Conservation Genetics

, Volume 4, Issue 3, pp 353–366 | Cite as

Genetic structure of mountain lion (Puma concolor) populations in California

  • Holly B. ErnestEmail author
  • Walter M. Boyce
  • Vernon C. Bleich
  • Bernie May
  • San J. Stiver
  • Steven G. Torres


Analysis of 12 microsatellite loci from431 mountain lions (Puma concolor)revealed distinct genetic subdivision that wasassociated with geographic barriers andisolation by distance in California. Levels ofgenetic variation differed among geographicregions, and mountain lions that inhabitedcoastal areas exhibited less heterozygositythan those sampled inland. The San FranciscoBay and Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, theCentral Valley, and the Los Angeles Basinappeared to be substantial barriers to geneflow, and allele frequencies of populationsseparated by those features differedsubstantially. A partial barrier to gene flowappeared to exist along the crest of the SierraNevada. Estimated gene flow was high amongmountain lions inhabiting the Modoc Plateau,the western Sierra Nevada, and northern sectionof the eastern Sierra Nevada. SouthernCalifornia mountain lion populations mayfunction as a metapopulation; however, humandevelopments threaten to eliminate habitat andmovement corridors. While north-south geneflow along the western Sierra Nevada wasestimated to be very high, projected loss andfragmentation of foothill habitat may reducegene flow and subdivide populations. Preservation of existing movement corridorsamong regions could prevent population declinesand loss of genetic variation. This studyshows that mountain lion management andconservation efforts should be individualizedaccording to region and incorporatelandscape-level considerations to protecthabitat connectivity.

