Do landscape barriers affect functional connectivity of populations of an endangered damselfly

Summary 1. Landscape genetic approaches were used to assess functional connectivity of populations of the endangered damselfly Coenagrion mercuriale in a fragmented agricultural landscape in Switzerland. Spatial genetic clustering methods combined with interpolation by kriging and landscape genetic corridor analysis were applied to identify landscape elements that enhance or hinder dispersal and gene flow. 2. Spatial genetic clustering analysis divided the sampled populations into a northern and a southern genetic group. The boundary between the two groups coincided with a hill ridge intersecting the study area. Landscape corridor analysis identified five landscape elements that significantly affected gene flow. Elevation change, Euclidian distance, patches of forest and flowing waterbodies acted as barriers, whereas open agricultural land enhanced gene flow between populations of C. mercuriale. 3. This study showed that movement of C. mercuriale was not restricted to its preferred habitat (i.e. streams). Populations linked via continuous open agricultural land were functionally well connected if they were not more than about 1.5–2 km apart. In contrast, substantial elevation change and larger forest patches separated populations. These findings may serve as a basis to define conservation units and should be considered when planning connectivity measures, such as determining the locations of stepping stones, or the restoration of streams.

[1]  L. Waits,et al.  Molecular road ecology: exploring the potential of genetics for investigating transportation impacts on wildlife , 2009, Molecular ecology.

[2]  F. Kienast,et al.  Where movement happens: scale-dependent landscape effects on genetic differentiation in the European tree frog , 2011 .

[3]  B. Weir,et al.  ESTIMATING F‐STATISTICS FOR THE ANALYSIS OF POPULATION STRUCTURE , 1984, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[4]  Olivier François,et al.  Bayesian clustering algorithms ascertaining spatial population structure: a new computer program and a comparison study , 2007 .

[5]  Emily S. Davis,et al.  Landscape effects on extremely fragmented populations of a rare solitary bee, Colletes floralis , 2010, Molecular ecology.

[6]  Stuart E. Bunn,et al.  Dispersal and recruitment ofTasiagma ciliata(Trichoptera: Tasimiidae) in rainforest streams, south-eastern Australia , 1998 .

[7]  D. Hurwood,et al.  A hierarchical analysis of the genetic structure of an aquatic insect Bungona (Baetidae: Ephemeroptera) , 2000, Heredity.

[8]  J. Goudet.  FSTAT (Version 1.2): A Computer Program to Calculate F-Statistics , 1995 .

[9]  M. Fortin,et al.  Use of resistance surfaces for landscape genetic studies: considerations for parameterization and analysis , 2010, Molecular ecology.

[10]  R. Holderegger,et al.  The genetic effects of roads: A review of empirical evidence , 2010 .

[11]  J. Row,et al.  Habitat distribution influences dispersal and fine‐scale genetic population structure of eastern foxsnakes (Mintonius gloydi) across a fragmented landscape , 2010, Molecular ecology.

[12]  David M Theobald,et al.  Spatial population genetic structure and limited dispersal in a Rocky Mountain alpine stream insect , 2006, Molecular ecology.

[13]  K. J. Day,et al.  Dispersal characteristics and management of a rare damselfly , 2003 .

[14]  Ecological and genetic measurements of dispersal in a threatened dragonfly , 2010 .

[15]  L. Waits,et al.  Putting the ‘landscape’ in landscape genetics , 2007, Heredity.

[16]  L. Weigt,et al.  Gene flow, dispersal, and nested clade analysis among populations of the stonefly Peltoperla tarteri in the southern Appalachians , 2002, Molecular ecology.

[17]  R. Nichols,et al.  Landscape, habitat characteristics and the genetic population structure of two caddisflies , 2007 .

[18]  L. Fahrig,et al.  On the usage and measurement of landscape connectivity , 2000 .

[19]  L. Fahrig.  Effects of Habitat Fragmentation on Biodiversity , 2003 .

[20]  Noah A. Rosenberg,et al.  CLUMPP: a cluster matching and permutation program for dealing with label switching and multimodality in analysis of population structure , 2007, Bioinform..

[21]  AURÉLIE COULON,et al.  Statistical methods in spatial genetics , 2009, Molecular ecology.

[22]  Jeremy W. Lichstein,et al.  Multiple regression on distance matrices: a multivariate spatial analysis tool , 2007, Plant Ecology.

[23]  David J. Thompson,et al.  Patterns of movement and dispersal in an endangered damselfly and the consequences for its management , 2007 .

[24]  C. Robinson,et al.  How river structure and biological traits influence gene flow: a population genetic study of two stream invertebrates with differing dispersal abilities , 2012 .

