Advertisement

Conservation Genetics

, Volume 19, Issue 4, pp 937–946 | Cite as

Genetic structure and environmental niche modeling confirm two evolutionary and conservation units within the western spadefoot (Spea hammondii)

  • Kevin M. Neal
  • Benjamin B. Johnson
  • H. Bradley Shaffer
Research Article

Abstract

The western spadefoot (Spea hammondii) is a Species of Special Concern in California and is now under review by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for listing under the Endangered Species Act. We delineated potential conservation units within S. hammondii by analyzing spatial genetic structure across the species’ range using five nuclear and one mitochondrial loci. For both nuclear and mitochondrial markers we found that S. hammondii consists of two genetically distinct, allopatric clusters divided by the Transverse Ranges. To corroborate the northern and southern genetic clusters as conservation units from an ecological perspective, we applied a niche identity test to environmental niche models of the two groups. We found that the niche models of the northern and southern clusters were significantly different, suggesting they may be ecologically non-exchangeable. Given our demonstration of significant genetic and ecological differentiation between allopatric clusters of S. hammondii, we recommend that ongoing conservation efforts consider each as a separate unit with potentially unique management needs.

Keywords

Spea Spadefoot Phylogeography Environmental niche modeling Species delimitation Amphibian conservation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Robert Fisher, Phil Spinks, and past and present members of the Shaffer Lab for help with field collections and analysis, and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife for permits. Grants from the National Science Foundation (DEB 1257648), US Fish and Wildlife Service (F16PX02290), the Natural Communities Coalition of Orange County (16-12), UCLA Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, UCLA La Kretz Center for California Conservation Science, and Sea and Sage Audubon provided support to KMN and HBS.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Supplementary material

10592_2018_1066_MOESM1_ESM.docx (344 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 344 KB)
10592_2018_1066_MOESM2_ESM.docx (550 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 550 KB)
10592_2018_1066_MOESM3_ESM.docx (861 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (DOCX 861 KB)
10592_2018_1066_MOESM4_ESM.xlsx (29 kb)
Supplementary material 4 (XLSX 28 KB)
10592_2018_1066_MOESM5_ESM.xlsx (28 kb)
Supplementary material 5 (XLSX 28 KB)

