The boon and bane of boldness: movement syndrome as saviour and sink for population genetic diversity.


Journal

Movement ecology
ISSN: 2051-3933
Titre abrégé: Mov Ecol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101635009

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
2020
Historique:
received: 04 02 2020
accepted: 07 04 2020
entrez: 28 4 2020
pubmed: 28 4 2020
medline: 28 4 2020
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Many felid species are of high conservation concern, and with increasing human disturbance the situation is worsening. Small isolated populations are at risk of genetic impoverishment decreasing within-species biodiversity. Movement is known to be a key behavioural trait that shapes both demographic and genetic dynamics and affects population survival. However, we have limited knowledge on how different manifestations of movement behaviour translate to population processes. In this study, we aimed to 1) understand the potential effects of movement behaviour on the genetic diversity of small felid populations in heterogeneous landscapes, while 2) presenting a simulation tool that can help inform conservation practitioners following, or considering, population management actions targeting the risk of genetic impoverishment. We developed a spatially explicit individual-based population model including neutral genetic markers for felids and applied this to the example of Eurasian lynx. Using a neutral landscape approach, we simulated reintroductions into a three-patch system, comprising two breeding patches separated by a larger patch of differing landscape heterogeneity, and tested for the effects of various behavioural movement syndromes and founder population sizes. We explored a range of movement syndromes by simulating populations with various movement model parametrisations that range from 'shy' to 'bold' movement behaviour. We find that movement syndromes can lead to a higher loss of genetic diversity and an increase in between population genetic structure for both "bold" and "shy" movement behaviours, depending on landscape conditions, with larger decreases in genetic diversity and larger increases in genetic differentiation associated with bold movement syndromes, where the first colonisers quickly reproduce and subsequently dominate the gene pool. In addition, we underline the fact that a larger founder population can offset the genetic losses associated with subpopulation isolation and gene pool dominance. We identified a movement syndrome trade-off for population genetic variation, whereby bold-explorers could be saviours - by connecting populations and promoting panmixia, or sinks - by increasing genetic losses via a 'founder takes all' effect, whereas shy-stayers maintain a more gradual genetic drift due to their more cautious behaviour. Simulations should incorporate movement behaviour to provide better projections of long-term population viability and within-species biodiversity, which includes genetic diversity. Simulations incorporating demographics and genetics have great potential for informing conservation management actions, such as population reintroductions or reinforcements. Here, we present such a simulation tool for solitary felids.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Many felid species are of high conservation concern, and with increasing human disturbance the situation is worsening. Small isolated populations are at risk of genetic impoverishment decreasing within-species biodiversity. Movement is known to be a key behavioural trait that shapes both demographic and genetic dynamics and affects population survival. However, we have limited knowledge on how different manifestations of movement behaviour translate to population processes. In this study, we aimed to 1) understand the potential effects of movement behaviour on the genetic diversity of small felid populations in heterogeneous landscapes, while 2) presenting a simulation tool that can help inform conservation practitioners following, or considering, population management actions targeting the risk of genetic impoverishment.
METHODS METHODS
We developed a spatially explicit individual-based population model including neutral genetic markers for felids and applied this to the example of Eurasian lynx. Using a neutral landscape approach, we simulated reintroductions into a three-patch system, comprising two breeding patches separated by a larger patch of differing landscape heterogeneity, and tested for the effects of various behavioural movement syndromes and founder population sizes. We explored a range of movement syndromes by simulating populations with various movement model parametrisations that range from 'shy' to 'bold' movement behaviour.
RESULTS RESULTS
We find that movement syndromes can lead to a higher loss of genetic diversity and an increase in between population genetic structure for both "bold" and "shy" movement behaviours, depending on landscape conditions, with larger decreases in genetic diversity and larger increases in genetic differentiation associated with bold movement syndromes, where the first colonisers quickly reproduce and subsequently dominate the gene pool. In addition, we underline the fact that a larger founder population can offset the genetic losses associated with subpopulation isolation and gene pool dominance.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
We identified a movement syndrome trade-off for population genetic variation, whereby bold-explorers could be saviours - by connecting populations and promoting panmixia, or sinks - by increasing genetic losses via a 'founder takes all' effect, whereas shy-stayers maintain a more gradual genetic drift due to their more cautious behaviour. Simulations should incorporate movement behaviour to provide better projections of long-term population viability and within-species biodiversity, which includes genetic diversity. Simulations incorporating demographics and genetics have great potential for informing conservation management actions, such as population reintroductions or reinforcements. Here, we present such a simulation tool for solitary felids.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32337047
doi: 10.1186/s40462-020-00204-y
pii: 204
pmc: PMC7175569
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

