Advertisement

Conservation Genetics

, Volume 20, Issue 2, pp 153–166 | Cite as

Implications of introgression for wildlife translocations: the case of North American martens

  • Jocelyn P. ColellaEmail author
  • Robert E. Wilson
  • Sandra L. Talbot
  • Joseph A. Cook
Research Article

Abstract

The evolutionary consequences of natural introgression provide a rare opportunity to retrospectively evaluate how the introduction of exotics or genetic rescue efforts may impact endemic faunas. Phylogeographic structure among mainland, endemic insular, and introduced North American marten (Martes americana and M. caurina) populations have been shaped by a complex history of natural, post-glacial population expansion followed by a series of anthropogenic introductions. In some cases, both natural colonization and translocations facilitated secondary contact, offering a series of replicated experiments that demonstrate how introgression, in these cases following isolation (insular and refugial), shapes genetic diversity. We test whether genetic exchange is occurring between North American marten species using mitochondrial genomes and ten nuclear loci. We present evidence of biased nuclear introgression from M. caurina into M. americana across two natural hybrid zones (insular and mainland) and found no remnant evidence of M. caurina on islands that received M. americana translocations, suggesting prior absence, potential extirpation, or genetic swamping of M. caurina from these islands. Our results highlight the importance of understanding phylogeographic variation prior to identifying source populations for wildlife translocations and caution the use of genetic rescue for North American marten populations. Although previously managed as a single species, these two species show substantial genetic divergence. When the two are placed into contact, they exhibit unidirectional, asymmetric introgression with potentially negative consequences for M. caurina, underscoring the value of mindful consideration of introgression in wildlife management.

Keywords

Asymmetric introgression Genetics Hybridization Introductions Islands Marten 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Sarah Sonsthagen for streamlining MiSeq protocols at the U.S. Geological Survey, Alaska Science Center; Haven Shaginoff and Aaron Cde Baca for lab assistance; Travis Burkhard for computational support; Barbara Deshler for independent reviews; Alaska and British Columbia trappers, Nikolai Dokuchaev, Natalie Dawson, Melissa Fleming, and Anson Koehler for coordinating specimen acquisition; and our funding sources, including: the American Society of Mammalogists Grant-in-Aid, the UNM Biology Graduate Student Association, U.S. Geological Survey, and NSF-DEB 1258010 for support. This research used resources provided by the Center for Advanced Research Computing (CARC) at the University of New Mexico and the Core Science Analytics, Synthesis, and Libraries (CSASL) Advanced Research Computing (ARC) group at the U.S. Geological Survey. 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_2018_1120_MOESM1_ESM.docx (14 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 13 KB)
10592_2018_1120_MOESM2_ESM.docx (4.4 mb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 4486 KB)

