Genetic diversity Dispersal Snail kite Everglades 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Cortney Pylant for advice and training in the lab. We thank Lauren Diaz and Andy Revell for help with genetic labwork, John Hargrove for advice on genetic analyses, Brian Jeffery for help mapping site locations, and Caroline Poli for help with Inkscape. We acknowledge all current and previous graduate students, project managers, and technicians that have contributed to snail kite data collection and data management over the last 20 years. We thank Wiley Kitchens, previous principal investigator of the snail kite monitoring project, as well as Julien Martin, and Denis Valle for guidance and for reviewing earlier versions of this manuscript. We would also like to thank two anonymous reviewers and the associate editor for reviewing this manuscript and providing helpful feedback. The US Army Corps of Engineers, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, US Fish and Wildlife Service, St Johns River Water Management District, and the US Geological Survey provided funding for this study. This study was also supported by a Dean Amadon Grant (Raptorresearchfoundation.org). Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

Supplementary material

10592_2017_1003_MOESM1_ESM.docx (483 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 483 KB)

References

  1. Adamack AT, Gruber B (2014) PopGenReport: simplifying basic population genetic analyses in R. Meth Ecol Evol 5:384–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agudo R, Rico C, Vilà C, Hiraldo F, Donázar JA (2010) The role of humans in the diversification of a threatened island raptor. BMC Evol Biol 10:384PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alcaide M, Serrano D, Tella JL, Negro JJ (2009) Strong philopatry derived from capture–recapture records does not lead to fine-scale genetic differentiation in lesser kestrels. J Anim Ecol 78:468–475PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Amos W, Hutter CM, Schug MD, Aquadro CF (2003) Directional evolution of size coupled with ascertainment bias for variation in Drosophila microsatellites. Mol Biol Evol 20:660–662PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Austin JD, Gore JA, Greene DU, Gotteland C (2015) Conspicuous genetic structure belies recent dispersal in an endangered beach mouse (Peromyscus polionotus trissyllepsis). Conserv Genet 16:915–928CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bennetts RE, Kitchens WM (1997) Population dynamics and conservation of snail kites in Florida: the importance of spatial and temporal scale. Colon Waterbirds 20:324–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bielikova M, Ficek A, Valkova D, Turna J (2010) Multiplex PCR amplification of 13 microsatellite loci for Aquila chrysaetos in forensic applications. Biologia 65:1081–1088CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brookfield J (1996) A simple new method for estimating null allele frequency from heterozygote deficiency. Mol Ecol 5:453–455PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Canal D, Roques S, Negro JJ, Sarasola JH (2016) Population genetics of the endangered crowned solitary eagle (Buteogallus coronatus) in South America. Conserv Genet 18:1–6Google Scholar
  10. Cattau CE, Fletcher RJ, Reichert BE, Kitchens WM (2016) Counteracting effects of a non-native prey on the demography of a native predator culminate in positive population growth. Ecol Appl 26:1952–1968PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chakraborty R, Andrade Md, Daiger S, Budowle B (1992) Apparent heterozygote deficiencies observed in DNA typing data and their implications in forensic applications. Ann Hum Genet 56:45–57PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Charlesworth D, Charlesworth B (1987) Inbreeding depression and its evolutionary consequences. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 18:237–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Côté CL, Gagnaire PA, Bourret V, Verreault G, Castonguay M, Bernatchez L (2013) Population genetics of the American eel (Anguilla rostrata): FST = 0 and North Atlantic oscillation effects on demographic fluctuations of a panmictic species. Mol Ecol 22:1763–1776PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Coulon A, Cosson J, Angibault J, Cargnelutti B, Galan M, Morellet N, Petit E, Aulagnier S, Hewison A (2004) Landscape connectivity influences gene flow in a roe deer population inhabiting a fragmented landscape: an individual-based approach. Mol Ecol 13:2841–2850PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Crandall KA, Bininda-Emonds OR, Mace GM, Wayne RK (2000) Considering evolutionary processes in conservation biology. Trends Ecol Evol 15:290–295PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. de Volo SB, Reynolds RT, Topinka JR, May B, Antolin MF (2005) Population genetics and genotyping for mark-recapture studies of northern goshawks (Accipiter gentilis) on the Kaibab Plateau, Arizona. J Raptor Res 39:286–295Google Scholar