cougar gene flow genetic subdivision microsatellite population structure 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anderson AE, Bowden DC, Kattner DM (1992) The puma on Uncompahgre plateau, Colorado. Col. Div. Wildl. Tech. Pub., 40, 1-116.Google Scholar
  2. Barone MA, Roelke ME, Howard JG, Brown JL, Anderson AE, Wildt DE (1994) Reproductive characteristics of male Florida panthers: Comparative studies from Florida, Texas, Colorado, Latin America, and North American zoos. J. Mammal., 75, 150-162.Google Scholar
  3. Beier P (1991) Cougar attacks on humans in the United States and Canada. Wildl. Soc. Bull., 19, 403-412.Google Scholar
  4. Beier P (1993) Determining minimum habitat areas and habitat corridors for cougars. Conserv. Biol., 7, 94-108.Google Scholar
  5. Beier P (1995) Dispersal of juvenile cougars in fragmented habitat. J. Wildl. Manage., 59, 228-237.Google Scholar
  6. Beier P (1996) Metapopulation models, tenacious tracking, and cougar conservation. In: Metapopulations and Wildlife Conser vation (ed. McCullough DR), pp. 293-323. Island Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  7. Berger J, Wehausen JD (1991) Consequences of a mammalian predator-prey disequilibrium in the Great Basin Desert. Conserv. Biol., 5, 244-248.Google Scholar
  8. Bleich VC, Wehausen JD, Ramey RR, II, Rechel JL (1996) Metapopulation theory and mountain sheep: Implications for conservation. In: Metapopulations and Wildlife Conservation (ed. McCullough DR), pp. 353-373. Island Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  9. Centers for Water and Wildland Resources, Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project (1996) Status Of The Sierra Nevada, Final Report To Congress: Summary. Wildland Resources Center Report Number 39, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources, 1323 Academic Surge, One Shields Ave, University of California, Davis. See also <> (visited Nov. 19, 2001).Google Scholar
  10. Culver M, Johnson WE, Pecon-Slattery J, O'Brien SJ (2000) Genomic ancestry of the American puma (Puma concolor). J. Hered., 91, 186-197.Google Scholar
  11. Ernest HB, Rubin ES, Boyce WM (2002) Fecal DNA analysis and risk assessment of mountain lion predation of bighorn sheep. J. Wildl. Manage., 66, 75-85.Google Scholar
  12. Ernest HB, Penedo MCT, May BP, Syvanen M, Boyce WM (2000) Molecular tracking of mountain lions in the Yosemite Valley region in California: Genetic analysis using microsatellites and faecal DNA. Mol. Ecol., 9, 433-441.Google Scholar
  13. Farquhar FP (1930) Up and down California in 1860–1864, The Journal of William H. Brewer, Professor of Agriculture in the Sheffield Scientific School from 1864 to 1903. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.Google Scholar
  14. Germaine SS, Bristow KD, Haynes LA (2000) Distribution and population status of mountain lions in southwestern Arizona. Southwestern Nat., 45, 333-338.Google Scholar
  15. Goudet J, Raymond M, De Meeüs T, Rousset F (1996) Testing differentiation in diploid populations. Genetics, 144, 1933-1940.Google Scholar
  16. Guo SW, Thompson EA (1992) Performing the exact test of Hardy-Weinberg proportions for multiple alleles. Biometrics, 48, 361-372.Google Scholar
  17. Hanski I, Gilpin M (1991) Metapopulation dynamics: Brief history and conceptual domain. Biol. J. Linn. Soc., 42, 3-16.Google Scholar
  18. Hanski I, Simberloff D (1997) The metapopulation approach. In: Metapopulation Biology: Ecology, Genetics, and Evolution (eds. Hanski IA, Gilpin ME), pp. 5-26. Academic Press, Inc. San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  19. Harrison S, Taylor AD (1997) Empirical evidence for metapopulation dynamics. In: Metapopulation Biology: Ecology, Genetics, and Evolution (eds. Hanski IA, Gilpin ME), pp. 27-42. Academic Press, Inc. San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  20. Hayes C, Rubin ES, Jorgensen MC, Botta RA, Boyce WM (2000) Mountain lion predation on bighorn sheep in the Peninsular Ranges, California. J. Wildl. Manage., 64, 954-959.Google Scholar
  21. Heeney JL, Evermann JF, McKeirnan AJ, Marker-Kraus L, Roelke ME, Bush M, Wildt DE, Meltzer DG, Colly L, Luca J, Manton VJ, Caro T, O'Brien SJ (1990) Prevalence and implications of feline coronavirus infections of captive and free-ranging cheetahs (Acinonyx jubatus). J. Virol., 64, 1964-1972.Google Scholar
  22. Heim M (2000) State predicts high growth for agricultural counties. Calif. Agric., 54, 3.Google Scholar
  23. Hickman JC (1993) Geographic subdivisions of California. In: The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California (ed. Hickman JC), pp. 37-48. University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  24. Jackson D, Spence ML (1980) The Expeditions of John Charles Frémont. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.Google Scholar
  25. Lande R, Barrowclough GF (1987) Effective population size, genetic variation, and their use in population management. In: Viable Populations for Conservation (ed. Soulé ME), pp 87-123. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  26. Logan KA, Sweanor LL (2001) Desert Puma: Evolutionary Ecology and Conservation of an Enduring Carnivore. Island Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  27. Longhurst WM, Leopold AS, Dasmann RF (1952) A survey of California deer herds: Their ranges and management problems. Calif. Department of Fish and Game, Game Bull., 6, 1-135.Google Scholar
