Landscape Ecology

, Volume 31, Issue 10, pp 2231–2244 | Cite as

Altered functional connectivity and genetic diversity of a threatened salamander in an agroecosystem

  • John A. Crawford
  • William E. Peterman
  • Andrew R. Kuhns
  • Lori S. Eggert
Research Article

Abstract

Context

Amphibian metapopulations have become increasingly fragmented in the Midwestern United States, with wetland-breeding salamanders being especially dependent on intact, high-quality forested landscapes. However, the degree to which amphibian populations are isolated, the factors that influence dispersal and, ultimately, functional connectivity remain areas in need of investigation.

Objectives and methods

We combined population demographic and genetic approaches to assess how a landscape fragmented by agriculture influences functional connectivity and metapopulation dynamics of a locally threatened salamander (Ambystoma jeffersonianum).

Results

We found that the allelic richness and heterozygosity of this species was significantly related to the level of connectivity with other occupied breeding wetlands and that decreased connectivity resulted in increased genetic differentiation. We also found that effective population size appears to be declining and, while correlative, our focal landscape has experienced significant losses of forested upland habitats and potential wetland breeding habitats over the last 200 years.

Conclusions

By combining population and landscape genetic analyses with an assessment of regional wetland occupancy, our study has uniquely synthesized genetic and metapopulation processes, while also incorporating the effects of the landscape matrix on dispersal, connectivity, and population differentiation. The significant relationship between connectivity with heterozygosity, allelic richness, and genetic divergence observed in this study reinforces empirical observations of long distance dispersal and movements in ambystomatid salamanders. However, our results show that protection of core habitat around isolated wetlands may not sufficiently minimize genetic differentiation among populations and preserve critical genetic diversity that may be essential for the long-term persistence of local populations.

Keywords

Agriculture Ambystoma jeffersonianum Dispersal Fragmentation Metapopulation Wetland 

Supplementary material

10980_2016_394_MOESM1_ESM.docx (37 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 37 kb)