16

Informations de copyright

© The Author(s) 2020.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Competing interestsThe authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Références

Oecologia. 2019 Mar;189(3):647-660
pubmed: 30826867
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1978 Jun;75(6):2868-72
pubmed: 275857
Anim Behav. 1973 Nov;21(4):637-59
pubmed: 4798194
Am Nat. 2001 Aug;158(2):124-35
pubmed: 18707341
Mol Ecol. 2011 Nov;20(21):4388-94
pubmed: 21951722
Mol Ecol. 2013 Nov;22(22):5503-15
pubmed: 24128177
PLoS One. 2014 Dec 19;9(12):e115203
pubmed: 25526062
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2010 Jul 27;365(1550):2303-12
pubmed: 20566506
Mol Ecol. 2019 May;28(10):2459-2475
pubmed: 30851213
Ecol Appl. 2009 Oct;19(7):1815-34
pubmed: 19831072
Ecol Lett. 2017 Jan;20(1):3-18
pubmed: 28000433
Trends Plant Sci. 2009 Jan;14(1):51-8
pubmed: 19042147
Ecol Lett. 2009 Mar;12(3):197-209
pubmed: 19170731
Mol Ecol Resour. 2019 Jan;19(1):296-305
pubmed: 30362291
Trends Ecol Evol. 2013 Feb;28(2):78-85
pubmed: 23000431
Animals (Basel). 2019 May 15;9(5):
pubmed: 31096599
Evolution. 2013 May;67(5):1235-50
pubmed: 23617905
Nat Ecol Evol. 2018 Jan;2(1):57-64
pubmed: 29203921
Trends Ecol Evol. 2004 Jul;19(7):372-8
pubmed: 16701288
Annu Rev Genet. 1995;29:305-27
pubmed: 8825477
Theor Popul Biol. 1972 Dec;3(4):460-5
pubmed: 4667099
Zoo Biol. 2012 Mar-Apr;31(2):151-65
pubmed: 21455952
Phys Rev E. 2019 Feb;99(2-1):022101
pubmed: 30934329
Proc Biol Sci. 2007 Feb 7;274(1608):383-90
pubmed: 17164202
Ecol Evol. 2018 Jun 22;8(14):7216-7227
pubmed: 30073080
J Wildl Dis. 2002 Jan;38(1):84-92
pubmed: 11838233
Bioinformatics. 2008 Jun 1;24(11):1403-5
pubmed: 18397895
Trends Ecol Evol. 2010 Nov;25(11):643-52
pubmed: 20810188
Mol Biotechnol. 2010 Mar;44(3):250-66
pubmed: 20012711
Int J Mol Sci. 2011;12(6):3966-88
pubmed: 21747718
Proc Biol Sci. 2003 Apr 7;270(1516):741-7
pubmed: 12713749
Mol Ecol. 2010 Sep;19(17):3679-91
pubmed: 20618895
Q Rev Biol. 2004 Sep;79(3):241-77
pubmed: 15529965

Auteurs

Joseph Premier (J)

1Chair of wildlife ecology and wildlife management, Faculty of Environment and Natural Resources, University of Freiburg, Tennenbacher Straße 4, 79106 Freiburg, Germany.
2Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research (IZW), Alfred-Kowalke-Str. 17, 10315 Berlin, Germany.
3Department of Visitor Management and National Park Monitoring, Bavarian Forest National Park, Freyunger Str. 2, 94481 Grafenau, Germany.

Jörns Fickel (J)

2Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research (IZW), Alfred-Kowalke-Str. 17, 10315 Berlin, Germany.
4Institute for Biochemistry and Biology, University of Potsdam, Karl-Liebknecht-Str. 24-25, 14476 Potsdam-Golm, Germany.

Marco Heurich (M)

1Chair of wildlife ecology and wildlife management, Faculty of Environment and Natural Resources, University of Freiburg, Tennenbacher Straße 4, 79106 Freiburg, Germany.
3Department of Visitor Management and National Park Monitoring, Bavarian Forest National Park, Freyunger Str. 2, 94481 Grafenau, Germany.

Stephanie Kramer-Schadt (S)

2Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research (IZW), Alfred-Kowalke-Str. 17, 10315 Berlin, Germany.
5Department of Ecology, Technical University Berlin, Rothenburg Str. 12, 12165 Berlin, Germany.

Classifications MeSH