4.3 Article

Temporal genetic and demographic monitoring of pond-breeding amphibians in three contrasting population systems

期刊

CONSERVATION GENETICS
卷 16, 期 6, 页码 1335-1344

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10592-015-0743-z

关键词

Ambystoma; Effective population size; Marbled salamander; Mole salamander; Conservation genetics

资金

  1. U. S. Department of Energy under Financial Assistance Award [DE-FC09-07SR22506]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Quantifying the relationship between demographic patterns and genetic diversity are important in predicting temporal population genetic changes. To make predictions there must be an understanding of the relationship between census size, the effective number of breeders (N-b) and effective population size (N-e). We evaluate the temporal genetic variation between three populations of Ambystoma salamanders, and compare genetic and demographic estimates of N-b and N-e. We sampled two wetlands, RB and GB for A. opacum and sampled A. talpoideum at RB, over a 20-year period. Ambystoma opacum colonized the RB wetland in 1980 and the population has steadily expanded as A. talpoideum has declined towards local extinction; the GB population of A. opacum has remained relatively large and stable over this same time period. Genetic variation at 10 microsatellites remained stable at each population over the sampled time frame, and did not reflect changes in population size. Genetic estimates of N-b also did not reflect demographic trends, and were lower than demographic estimates of N-b. Genetic methods of determining N-e gave similar estimates to demographic methods. Our findings indicate that sample sizes and number of markers typically used in genetic studies do not provide enough precision to monitor population size changes in amphibians, which likely violate many of the assumptions of N-b and N-e estimation models. These findings should be considered when using N-e in conservation and management assessments of amphibian populations.

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

4.3
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