References

  1. Bauder ET, McMillan S (1998) Current distribution and historical extent of vernal pools in southern California and northern Baja California, Mexico. In: Ecology, Conservation and Management of Vernal Pool Ecosystems–Proceedings from a 1996 Conference. California Native Plant Society, SacramentoGoogle Scholar
  2. Beugin M-P, Gayet T, Pontier D et al (2018) A fast likelihood solution to the genetic clustering problem. Methods Ecol Evol.  https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12968 PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Boria RA, Olson LE, Goodman SM, Anderson RP (2014) Spatial filtering to reduce sampling bias can improve the performance of ecological niche models. Ecol Model 275:73–77.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2013.12.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bouckaert R, Heled J, Kühnert D et al (2014) BEAST 2: a software platform for bayesian evolutionary analysis. PLoS Comput Biol 10:e1003537.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003537 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Bryant D, Moulton V (2004) Neighbor-net: an agglomerative method for the construction of phylogenetic networks. Mol Biol Evol 21:255–265.  https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msh018 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Buseck R, Keinath D, Geraud M (2005) Species assessment for great basin spadefoot toad (Spea intermontana) in wyoming. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  7. Castellanos-Morales G, Gutiérrez-Guerrero YT, Gámez N, Eguiarte LE (2016) Use of molecular and environmental analyses for integrated in situ and ex situ conservation: the case of the Mexican prairie dog. Biol Conserv 204:284–295.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.10.036 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Crandall KA, Bininda-Emonds ORP, Mace GM, Wayne RK (2000) Considering evolutionary processes in conservation biology. Trends Ecol Evol 15:290–295.  https://doi.org/10.1016/s0169-5347(00)01876-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Darriba D, Taboada GL, Doallo R, Posada D (2012) jModelTest 2: more models, new heuristics and parallel computing. Nat Methods 9:772.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.2109 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. de Queiroz K (2007) Species concepts and species delimitation. Syst Biol 56:879–886.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10635150701701083 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Dellicour S, Mardulyn P (2014) SPADS 1.0: a toolbox to perform spatial analyses on DNA sequence data sets. Mol Ecol Resour 14:647–651.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.12200 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Diffenbaugh NS, Swain DL, Touma D (2015) Anthropogenic warming has increased drought risk in California. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 112:3931–3936.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1422385112 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Dupanloup I, Schneider S, Excoffier L (2002) A simulated annealing approach to define the genetic structure of populations. Mol Ecol 11:2571–2581.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-294X.2002.01650.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Earl DA, vonHoldt BM (2012) STRUCTURE HARVESTER: a website and program for visualizing STRUCTURE output and implementing the Evanno method. Conserv Genet Resour 4:359–361.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12686-011-9548-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Edgar RC (2004) MUSCLE: a multiple sequence alignment method with reduced time and space complexity. BMC Bioinform 5:113.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-5-113 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Evanno G, Regnaut S, Goudet J (2005) Detecting the number of clusters of individuals using the software structure: a simulation study. Mol Ecol 14:2611–2620.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2005.02553.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Falush D, Stephens M, Pritchard JK (2003) Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data: linked loci and correlated allele frequencies. Genetics 164:1567–1587PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Feinberg JA, Newman CE, Watkins-Colwell GJ et al (2014) Cryptic diversity in metropolis: confirmation of a new leopard frog species (Anura: Ranidae) from New York City and surrounding atlantic coast regions. PLoS ONE 9:e108213.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0108213 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Feldman CR, Spicer GS (2006) Comparative phylogeography of woodland reptiles in California: repeated patterns of cladogenesis and population expansion. Mol Ecol 15:2201–2222.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2006.02930.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Fisher RN, Shaffer HB (1996) The decline of amphibians in California’s Great Central Valley. Conserv Biol 10:1387–1397.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.1996.10051387.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fontanella FM, Feltrin N, Avila LJ et al (2012) Early stages of divergence: phylogeography, climate modeling, and morphological differentiation in the South American lizard Liolaemus petrophilus (Squamata: Liolaemidae). Ecol Evol 2:792–808.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.78 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. Fraser DJ, Bernatchez L (2001) Adaptive evolutionary conservation: towards a unified concept for defining conservation units. Mol Ecol 10:2741–2752.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0962-1083.2001.01411.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. García-París M, Buchholz DR, Parra-Olea G (2003) Phylogenetic relationships of pelobatoidea re-examined using mtDNA. Mol Phylogenet Evol 28:12–23.