References

  1. Bates DM, Maechler M, Bolker BM, Walker S (2014) lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R package version 1.1-6. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4
  2. Beerli P, Felsenstein J (1999) Maximum-likelihood estimation of migration rates and effective population numbers in two populations using a coalescent approach. Genetics 152:763–773PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Beerli P, Felsenstein J (2001) Maximum likelihood estimation of a migration matrix and effective population sizes in n subpopulations by using a coalescent approach. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:4563–4568CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Bishop SC (1941) The salamanders of New York. N Y State Mus Bull 324:134–154Google Scholar
  5. Brodman R (2005) Ambystoma jeffersonianum species account. In: Lannoo MJ (ed) Amphibian declines: the conservation status of United States species. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp 611–613Google Scholar
  6. Brown JH, Kodric-Brown A (1977) Turnover rates in insular biogeography: effect of immigration on extinction. Ecology 58:445–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clarke RT, Rothery P, Raybould AF (2002) Confidence limits for regression relationships between distance matrices: estimating gene flow with distance. J Agric Biol Environ Stat 7:361–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clobert J, Baguette M, Benton TG, Bullock JM (eds) (2012) Dispersal ecology and evolution. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  9. Cosentino BJ, Phillips CA, Schooley RL, Lowe WH, Douglas MR (2011) Linking extinction–colonization dynamics to genetic structure in a salamander metapopulation. Proc R Soc B 279:1575–1582CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Cushman SA (2006) Effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on amphibians: a review and prospectus. Biol Conserv 128:231–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eckert CG, Samis KE, Lougheed SC (2008) Genetic variation across species’ geographical ranges: the central–marginal hypothesis and beyond. Mol Ecol 17:1170–1188CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Excoffier L, Laval G, Schneider S (2005) Arlequin version 3.0: an integrated software package for population genetics data analysis. Evol Bioinform Online 1:47–50Google Scholar
  13. Faccio SD (2003) Postbreeding emigration and habitat use by Jefferson and spotted salamanders in Vermont. J Herpetol 37:479–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Funk WC, Tallmon DA, Allendorf FW (1999) Small effective population size in the long-toed salamander. Mol Ecol 8:1633–1640CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Gamble LR, McGarigal K, Compton BW (2007) Fidelity and dispersal in the pond-breeding amphibian, Ambystoma opacum: implications for spatio-temporal population dynamics and conservation. Biol Conserv 139:247–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gibbs JP (2001) Demography versus habitat fragmentation as determinants of genetic variation in wild populations. Biol Conserv 100:15–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Glaubitz JC (2004) Convert: a user-friendly program to reformat diploid genotypic data for commonly used population genetic software packages. Mol Ecol Notes 4:309–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Goldberg CS, Waits LP (2010) Comparative landscape genetics of two pond-breeding amphibian species in a highly modified agricultural landscape. Mol Ecol 19:3650–3663CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Goldstein DB, Linares AR, Cavallisforza LL, Feldman MW (1995) Genetic absolute dating based on microsatellites and the origin of modern humans. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 92:6723–6727CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Greenwald KR, Gibbs HL, Waite TA (2009a) Efficacy of land-cover models in predicting isolation of marbled salamander populations in a fragmented landscape. Conserv Biol 25:1232–1241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Greenwald KR, Purrenhage JL, Savage WK (2009b) Landcover predicts isolation in Ambystoma salamanders across region and species. Biol Conserv 142:2493–2500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hanski I (1994) A practical model of metapopulation dynamics. J Anim Ecol 63:151–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hanski I (1998) Metapopulation dynamics. Nature 396:41–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hanski I (ed) (1999) Metapopulation ecology. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  25. Hanski I, Gaggiotti OE (eds) (2004) Ecology, evolution, and genetics of metapopulations. Academic Press, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  26. Homan RN, Windmiller BS, Reed JM (2004) Critical thresholds associated with habitat loss for two vernal pool-breeding amphibians. Ecol Appl 14:1547–1553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Howes BJ, Brown JW, Gibbs HL, Herman TB, Mockford SW, Prior KA, Weatherhead PJ (2009) Directional gene flow patterns in disjunct populations of the black ratsnake (Pantheropis obsoletus) and the Blanding’s turtle (Emydoidea blandingii). Conserv Genet 10:407–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Illinois Department of Natural Resources (ed) (2006) The Illinois comprehensive wildlife conservation plan and strategy. Version 1.0. Springfield, IllinoisGoogle Scholar