  17. Dearborn DC, Anders AD, Schreiber E, Adams RM, Mueller UG (2003) Inter-island movements and population differentiation in a pelagic seabird. Mol Ecol 12:2835–2843PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dreitz VJ, Nichols JD, Hines JE, Bennetts RE, Kitchens WM, Deangelis DL (2002) The use of resighting data to estimate the rate of population growth of the snail kite in Florida. J Appl Stat 29:609–623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dyer R (2014) gstudio: analyses and functions related to the spatial analysis of genetic marker data. http://CRANR-project.org/package=gstudio, r package version, 1
  20. Ellegren H (2004) Microsatellites: simple sequences with complex evolution. Nat Rev Genet 5:435PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Epps CW, Keyghobadi N (2015) Landscape genetics in a changing world: disentangling historical and contemporary influences and inferring change. Mol Ecol 24:6021–6040PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Estoup A, Rousset F, Michalakis Y, Cornuet J, Adriamanga M, Guyomard R (1998) Comparative analysis of microsatellite and allozyme markers: a case study investigating microgeographic differentiation in brown trout (Salmo trutta). Mol Ecol 7:339–353PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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
  24. Excoffier L, Lischer HE (2010) Arlequin suite ver 3.5: a new series of programs to perform population genetics analyses under Linux and Windows. Mol Ecol Resour 10:564–567PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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 131:479–491PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. Fagan WF, Holmes E (2006) Quantifying the extinction vortex. Ecol Lett 9:51–60PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Faircloth BC (2008) Msatcommander: detection of microsatellite repeat arrays and automated, locus-specific primer design. Mol Ecol Resour 8:92–94PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fletcher RJ, Acevedo MA, Reichert BE, Pias KE, Kitchens WM (2011) Social network models predict movement and connectivity in ecological landscapes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108:19282–19287PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fletcher RJ, Revell A, Reichert BE, Kitchens WM, Dixon JD, Austin JD (2013) Network modularity reveals critical scales for connectivity in ecology and evolution. Nat Commun 4:2572PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Fletcher RJ, Robertson EP, Wilcox RC, Reichert BE, Austin JD, Kitchens WM (2015) Affinity for natal environments by dispersers impacts reproduction and explains geographical structure of a highly mobile bird. Proc R Soc B 282:40–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Frankham R (2005) Genetics and extinction. Biol Conserv 126:131–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Frankham R, Lees K, Montgomery ME, England PR, Lowe EH, Briscoe DA (1999) Do population size bottlenecks reduce evolutionary potential? Anim Conserv 2:255–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Fraser DJ, Bernatchez L (2001) Adaptive evolutionary conservation: towards a unified concept for defining conservation units. Mol Ecol 10:2741–2752PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Galpern P, Peres-Neto PR, Polfus J, Manseau M (2014) MEMGENE: spatial pattern detection in genetic distance data. Methods Ecol Evol 5:1116–1120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Gautschi B, Müller J, Schmid B, Shykoff J (2003) Effective number of breeders and maintenance of genetic diversity in the captive bearded vulture population. Heredity 91:9–16PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Gilpin ME (1986) Minimum viable populations: processes of species extinction. In: Conservation biology: the science of scarcity and diversity. Soulé Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, pp 19–34Google Scholar