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1055-7903(03)00036-8 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Gompert Z, Forister ML, Fordyce JA, Nice CC (2008) Widespread mito-nuclear discordance with evidence for introgressive hybridization and selective sweeps in Lycaeides. Mol Ecol 17:5231–5244.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2008.03988.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Good JM, Vanderpool D, Keeble S, Bi K (2015) Negligible nuclear introgression despite complete mitochondrial capture between two species of chipmunks. Evolution 69:1961–1972.  https://doi.org/10.1111/evo.12712 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Gottscho AD (2016) Zoogeography of the San Andreas Fault system: great Pacific Fracture Zones correspond with spatially concordant phylogeographic boundaries in western North America. Biol Rev 91:235–254.  https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12167 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Gutiérrez-Tapia P, Palma RE (2016) Integrating phylogeography and species distribution models: cryptic distributional responses to past climate change in an endemic rodent from the central Chile hotspot. Divers Distrib 22:638–650.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12433 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Hijmans RJ, Cameron SE, Parra JL et al (2005) Very high resolution interpolated climate surfaces for global land areas. Int J Climatol 25:1965–1978.  https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.1276 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hijmans RJ, Phillips S, Elith JL and J (2017) dismo: Species Distribution Modeling. R package version 1.1-4. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=dismo
  30. Hoisington-Lopez JL, Waits LP, Sullivan J (2012) Species limits and integrated taxonomy of the Idaho ground squirrel (Urocitellus brunneus): genetic and ecological differentiation. J Mammal 93:589–604.  https://doi.org/10.1644/11-MAMM-A-021.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Huson DH (1998) SplitsTree: analyzing and visualizing evolutionary data. Bioinformatics 14:68–73.  https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/14.1.68 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Ikeda DH, Max TL, Allan GJ et al (2017) Genetically informed ecological niche models improve climate change predictions. Glob Change Biol 23:164–176.  https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13470 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. IUCN (2017). The IUCN red list of threatened species. Version 2017-3. http://www.iucnredlist.org
  34. Jennings MR, Hayes MP (1994) Amphibian and reptile species of special concern in California. California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division, Rancho CordovaGoogle Scholar
  35. Jombart T (2008) adegenet: an R package for the multivariate analysis of genetic markers. Bioinformatics 24:1403–1405.  https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btn129 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Jombart T, Kamvar ZN, Collins C et al (2018) adegenet: Exploratory Analysis of Genetic and Genomic Data. R package version 2.1.1. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=adegenet
  37. Kalkvik HM, Stout IJ, Doonan TJ, Parkinson CL (2012) Investigating niche and lineage diversification in widely distributed taxa: phylogeography and ecological niche modeling of the Peromyscus maniculatus species group. Ecography 35:54–64.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0587.2011.06994.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kearse M, Moir R, Wilson A et al (2012) Geneious basic: an integrated and extendable desktop software platform for the organization and analysis of sequence data. Bioinformatics 28:1647–1649.  https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/bts199 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. Kluge AG (1966) A new pelobatine frog from the Lower Miocene of South Dakota with a discussion of the evolution of the Scaphiopus-Spea complex. Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  40. Kopelman NM, Mayzel J, Jakobsson M et al (2015) Clumpak: a program for identifying clustering modes and packaging population structure inferences across K. Mol Ecol Resour 15:1179–1191.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.12387 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. Leavitt DH, Marion AB, Hollingsworth BD, Reeder TW (2017) Multilocus phylogeny of alligator lizards (Elgaria, Anguidae): Testing mtDNA introgression as the source of discordant molecular phylogenetic hypotheses. Mol Phylogenet Evol 110:104–121.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2017.02.010 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Librado P, Rozas J (2009) DnaSP v5: a software for comprehensive analysis of DNA polymorphism data. Bioinformatics 25:1451–1452.  https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btp187 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Marshall DC, Hill KBR, Cooley JR, Simon C (2011) Hybridization, mitochondrial DNA phylogeography, and prediction of the early stages of reproductive isolation: lessons from New Zealand Cicadas (Genus Kikihia). Syst Biol 60:482–502.  https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syr017 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. May SE, Medley KA, Johnson SA, Hoffman EA (2011) Combining genetic structure and ecological niche modeling to establish units of conservation: a case study of an imperiled salamander. Biol Conserv 144:1441–1450.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2011.01.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. McCormack JE, Zellmer AJ, Knowles LL (2010) Does niche divergence accompany allopatric divergence in Aphelocoma jays as predicted under ecological speciation?: insights from tests with niche models. Evolution 64:1231–1244.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.2009.00900.x PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Miller MA, Pfeiffer W, Schwartz T (2010) Creating the CIPRES Science Gateway for inference of large phylogenetic trees. Gateway Computing Environments Workshop (GCE) 2010. pp 1–8Google Scholar