  29. Illinois Department of Natural Resources, Illinois Natural History Survey (2003) Land cover of Illinois in the early 1800s, digital vector data. Version 6.0. Springfield, IllinoisGoogle Scholar
  30. Illinois Natural History Survey, Illinois State Geological Survey, Illinois Department of Natural Resources (1996) Critical trends assessment land cover database of Illinois, 1991–1995. Remote-sensing image. Champaign, IllinoisGoogle Scholar
  31. Julian SE, King TL, Savage WK (2003) Novel Jefferson salamander, Ambystoma jeffersonianum, microsatellite DNA markers detect population structure and hybrid complexes. Mol Ecol Notes 3:95–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Keyghobadi N, Roland J, Matter SF, Strobeck C (2005) Among- and within-patch components of genetic diversity respond at different rates to habitat fragmentation: an empirical demonstration. Proc R Soc B 272:553–560CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. Kolozsvary MB, Swihart RK (1999) Habitat fragmentation and the distribution of amphibians: patch and landscape correlates in farmland. Can J Zool 77:1288–1299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Laan R, Verboom B (1990) Effects of pool size and isolation on amphibian communities. Biol Conserv 54:251–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Manel S, Schwartz MK, Luikart G, Taberlet P (2003) Landscape genetics: combining landscape ecology and population genetics. Trends Ecol Evol 18:189–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Marsh DM, Trenham PC (2001) Metapopulation dynamics and amphibian conservation. Conserv Biol 15:40–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mazerolle MJ (2012) AICcmodavg: model selection and multimodel inference based on (Q) AIC (c). R package version 1.1.15Google Scholar
  38. McRae BH, Shah VB (2009) Circuitscape user’s guide. Online, The University of California, Santa Barbara. http://www.circuitscape.org
  39. Moilanen A, Nieminen M (2002) Simple connectivity measures in spatial ecology. Ecology 83:1131–1145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mullin SJ, Klueh S (2009) Demographics of a geographically isolated population of a threatened salamander (Caudata: Ambystomatidae) in central Illinois. Herpetol Conserv Biol 4:261–269Google Scholar
  41. O’Brien D, Manseau M, Fall A, Fortin MJ (2006) Testing the importance of spatial configuration of winter habitat for woodland caribou: an application of graph theory. Biol Conserv 130:70–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Peterman WE (2014) ResistanceGA: An R package for the optimization of resistance surfaces using genetic algorithms. bioRxiv. doi:10.1101/007575 Google Scholar
  43. Peterman WE, Anderson TL, Ousterhout BH, Drake DL, Semlitsch RD, Eggert LS (2015) Differential dispersal shapes population structure and patterns of genetic differentiation in two sympatric pond breeding salamanders. Conserv Genet 16:59–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Peterman WE, Connette GM, Semlitsch RD, Eggert LS (2014) Ecological resistance surfaces predict fine-scale genetic differentiation in a terrestrial woodland salamander. Mol Ecol 23:2402–2413CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Peterman WE, Connette GM, Spatola BN, Eggert LS, Semlitsch RD (2012) Identification of polymorphic loci in Ambystoma annulatum and review of cross-species microsatellite use in the genus Ambystoma. Copeia 2012:570–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Peterman WE, Crawford JA, Kuhns AR (2013a) Using species distribution and occupancy modeling to guide survey efforts and assess species status. J Nat Conserv 2:114–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Peterman WE, Feist SM, Semlitsch RD, Eggert LS (2013b) Temporal and spatial influences on the genetic structure of peripheral wood frog (Rana sylvatica) populations. Biol Conserv 158:351–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Peterman WE, Semlitsch RD (2013) Fine-scale habitat associations of a terrestrial salamander: the role of environmental gradients and implications for population dynamics. PLoS ONE 8:e62184CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  49. Petranka JW (ed) (1998) Salamanders of the United States and Canada. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  50. Porej D, Micacchion M, Hetherington TE (2004) Core terrestrial habitat for conservation of local populations of salamanders and wood frogs in agricultural landscapes. Biol Conserv 120:399–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Purrenhage JL, Niewiarowski PH, Moore FBG (2009) Population structure of spotted salamanders (Ambystoma maculatum) in a fragmented landscape. Mol Ecol 18:235–247CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. R Core Team (2015) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org/
  53. Raymond M, Rousset F (1995) GenePop (version 1.2): population genetics software for exact tests and ecumenicism. J Hered 86:248–249Google Scholar