References

  1. Anderson E (1948) Hybridization of the habitat. Evolution 2:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barton NH (2005) Fitness landscapes and the origin of species. Evolution 59:246–248Google Scholar
  3. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Buerkle CA (2005) Maximum-likelihood estimation of a hybrid index based on molecular markers. Mol Ecol Notes 5:684–687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carrara P, Ager TA, Baichtal JF (2007) Possible refugia in the Alexander Archipelago of southeastern Alaska during the late Wisconsin glaciation. Can J Earth Sci 44:229–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chesters D (2013) Collapsetypes.pl. https://sourceforge.net/projects/collapsetypes/files/
  7. Colbeck G, Gibbs H, Marra P et al (2008) Phylogeography of a widespread North American migratory song bird (Setophaga ruticilla). J Hered 99:453–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Colella JP, Pierson BJ, Wilson RA, Talbot SL (2018) Sequence information from the mitogenome and ten nuclear genes from Martes species (Martes americana, M. caurina) of North America, 1972–2010: U.S. Geol Surv Data Release.  https://doi.org/10.5066/P9V1L0SI Google Scholar
  9. Cook JA, Dawson NG, MacDonald SO (2006) Conservation of highly fragmented systems: the northerntemperate Alexander Archipelago. Biol Conserv 133:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Darriba D, Taboada GL, Doallo R, Posada D (2012) jModelTest 2: more models, new heuristics and parallel computing. Nat Methods 9:772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dawson N, Cook JA (2012) Behind the genes: diversification of North American Martens (Martes americana and M. caurina). In: Aubry KB, Zielinski WJ, Raphael MG, Proulx G, Buskirk SW (eds.) Biology and conservation of martens, sables, and fishers: a new synthesis, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, pp 23–38Google Scholar
  12. Dawson NG, Colella JP, Small MP et al (2017) Historical biogeography sets the foundation for contemporary conservation of martens (genus Martes) in northwestern North America. J Mammal 98:715–730CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dobzhansky T (1937) Genetics and the origin of species. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Drummond A, Suchard MA, Xie D, Rambaut A (2012) Bayesian phylogenetics with BEAUti and the BEAST 1.7. Mol Biol Evol 29:1969–1973CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Edgar RC (2004) MUSCLE: multiple sequence alignment with high accuracy and high throughput. Nucleic Acids Res 32:1792–1797CrossRefGoogle 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 14:2611–2620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Excoffier L, Lischer HEL (2010) Arlequin suite v3.5: a new series of programs to perform population genetics analysis under Linux and Windows. Mol Ecol Resour 10:564–567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Frankham R (1998) Inbreeding and extinction: island populations. Conserv Biol 12:665–675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Frankham R (2005) Genetics and extinction. Biol Conserv 126:131–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fu YX (1997) Statistical tests of neutrality of mutation against population growth, hitchhiking and background selection. Genetics 147:915–925Google Scholar
  21. Gese E, Knowlton FF, Adams JR et al (2015) Managing hybridization of a recovering endangered species: the red wolf (Canis rufus) as a case study. Curr Zool 61:191–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gompert Z, Buerkle CA (2009) A powerful regression-based method for admixture mapping of isolation across the genome of hybrids. Mol Ecol 18:1207–1224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gompert Z, Buerkle CA (2010) Introgress: a software package for mapping components of isolation in hybrids. Mol Ecol Resour 10:378–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Grauer J, Gilbert J, Woodford J et al (2017) Unexpected genetic composition of a reintroduced carnivore population. Biol Conserv 215:246–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Haig SM, Allendorf FW (2006) Hybrids and policy. In: Scott JM, Goble DD, Davis F (eds.) The endangered species act at thirty: conserving biodiversity in human-dominated landscapes, Island Press. Chicago, pp 150–163Google Scholar
  26. Hanski I (2005) The shrinking world: ecological consequences of habitat loss. International Ecology Institute, Oldendorf/LuheGoogle Scholar
  27. Heaton TD, Grady F (2003) The late Wisconsin vertebrate history of Prince of Wales Island, Southeast Alaska. In: Schubert BW, Mead JI, Graham RW (eds.) Ice age cave faunas of North America, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, pp 17–53Google Scholar
  28. Heaton TH, Talbot SL, Shields GF (1996) An ice age refugium for large mammals in the Alexander Archipelago, Southeastern Alaska. Quat Res 46:186–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Heled J, Drummond AJ (2008) Bayesian inference of population size history from multiple loci. BMC Evol Biol 8:289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Heled J, Drummond AJ (2010) Bayesian inference of species trees from multilocus data. Mol Biol Evol 27:570–580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hey J (2005) On the number of New World founders: a population genetic portrait of the peopling of the Americas. PLoS Biol 3:965–975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hey J (2010) Isolation with migration models for more than two populaions. Molec Biol Evol 27:905–920CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hey J, Nielsen R (2007) Integration with the Felsenstein equation for improved Markov chain Monte Carlo methods in population genetics. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 104:2785–2790CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hoberg EP, Koehler AVA, Cook JA (2012) Complex host-parasite systems in Martes implications for conservation biology of endemic faunas. In: Aubry KB, Zielinski WJ, Raphael MG, Proulx G, Buskirk SW (eds.) Biology and conservation of martens, sables, and fishers: a new synthesis, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, pp 39–57Google Scholar