  47. Morey SR (1998) Pool duration influences age and body mass at metamorphosis in the western spadefoot toad: implications for vernal pool conservation. In Ecology, Conservation, and Management of Vernal Pool Ecosystems—Proceedings from a 1996 Conference. California Native Plant Society, SacramentoGoogle Scholar
  48. Moritz C, Funk V, Sakai AK (2002) Strategies to protect biological diversity and the evolutionary processes that sustain it. Syst Biol 51:238–254.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10635150252899752 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Ogilvie HA, Bouckaert RR, Drummond AJ (2017) StarBEAST2 brings faster species tree inference and accurate estimates of substitution rates. Mol Biol Evol 34:2101–2114.  https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msx126 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  50. Phillips SJ, Dudík M (2008) Modeling of species distributions with Maxent: new extensions and a comprehensive evaluation. Ecography 31:161–175.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0906-7590.2008.5203.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rambaut A, Drummond A (2003) Tracer: a program for analysing results from Bayesian MCMC programs such as BEAST & MrBayes. http://tree.bio.ed.ac.uk/software/tracer/
  52. Revell LJ (2017) phytools: phylogenetic Tools for Comparative Biology (and Other Things). R package version 0.6-44. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=phytools
  53. Rissler LJ, Apodaca JJ (2007) Adding more ecology into species delimitation: ecological niche models and phylogeography help define cryptic species in the black salamander (Aneides flavipunctatus). Syst Biol 56:924–942.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10635150701703063 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Rissler LJ, Hijmans RJ, Graham CH et al (2006) Phylogeographic lineages and species comparisons in conservation analyses: a case study of California herpetofauna. Am Nat 167:655–666CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Ronquist F, Teslenko M, Mark P, van der et al (2012) MrBayes 3.2: efficient bayesian phylogenetic inference and model choice across a large model space. Syst Biol 61:539–542.  https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/sys029 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  56. Schoener TW (1968) The anolis lizards of bimini: resource partitioning in a complex fauna. Ecology 49:704–726.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1935534 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Schwarz G (1978) Estimating the dimension of a model. Ann Stat 6:461–464.  https://doi.org/10.1214/aos/1176344136 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Shaffer HB, Thomson RC (2007) Delimiting species in recent radiations. Syst Biol 56:896–906.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10635150701772563 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Spinks PQ, Shaffer HB (2009) Conflicting mitochondrial and nuclear phylogenies for the widely disjunct Emys (Testudines: Emydidae) species complex, and what they tell us about biogeography and hybridization. Syst Biol 58:1–20.  https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syp005 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Spinks PQ, Thomson RC, Bradley Shaffer H (2010) Nuclear gene phylogeography reveals the historical legacy of an ancient inland sea on lineages of the western pond turtle, Emys marmorata in California. Mol Ecol 19:542–556.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2009.04451.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Stephens M, Smith NJ, Donnelly P (2001) A new statistical method for haplotype reconstruction from population data. Am J Hum Genet 68:978–989.  https://doi.org/10.1086/319501 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  62. Tanner VM (1939) A study of the genus Scaphiopus. Gt Basin Nat 1:3–20Google Scholar
  63. Thomson RC, Wright AN, Shaffer HB (2016) California amphibian and reptile species of special concern. UC Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  64. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2005) Recovery plan for vernal pool ecosystems of California and southern Oregon. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, PortlandGoogle Scholar
  65. Varela S, Anderson RP, García-Valdés R, Fernández-González F (2014) Environmental filters reduce the effects of sampling bias and improve predictions of ecological niche models. Ecography 37:1084–1091.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0587.2013.00441.x Google Scholar
  66. Warren D (2018) ENMTools R Package. GitHub repository: https://github.com/danlwarren/ENMTools
  67. Warren DL, Glor RE, Turelli M (2008) Environmental niche equivalency versus conservatism: quantitative approaches to niche evolution. Evolution 62:2868–2883.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.2008.00482.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Wiens JJ, Titus TA (1991) A phylogenetic analysis of Spea (Anura: Pelobatidae). Herpetologica 47:21–28.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3892812 Google Scholar
  69. Zieliński P, Nadachowska-Brzyska K, Wielstra B et al (2013) No evidence for nuclear introgression despite complete mtDNA replacement in the Carpathian newt (Lissotriton montandoni). Mol Ecol 22:1884–1903.  https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.12225 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, La Kretz Center for California Conservation Science, and Institute of the Environment and SustainabilityUniversity of CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA
  2. 2.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyCornell UniversityIthacaUSA

Personalised recommendations