  54. Reh W, Seitz A (1990) The influence of land use on the genetic structure of populations of the common frog (Rana temporaria). Biol Conserv 54:239–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Revilla E, Wiegand T, Palomares F, Ferreras P, Delibes M (2004) Effects of matrix heterogeneity on animal dispersal: from individual behavior to metapopulation-level parameters. Am Nat 164:E130–E153CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Richardson JL (2012) Divergent landscape effects on population connectivity in two co-occurring amphibian species. Mol Ecol 21:4437–4451CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Rothermel BB, Semlitsch RD (2006) Consequences of forest fragmentation for juvenile survival in spotted (Ambystoma maculatum) and marbled (Ambystoma opacum) salamanders. Can J Zool 84:797–807CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Saccheri I, Kuussaari M, Kankare M, Vikman P, Fortelius W, Hanski I (1998) Inbreeding and extinction in a butterfly metapopulation. Nature 392:491–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Scrucca L (2013) GA: a package for genetic algorithms in R. J Stat Softw 53:1–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Semlitsch RD (1998) Biological delineation of terrestrial buffer zones for pond-breeding salamanders. Conserv Biol 12:1113–1119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Semlitsch RD (2000) Principles for management of aquatic breeding amphibians. J Wildl Manag 64:615–631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Semlitsch RD (2008) Differentiating migration and dispersal processes for pond-breeding amphibians. J Wildl Manag 72:260–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Smith MA, Green DM (2005) Dispersal and the metapopulation paradigm in amphibian ecology and conservation: are all amphibian populations metapopulations? Ecography 28:110–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Stacey PB, Johnson VA, Taper ML (1997) Migration within metapopulations: the impact upon local population dynamics. In: Hanski IA, Gilpin ME (eds) Metapopulation biology. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 267–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Stevens VM, Leboulenge E, Wesselingh RA, Baguette M (2006a) Quantifying functional connectivity: experimental assessment of boundary permeability for the natterjack toad (Bufo calamita). Oecologia 150:161–171CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Stevens VM, Verkenne C, Vandewoestijne S, Wesselingh RA, Baguette M (2006b) Gene flow and functional connectivity in the natterjack toad. Mol Ecol 15:2333–2344CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Suloway L, Hubbell M (1994) Wetland resources of Illinois: an analysis and atlas. Ill Nat Hist Surv Spec Publ 15:1–88Google Scholar
  68. Tallmon DA, Koyuk A, Luikart G, Beaumont MA (2008) ONeSAMP: a program to estimate effective population size using approximate Bayesian computation. Mol Ecol Resour 8:299–301CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Taylor PD, Fahrig L, Henein K, Merriam G (1993) Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure. Oikos 68:571–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Van Buskirk J (2012) Permeability of the landscape matrix between amphibian breeding sites. Ecol Evol 2:3160–3167CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  71. van Etten J (2014) gdistance: Distances and routes on geographical grids. R package version 1.1-5. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=gdistance
  72. van Strien MJ, Keller D, Holderegger R (2012) A new analytical approach to landscape genetic modelling: least-cost transect analysis and linear mixed models. Mol Ecol 21:4010–4023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 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
  74. Weyrauch SL, Grubb TC Jr (2004) Patch and landscape characteristics associated with the distribution of woodland amphibians in an agricultural fragmented landscape: an information-theoretic approach. Biol Conserv 115:443–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Whiteley AR, Hastings K, Wenburg JK, Frissell CA, Martin JC, Allendorf FW (2010) Genetic variation and effective population size in isolated populations of coastal cutthroat trout. Conserv Genet 11:1929–1943CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Whiteley AR, McGarigal K, Schwartz MK (2014) Pronounced differences in genetic structure despite overall ecological similarity for two Ambystoma salamanders in the same landscape. Conserv Genet 15:573–591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Williams PK (1973) Seasonal movements and population dynamics of four sympatric mole salamanders, genus Ambystoma. Dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington, IndianaGoogle Scholar
  78. Zamudio KR, Wieczorek AM (2007) Fine-scale spatial genetic structure and dispersal among spotted salamander (Ambystoma maculatum) breeding populations. Mol Ecol 16:257–274CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. Zuckerberg B, Carling M, Dor R, Ferree E, Spellman G, Townsend A (2014) Differential relationships between habitat fragmentation and within-population genetic diversity of three forest-dwelling birds. bioRxiv. doi:10.1101/004903 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • John A. Crawford
    • 1
  • William E. Peterman
    • 2
    • 4
  • Andrew R. Kuhns
    • 3
  • Lori S. Eggert
    • 2
  1. 1.National Great Rivers Research and Education CenterEast AltonUSA
  2. 2.Division of Biological SciencesUniversity of MissouriColumbiaUSA
  3. 3.Illinois Natural History Survey, Prairie Research InstituteUniversity of IllinoisChampaignUSA
  4. 4.School of Environment and Natural ResourcesOhio State UniversityColumbusUSA

Personalised recommendations