  37. Green DM (2005) Designatable units for status assessment of endangered species. Conserv Biol 19:1813–1820CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Guillot G, Estoup A, Mortier F, Cosson JF (2005) A spatial statistical model for landscape genetics. Genetics 170:1261–1280PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Haas S, Kimball R, Martin J, Kitchens W (2009) Genetic divergence among snail kite subspecies: implications for the conservation of the endangered Florida snail kite Rostrhamus sociabilis. Ibis 151:181–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hirai M, Yamazaki T (2010) Isolation and characterization of eleven microsatellite loci in an endangered species, Mountain Hawk-Eagle (Spizaetus nipalensis). Conserv Genet Resour 2:113–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hoban S, Gaggiotti O, Bertorelle G (2013) Sample Planning Optimization Tool for conservation and population Genetics (SPOTG): a software for choosing the appropriate number of markers and samples. Methods Ecol Evol 4:299–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hsu H-H, Ding S-T, Chang Y-Y, Chao M-C, Tsao H-S, Chan F-T, Hsu C-C, Yuan H-W, Wang P-H (2013) Development of 24 new microsatellite markers in the Crested Serpent Eagle (Spilornis cheela hoya). Conserv Genet Resour 5:417–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ingvarsson PK, Whitlock MC (2000) Heterosis increases the effective migration rate. Proc R Soc Lond B 267:1321–1326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Johnson JA, Tingay RE, Culver M, Hailer F, Clarke ML, Mindell DP (2009) Long-term survival despite low genetic diversity in the critically endangered Madagascar fish-eagle. Mol Ecol 18:54–63PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Jombart T (2008) adegenet: a R package for the multivariate analysis of genetic markers. Bioinformatics 24:1403–1405PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Jost L (2008) GST and its relatives do not measure differentiation. Mol Ecol 17:4015–4026PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kalinowski ST (2005) hp-rare 1.0: a computer program for performing rarefaction on measures of allelic richness. Mol Ecol Notes 5:187–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kamvar ZN, Tabima JF, Grünwald NJ (2014) Poppr: an R package for genetic analysis of populations with clonal, partially clonal, and/or sexual reproduction. PeerJ 2:e281PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kierepka E, Latch E (2016) High gene flow in the American badger overrides habitat preferences and limits broadscale genetic structure. Mol Ecol 25:6055–6076PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kimura M, Crow JF (1963) The measurement of effective population number. Evolution 17:279–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Koenig WD, Van Vuren D, Hooge PN (1996) Detectability, philopatry, and the distribution of dispersal distances in vertebrates. Trends Ecol Evol 11:514–517PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Kvistad L, Ingwersen D, Pavlova A, Bull JK, Sunnucks P (2015) Very low population structure in a highly mobile and wide-ranging endangered bird species. PLoS ONE 10:e0143746PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Lande R (1988) Genetics and demography in biological conservation. Science 241:1455–1460PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 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 19:4179–4191PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Laval G, Excoffier L (2004) SIMCOAL 2.0: a program to simulate genomic diversity over large recombining regions in a subdivided population with a complex history. Bioinformatics 20:2485–2487PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Levin DA (1981) Dispersal versus gene flow in plants. Ann Mo Bot Gard 68:233–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Lowe WH, Allendorf FW (2010) What can genetics tell us about population connectivity? Mol Ecol 19:3038–3051PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Martin J, Nichols J, Kitchens W, Hines J (2006) Multiscale patterns of movement in fragmented landscapes and consequences on demography of the snail kite in Florida. J Anim Ecol 75:527–539PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Martin J, Kitchens W, Hines J (2007a) Natal location influences movement and survival of a spatially structured population of snail kites. Oecologia 153:291–301PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Martin J, Kitchens WM, Hines JE (2007b) Importance of well-designed monitoring programs for the conservation of endangered species: case study of the snail kite. Conserv Biol 21:472–481PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Martin J, Kitchens WM, Hines JE (2007c) Natal location influences movement and survival of a spatially structured population of snail kites. Oecologia 