  28. Mantel N (1967) The detection of disease clustering and a generalized regression approach. Cancer Res., 27, 209-220.Google Scholar
  29. Menotti-Raymond M, David VA, Lyons LA, Shäffer AA, Tomlin JF, Hutton MK, O'Brien SJ (1999) A genetic linkage map of microsatellites of the domestic cat (Felis catus). Genomics, 57, 9-23.Google Scholar
  30. Miller SA, Dykes DD, Polesky HF (1988) A simple salting out procedure for extracting DNA from human nucleated cells. Nucleic Acids Res., 16, 1215.Google Scholar
  31. Paetkou D, Calvert W, Stirling I, Strobeck C (1995) Microsatellite analysis of population structure in Canadian polar bears. Mol. Ecol., 4, 347-354.Google Scholar
  32. Penrod K (2000) Missing Linkages: Restoring Connectivity to the California Landscape. Proceedings of the Conference of November 2. San Diego Zoo, CA.Google Scholar
  33. Pierce BM, Bleich VC, Bowyer RT (2000a) Selection of mule deer by mountain lions and coyotes: Eeffects of hunting style, body size, and reproductive status. J. Mammal., 81, 462-472.Google Scholar
  34. Pierce BM, Bleich VC, Bowyer RT (2000b) Social organization of mountain lions: Does a land-tenure system regulate population size? Ecology, 81, 1533-1543.Google Scholar
  35. Pierce BM, Bleich VC, Wehausen JD, Bowyer RT (1999) Migratory patterns of mountain lions: Implications for social regulation and conservation. J. Mammal., 80, 986-992.Google Scholar
  36. Pritchard JK, Stephens M, Donnelly P (2000) Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data. Genetics, 155, 945-959.Google Scholar
  37. Raymond M, Rousset F (1995) GENEPOP (version 1.2)–population genetics software for exact tests and ecumenicism. J. Hered., 86, 248-249.Google Scholar
  38. Riley SJ, Malecki RA (2001) A landscape analysis of cougar distribution and abundance in Montana, USA. Environ. Manage., 28, 317-323.Google Scholar
  39. Rousset F (1997) Genetic differentiation and estimation of gene flow from F-statistics under isolation by distance. Genetics, 145, 1219-1228.Google Scholar
  40. Ruth RK, Logan KA, Sweanor LL, Hornocker Mg, Temple LJ (1998) Evaluating cougar translocation in New Mexico. J. Wildl. Manage., 62, 1264-1275.Google Scholar
  41. Salwasser H, Schonewald-Cox C, Baker R (1987) The role of interagency cooperation in managing for viable populations. In: Viable Populations for Conservation (ed. Soulé), pp. 159-173. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  42. Schaefer RJ, Torres SG, Bleich VC (2000) Survivorship and causespecific mortality in sympatric populations of mountain sheep and mule deer. Calif. Fish and Game, 86, 127-135.Google Scholar
  43. Schneider S, Roessli D, Excoffier L (2000) ARLEQUIN ver. 2.000 A Software for Population Genetics Data Analysis. Genetics and Biometry Laboratory, University of Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  44. Sinclair EA, Swenson EL, Wolfe ML, Choate DC, Bates B, Crandall KA (2001) Gene flow estimates in Utah's cougars imply management beyond Utah. Anim. Conserv., 4(PT3), 257-264.Google Scholar
  45. Sweanor LL, Logan KA, Hornocker MG (2000) Cougar dispersal patterns, metapopulation dynamics, and conservation. Conserv. Biol., 14, 798-808.Google Scholar
  46. Torres SG, Mansfield TM, Foley JE, Lupo T, Brinkhaus A (1996) Mountain lion and human activity in California: Testing speculations. Wildl. Soc. Bull., 24, 451-460.Google Scholar
  47. Turner JW Jr, Morrison ML (2001) Influence of predation by mountain lions on numbers and survivorship of a feral horse population. Southwestern Nat., 46, 183-190.Google Scholar
  48. US Fish and Wildlife Service (2000) Recovery plan for bighorn sheep in the Peninsular Ranges, California. US Fish andWildlife Service, Portland, Oregon, USA.Google Scholar
  49. Walker CW, Harveson LA, Pittman MT, Tewes ME, Honeycutt RL (2000) Microsatellite variation in two populations of mountain lions (Puma concolor) inTexas. Southwestern Nat., 45, 196-203.Google Scholar
  50. Walsh PS, Metzger DA, Higuchi R (1991) Chelex 100 as a medium for simple extraction of DNA for PCR-based typing from forensic material. BioTechniques, 10, 506-513.Google Scholar
  51. Wehausen JD (1996) Effects of mountain lion predation on bighorn sheep in the Sierra Nevada and Granite Mountains of California. Wildl. Soc. Bull., 24, 471-479.Google Scholar
  52. Weir BS (1996) Genetic Data Analysis II. Sinauer Associates, Inc. Publishers, Sunderland, MA.Google Scholar
  53. Wildt DE, Bush KL, Goodrowe KL, Packer C, Pusey AE, Brown JL, Joslin P, O'Brien SJ (1987) Reproductive and genetic consequences of founding isolated lion populations. Nature, 329, 328-331.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Holly B. Ernest
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Walter M. Boyce
    • 1
    • 2
  • Vernon C. Bleich
    • 3
    • 4
  • Bernie May
    • 4
  • San J. Stiver
    • 5
  • Steven G. Torres
    • 6
  1. 1.Department of Veterinary PathologyMicrobiology, and Immunology, University of CaliforniaDavisUSA
  2. 2.Wildlife Health CenterSchool of Veterinary Medicine, University of CaliforniaDavisUSA
  3. 3.Veterinary Genetics LaboratoryUniversity of CaliforniaDavisCA
  4. 4.Institute of Arctic Biology and Department of Biology and WildlifeUniversity of AlaskaFairbanksUSA
  5. 5.Nevada Division of WildlifeRenoUSA
  6. 6.California Department of Fish and GameSacramentoUSA

Personalised recommendations