4.5 Article

Genetic attributes of midwife toad (Alytes obstetricans) populations do not correlate with degree of species decline

期刊

ECOLOGY AND EVOLUTION
卷 3, 期 9, 页码 2806-2819

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ece3.677

关键词

Alytes obstetricans; genetic diversity; geographic variation; population decline; population structure

资金

  1. Zoological Institute
  2. Forschungskredit of the University of Zurich
  3. Vontobel Stiftung
  4. Janggen-Pohn Stiftung
  5. Basler Stiftung fur biologische Forschung
  6. Stiftung Dr. Joachim De Giacomi
  7. Zoo Zurich
  8. Grun Stadt Zurich
  9. European Union of Aquarium Curators
  10. Zurcher Tierschutz
  11. NERC [NE/G002193/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  12. Natural Environment Research Council [NE/G002193/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Genetic diversity is crucial for long-term population persistence. Population loss and subsequent reduction in migration rate among the most important processes that are expected to lead to a reduction in genetic diversity and an increase in genetic differentiation. While the theory behind this is well-developed, empirical evidence from wild populations is inconsistent. Using microsatellite markers, we compared the genetic structure of populations of an amphibian species, the midwife toad (Alytes obstetricans), in four Swiss regions where the species has suffered variable levels of subpopulation extirpation. We also quantified the effects of several geographic factors on genetic structure and used a model selection approach to ascertain which of the variables were important for explaining genetic variation. Although subpopulation pairwise F-ST-values were highly significant even over small geographic scales, neither any of the geographic variables nor loss of subpopulations were important factors for predicting spatial genetic structure. The absence of a signature of subpopulation loss on genetic differentiation may suggest that midwife toad subpopulations function as relatively independent units.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据