153:291–301PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Martinez-Cruz B, Godoy JA, Negro JJ (2004) Population genetics after fragmentation: the case of the endangered Spanish imperial eagle (Aquila adalberti). Mol Ecol 13:2243–2255PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Maruyama T, Fuerst PA (1984) Population bottlenecks and nonequilibrium models in population genetics. I. Allele numbers when populations evolve from zero variability. Genetics 108:745–763PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  64. Meyer K, Kent G, Hart K, Fujisaki I (2011) Seasonal movements and habitat use of snail kites (Rostrhamus sociabilis) in Florida: a comparative study of satellite and VHF tracking methodologies. In: Final Report for US Fish and Wildlife Service, Vero Beach, FloridaGoogle Scholar
  65. Moritz C (1994) Defining’evolutionarily significant units’ for conservation. Trends Ecol Evol 9:373–374PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Narum SR (2006) Beyond Bonferroni: less conservative analyses for conservation genetics. Conserv Genet 7:783–787CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Nesje M, Røed K, Lifjeld J, Lindberg P, Steen O (2000) Genetic relationships in the peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) analysed by microsatellite DNA markers. Mol Ecol 9:53–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Paetkau D, Shields GF, Strobeck C (1998) Gene flow between insular, coastal and interior populations of brown bears in Alaska. Mol Ecol 7:1283–1292PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 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
  70. Peakall P, Smouse R (2012) GenAlEx 6.5: genetic analysis in Excel. Population genetic software for teaching and research—an update. Bioinformatics 28:2537–2539PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Peakall R, Ruibal M, Lindenmayer DB (2003) Spatial autocorrelation analysis offers new insights into gene flow in the Australian bush rat, Rattus fuscipes. Evol Int J Org Evol 57:1182–1195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Peery MZ, Hall LA, Sellas A, Beissinger SR, Moritz C, Bérubé M, Raphael MG, Nelson SK, Golightly RT, McFarlane-Tranquilla L (2009) Genetic analyses of historic and modern marbled murrelets suggest decoupling of migration and gene flow after habitat fragmentation. Proc R Soc Lond B 277:697–706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Pertoldi C, Hansen MM, Loeschcke V, Madsen AB, Jacobsen L, Baagoe H (2001) Genetic consequences of population decline in the European otter (Lutra lutra): an assessment of microsatellite DNA variation in Danish otters from 1883 to 1993. Proc R Soc Lond B 268:1775–1781CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Piry S, Luikart G, Cornuet J (1999) BOTTLENECK: a computer program for detecting recent reductions in the effective population size using allele frequency data. J Hered 90:502–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Pritchard JK, Przeworski M (2001) Linkage disequilibrium in humans: models and data. Am J Hum Genet 69:1–14PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Pritchard JK, Stephens M, Donnelly P (2000) Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data. Genetics 155:945–959PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  77. Queller DC, Goodnight KF (1989) Estimating relatedness using genetic markers. Evolution, 258–275Google Scholar
  78. Raymond M, Rousset F (1995) GENEPOP (version 1.2): population genetics software for exact tests and ecumenicism. J Hered 86:248–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Reed DH, Frankham R (2003) Correlation between fitness and genetic diversity. Conserv Biol 17:230–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Reichert BE, Cattau CE, Fletcher RJJ, Sykes PWJ, Rodgers JAJ, Bennetts RE (2015) Snail Kite (Rostrhamus sociabilis), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Accessed 1 Mar 2016Google Scholar
  81. Reichert BE, Fletcher RJ, Cattau CE, Kitchens WM (2016) Consistent scaling of population structure across landscapes despite intraspecific variation in movement and connectivity. J Anim Ecol 85:1563–1573PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Rice WR (1989) Analyzing tables of statistical tests. Evol Int J Org Evol 43:223–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Riley SP, Pollinger JP, Sauvajot RM, York EC, Bromley C, Fuller TK, Wayne RK (2006) FAST-TRACK: A southern California freeway is a physical and social barrier to gene flow in carnivores. Mol Ecol 15:1733–1741PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Robertson EP, Fletcher RJ, Austin JD (2017) The causes of dispersal and the cost of carry-over effects for an endangered bird in a dynamic wetland landscape. J Anim Ecol. doi: 10.1111/1365-2656.12676 Google Scholar