[25]  S. Kemp,et al.  Molecular and ecological evidence for small‐scale isolation by distance in an endangered damselfly, Coenagrion mercuriale , 2004, Molecular ecology.

[26]  M. Whitlock,et al.  Indirect measures of gene flow and migration: FST≠1/(4Nm+1) , 1999, Heredity.

[27]  L. Waits,et al.  Landscape genetics: where are we now? , 2010, Molecular ecology.

[28]  D. J. Thompson,et al.  Population structure and the impact of regional and local habitat isolation upon levels of genetic diversity of the endangered damselfly Coenagrion mercuriale (Odonata: Zygoptera) , 2006 .

[29]  Raymond J. Dezzani,et al.  Statistical approaches in landscape genetics: an evaluation of methods for linking landscape and genetic data , 2009 .

[30]  François Rousset,et al.  GENEPOP (version 1.2): population genetic software for exact tests and ecumenicism , 1995 .

[31]  Sarah C. Goslee,et al.  The ecodist Package for Dissimilarity-based Analysis of Ecological Data , 2007 .

[32]  D. H. Reed.  Extinction risk in fragmented habitats , 2004 .

[33]  K. Hackländer,et al.  Ability of Wildlife Overpasses to Provide Connectivity and Prevent Genetic Isolation , 2009, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[34]  Stephanie Manel,et al.  Assignment methods: matching biological questions with appropriate techniques. , 2005, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[35]  Nick M. Haddad,et al.  Natural, not urban, barriers define population structure for a coastal endemic butterfly , 2010, Conservation Genetics.

[36]  S. Tweddale,et al.  Habitat fragmentation and genetic diversity of an endangered, migratory songbird, the golden‐cheeked warbler (Dendroica chrysoparia) , 2008, Molecular ecology.

[37]  Erik Matthysen,et al.  The application of 'least-cost' modelling as a functional landscape model , 2003 .

[38]  A. Storfer,et al.  Landscape genetics of the blotched tiger salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum melanostictum) , 2005, Molecular ecology.

[39]  Samuel A. Cushman,et al.  Representing genetic variation as continuous surfaces: An approach for identifying spatial dependency in landscape genetic studies , 2008 .

[40]  Hans Van Dyck,et al.  Dispersal behaviour in fragmented landscapes: Routine or special movements? , 2005 .

[41]  J. Freeland,et al.  Dispersal in freshwater invertebrates , 2001 .

[42]  Marie-Josée Fortin,et al.  Applications of landscape genetics in conservation biology: concepts and challenges , 2010, Conservation Genetics.

[43]  Brian D. Ripley,et al.  Spatial Statistics: Ripley/Spatial Statistics , 2005 .

[44]  L. Fahrig,et al.  How should we measure landscape connectivity? , 2000, Landscape Ecology.

[45]  A. Lowe,et al.  A landscape genetics approach for quantifying the relative influence of historic and contemporary habitat heterogeneity on the genetic connectivity of a rainforest bird , 2009, Molecular ecology.

[46]  D. J. Thompson,et al.  Habitat associations of the endangered damselfly, Coenagrion mercuriale , in a water meadow ditch system in southern England , 2005 .

[47]  Luca Fumagalli,et al.  Landscape genetics of the Alpine newt (Mesotriton alpestris) inferred from a strip-based approach , 2011, Conservation Genetics.

[48]  J. Secondi,et al.  In‐stream and overland dispersal across a river network influences gene flow in a freshwater insect, Calopteryx splendens , 2008, Molecular ecology.

[49]  D. Finn,et al.  Genes in Streams: Using DNA to Understand the Movement of Freshwater Fauna and Their Riverine Habitat , 2009 .

[50]  N Perrin,et al.  Inferring landscape effects on dispersal from genetic distances: how far can we go? , 2011, Molecular ecology.

[51]  S. Bunn,et al.  Gene Flow among Conspecific Populations of Baetis sp. (Ephemeroptera): Adult Flight and Larval Drift , 1995, Journal of the North American Benthological Society.

[52]  N. Boatman,et al.  Ecological impacts of arable intensification in Europe. , 2001, Journal of environmental management.

[53]  F. Gugerli,et al.  Frequent long-distance gene flow in a rare temperate forest tree (Sorbus domestica) at the landscape scale , 2009, Heredity.

[54]  F. Rousset,et al.  Compatible genetic and ecological estimates of dispersal rates in insect (Coenagrion mercuriale: Odonata: Zygoptera) populations: analysis of ‘neighbourhood size’ using a more precise estimator , 2006, Molecular ecology.

[55]  F. Gugerli,et al.  Landscape genetics of plants. , 2010, Trends in plant science.