  35. Hope AG, Ho SYW, Malaney JL et al (2014) Accounting for rate variation among lineages in comparative demographic analyses. Evolution 68–9:2689–2700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hubbs CL (1955) Hybridization between fishes in nature. Syst Zool 4:1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Johnson CA, Fryxell JM, Thompson ID, Baker JA (2009) Mortality risk increases with natal dispersal distance in American martens. P R Soc Lond B 276:3361–3367.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2008.1958 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Jombart T (2008) Adegenet: a R package for multivariate analysis of genetic markers. Bioinformatics 24:1403–1405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Jombart T, Ahmed I (2011) Adegenet 1.3-1: new tools for the analysis of genome-wide SNP data. Bioinformatics 27:3070–3071CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Jombart T, Collins C (2015) A tutorial for discriminant analysis of principal components (DAPC) using adegenet 2.0.0. http://adegenet.r-forge.r-project.org/files/tutorial-dapc-pdf
  41. Jombart T, Devillard S, Balloux F (2010) Discriminant analysis of principal components: a new method for the analysis of genetically structured populations. BMC Genet 11:94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Keyghobadi N (2007) The genetic implications of habitat fragmentation for animals. J Zool 85:1049–1064Google Scholar
  44. Kohn BE, Eckstein RG (1987) Status of marten in Wisconsin, 1985. Department of Natural Resources 143, MadisonGoogle Scholar
  45. Krohn W (2012) Distribution changes of American martens and fishers in eastern North America, 1699-2001. In: Aubry KB, Zielinski WJ, Raphael MG, Proulx G, Buskirk SW (eds.) Biology and conservation of martens, sables, and fishers: a new synthesis, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, pp 58–73Google Scholar
  46. Kurtén B, Anderson E (1980) Pleistocene mammals of North America. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  47. Lande R (1993) Risks of population extinction from demographic and environmental stochasticity and random catastrophes. Am Nat 142:911–927CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lavretsky P, Peters J, Winker K et al (2016) Becoming pure: identifying generational classes of admixed individuals within lesser and greater scaup populations. Mol Ecol 25:661–674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Librado P, Rozas J (2009) DNAsp v5: a software for comprehensive analysis of DNA polymorphism data. Bioinformatics 25:1451–1452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Linnell MA, Moriarty K, Green DS, Levi T (2018) Density and population viability of coastal marten: a rare and geographically isolated small carnivore. PeerJ 6:e4530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Liu L, Yu L, Edwards SV (2010) A maximum pseudo-likelihood approach for estimating species trees under the coalescent model. BMC Evol Biol 10:302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Medrano J, Aasen E, Sharrow L (1990) DNA extraction from nucleated red blood cells. Biotechniques 8:43Google Scholar
  53. Merriam CH (1890) Descriptions of twenty-six new species of North American mammals. N Am Fauna 1890:1–55Google Scholar
  54. Milián-García Y, Ramos-Targarona R, Pérez-Fleitas E et al (2015) Genetic evidence of hybridization between the critically endangered Cuban crocodile and the American crocodile: implications for population history and in situ/ex situ conservation. Heredity 114:272–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Nielsen R, Wakeley J (2001) Distinguishing migration from isolation: a Markov chain Monte Carlo approach. Genetics 158:885–896Google Scholar
  56. Paradis E (2010) pegas: an R package for population genetics with an integrated-modular approach. Bioinformatics 26:419–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Pauli J, Moss W, Manlick P et al (2015) Examining the uncertain origin and management role of martens on Prince of Wales Island, Alaska. Conserv Biol 29:1257–1267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Powell RA, Lewis JC, Slough BG et al (2012) Evaluating translocations of martens, sables, and fishers: testing model predictions with field data. In: Aubry KB, Zielinski WJ, Raphael MG, Proulx G, Buskirk SW (eds.) Biology and conservation of martens, sables, and fishers: a new synthesis, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, p 536Google Scholar
  59. Rambaut A (2012) FigTree v1.4. http://tree.bio.ed.ac.uk/software/figtree/. Accessed Jan 2018
  60. Rambaut A, Suchard MA, Xie D, Drummond AJ (2014) Tracer v1.6. http://beast.community/tracer
  61. Ramos-Onsins SE, Rozas J (2002) Statistical properties of new neutrality tests against population growth. Mol Biol Evol 19:2092–2100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Raymond M, Rousset F (1995) GENEPOP Version 1.2: population genetics software for exact tests and ecumenicism. J Hered 86:248–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Rhymer JM, Simberloff D (1996) Extinction by hybridization and introgression. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 27:83–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Rodriguez D, Forstner M, Moler P et al (2011) Effect of human-mediated migration and hybridization on the recovery of the American crocodile in Florida (USA). Conserv Genet 12:449–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Ronquist F, Huelsenbeck JP (2003) MrBayes 3: Bayesian phylogenetic inference under mixed models. Bioinformatics 19:1572–1574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Rousset F (2008) genepop’007: a complete re-implementation of the genepop software for Windows and Linux. Mol Ecol Resour 8:103–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Schilthuizen M, Giesbers MCWG, Beukeboon LW (2011) Haldane’s rule in the 21st century. Heredity 107:95–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Sethuraman A, Hey J (2016) Parallel MCMC and inference of ancient demography under the Isolation with Migration (IM) model. Mol Ecol Resour 16:206–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Shull GH (1948) What is “heterosis”? Genetics 33:439Google Scholar
  70. Slauson KM, Baldwin JA, Zielinski WJ (2012) Occupancy estimation and modeling in Martes research and monitoring. In: Aubry KB, Zielinski WJ, Raphael MG, Proulx G, Buskirk SW (eds.) Biology and conservation of martens, sables, and fishers: a new synthesis. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, pp 343–368Google Scholar
  71. Small MP, Stone KD, Cook JA (2003) American marten (Martes americana) in the Pacific Northwest: population differentiation across a landscape fragmented in time and space. Mol Ecol 12:89–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Sonsthagen SA, Talbot SL, White CM (2004) Gene flow and genetic characterization of northern goshawks breeding in Utah. The Condor 106:826–836CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Soulé ME (1987) Where do we go from here? In: Viable populations for conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 175–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Stamatakis A (2014) RAxML Version 8: a tool for phylogenetic analysis and post-analysis of large phylogenies. Bioinformatics 30:1312–11313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Stephens M, Smith N, Donnelly P (2001) A new statistical method for haplotype reconstruction from population data. Am J Hum Genet 68:978–989CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Stewart FE, Volpe JP, Taylor JS et al (2017) Distinguishing reintroduction from recolonization with genetic testing. Biol Conserv 214:242–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Stone KD, Cook JA (2002) Molecular evolution of Holarctic martens (genus Martes, Mammalia: Carnivora: Mustelidae). Mol Phylogenet Evol 24:169–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Stone KD, Flynn RW, Cook JA (2002) Post-glacial colonization of northwestern North America by the forest-associated American marten (Martes americana, Mammalia: Carnivora: Mustelidae). Mol Ecol 11:2049–2063CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Swenson NG, Howard DJ (2005) Clustering of contact zones, hybrid zones, and phylogeographic breaks in North America. Am Nat 166:581–591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Tajima F (1989) Statistical method for testing the neutral mutation hypothesis by DNA polymorphism. Genetics 123:585–595Google Scholar
  81. Tamura K, Stecher G, Peterson D et al (2013) MEGA6: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis version 6.0. Mol Biol Evol 30:2725–2729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Teeter K, Payseur B, Harris L et al (2008) Genome-wide patterns of gene flow across a house mouse hybrid zone. Genome Res 18:67–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Thomas M, Roemer G, Donlan J et al (2013) Ecology: Gene tweaking for conservation. Nature 501:485–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Todesco M, Pascual MA, Owens GL et al (2016) Hybridization and extinction. Evol Appl 9:892–908CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Turton W (1806) A general system of nature, through the three grand kingdoms of animals, vegetables, and minerals. Lackington and Allen, London, United Kingdom. Natl Union Catalog 605:388Google Scholar
  86. USDA (U. S. Department of Agriculture) (2007a) Kuiu timber sale area record of decision. Tongass National Forest Report R10-MB-620. Tongass National Forest, Ketchikan, Alaska. https://www.fs.usda.gov/nfs/11558/www/nepa/3332_FSPLT1_017178.pdf
  87. USDA (U. S. Department of Agriculture) (2007b) Kuiu timber sale area final environmental impact statement. Tongass National Forest Report R10-MB-604. Tongass National Forest, Ketchikan, Alaska. https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=AYs2AQAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&output=reader&hl=en&pg=GBS.PP1
  88. vonHoldt BM, Cahill J, Fan Z, Gronau I, Robinson J, Pollinger JP, Shapiro B, Wall J, Wayne RK (2016) Whole-genome sequence analysis shows that two endemic species of North American wolf are admixtures of the coyote and gray wolf. Sci Adv 2:e1501714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Williams BW, Gilbert JH, Zollner PA (2007) Historical Perspective on the Reintroduction of the Fisher and American Marten in Wisconsin and Michigan. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station, Newtown SquareCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Wisely SM, Santymire RM, Livieri TM, Meuting SA, Howard J (2008) Genotypic and phenotypic consequences of reintroduction history in the black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes). Conserv Genet 9:389–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Woerner AE, Cox MP, Hammer MF (2007) Recombination-filtered genomic datasets by information maximization. Bioinformatics 23:1851–1853CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Wright PL (1953) Intergradation between Martes americana and Martes caurina in Western Montana. J Mammal 34:74–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biology and Museum of Southwestern Biology1 University of New MexicoAlbuquerqueUSA
  2. 2.U.S. Geological SurveyAlaska Science CenterAnchorageUSA

Personalised recommendations