  85. Rodgers J, Stangel P (1996) Genetic variation and population structure of the endangered Snail Kite in south Florida. J Raptor Res 30:111–117Google Scholar
  86. Rozen S, Skaletsky H (1999) Primer3 on the WWW for general users and for biologist programmers. In: Bioinformatics methods and protocols, pp 365–386Google Scholar
  87. Rutkowski R, Rejt L, Szczuka A (2006) Analysis of microsatellite polymorphism and genetic differentiation in urban and rural kestrels Falco tinnunculus (L.). Pol J Ecol 54:473–480Google Scholar
  88. Ryman N, Palm S (2006) POWSIM: a computer program for assessing statistical power when testing for genetic differentiation. Mol Ecol Notes 6:600–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Saarinen EV, Austin JD (2010) When technology meets conservation: increased microsatellite marker production using 454 genome sequencing on the endangered Okaloosa darter (Etheostoma okaloosae). J Hered 101:784–788PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Savolainen O, Pyhäjärvi T, Knürr T (2007) Gene flow and local adaptation in trees. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 38:595–619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Slatkin M (1987) Gene flow and the geographic structure of natural populations. Science 236:787–792PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Slatkin M (1994) Linkage disequilibrium in growing and stable populations. Genetics 137:331–336PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  93. Storfer A (1999) Gene flow and endangered species translocations: a topic revisited. Biol Conserv 87:173–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Tucker KP, Hunter ME, Bonde RK, Austin JD, Clark AM, Beck CA, McGuire PM, Oli MK (2012) Low genetic diversity and minimal population substructure in the endangered Florida manatee: implications for conservation. J Mammal 93:1504–1511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. USFWS (1999) South Florida multi-species recovery plan. US Fish and Wildlife Service, AtlantaGoogle Scholar
  96. Valle D, Cvetojevic S, Robertson EP, Reichert BE, Hochmair HH, Fletcher RJ (2017) Individual movement strategies revealed through novel clustering of emergent movement patterns. Sci Rep 7:44052PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Vasudev D, Fletcher RJ Jr (2016) Mate choice interacts with movement limitations to influence effective dispersal. Ecol Model 327:65–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Van Oosterhout C, Hutchenson WF, Wills DPM, Shipley P (2004) Micro-checker: software for identifying and correcting genotyping errors in microsatellite data. Mol Ecol Resour 4:535–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Wang G-H, Yao L, Xu H-W, Tang W-T, Fu JH, Hu X-F, Cui L, Xu X-M (2013) Identification of MXRA5 as a novel biomarker in colorectal cancer. Oncol Lett 5:544–548PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Waples RS, Gaggiotti O (2006) Invited review: what is a population? An empirical evaluation of some genetic methods for identifying the number of gene pools and their degree of connectivity. Mol Ecol 15:1419–1439PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Watterson G (1986) The homozygosity test after a change in population size. Genetics 112:899–907PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  102. Weber D, Stewart BS, Garza JC, Lehman N (2000) An empirical genetic assessment of the severity of the northern elephant seal population bottleneck. Curr Biol 10:1287–1290PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Weir BS, Cockerham CC (1984) Estimating F-statistics for the analysis of population structure. Evolution 38:1358–1370PubMedGoogle Scholar
  104. Wright S (1922) Coefficients of inbreeding and relationship. Am Nat 56:330–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Wright S (1931) Evolution in Mendelian populations. Genetics 16:97–159PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  106. Wright S (1943) Isolation by distance. Genetics 28:114PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  107. Xiong D, Li G, Li K, Xu Q, Pan Z, Ding F, Vedell P, Liu P, Cui P, Hua X (2012) Exome sequencing identifies MXRA5 as a novel cancer gene frequently mutated in non-small cell lung carcinoma from Chinese patients. Carcinogenesis 33:1797–1805PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Wildlife Ecology and ConservationUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations