Concordant mitochondrial and microsatellite DNA structuring between Polish lowland and Carpathian Mountain wolves

Abstract

Phylogeographic studies of highly mobile large carnivores suggest that intra-specific genetic differentiation of modern species might be the consequence of the most recent Pleistocene glaciation. However, the relative influence of biogeographical processes and subsequent humaninduced population fragmentation requires a better understanding. Poland represents the western edge of relatively continuous distributions of many wide-ranging species, e.g. lynx (Lynx lynx), wolves (Canis lupus), moose (Alces alces) and, therefore, a key area for understanding historic and contemporary patterns of gene flow in central Europe. We examined wolf genetic structure in Poland and in a recently recolonized area in eastern Germany using microsatellite profiles (n = 457) and mitochondrial DNA sequencing (mtDNA, n = 333) from faecal samples. We found significant genetic structure and high levels of differentiation between wolves in the Carpathian Mountains and the Polish lowlands. Our findings are consistent with previously reported mtDNA subdivision between northern lowlands and southern mountains, and add new and concordant findings based on autosomal marker variation. Wolves in western Poland and eastern Germany showed limited differentiation from northeastern Poland. Although the presence of private alleles suggests immigration also from areas not sampled in this study, most individuals seem to be immigrants from northeastern Poland or their descendants. We observed moderate genetic differentiation between certain northeastern lowland regions separated by less than 50 km. Moreover, mtDNA results indicated a southeastern subpopulation near the border with Ukraine. The observed structure might reflect landscape fragmentation and/orecological differences resulting in natal habitat-biased dispersal.

Genome-wide signatures of population bottlenecks and diversifying selection in European wolves

“…These methods detected two genetic clusters within Eastern Europe, one prevailing in northeastern Europe and another in the Carpathians and the Balkans, but with high level of admixture. Lack of clear, geographically clustered genetic subdivision within the Eastern European wolves contrasted with an earlier study that showed cryptic population structure in this region based on 14 microsatellite loci and mtDNA variability (Pilot et al, 2006), which was subsequently confirmed based on an independent sample set collected from a smaller area (Czarnomska et al, 2013). The discrepancy is likely due to much lower sample coverage, as 54 Eastern European wolves were analysed here versus 643 wolves in Pilot et al (2006).…”

Unregulated hunting and genetic recovery from a severe population decline: the cautionary case of Bulgarian wolves

“…Observed heterozygosity at microsatellite loci (0.654) was comparable with populations from northeastern Europe (e.g. 0.663 for European Russia, Sastre et al 2011;0.680 for Finland, Aspi et al 2006), but higher than in the Apennine Peninsula, the Iberian Peninsula, and Poland (0.52-0.62; Fabbri et al 2007;Sastre et al 2011;Czarnomska et al 2013) (Table S6). Although comparisons of genetic diversity between different studies are not linear, given that different mtDNA sequence lengths and different microsatellite loci were used, important information can nevertheless be obtained by such comparisons, particularly if population history and present conservation status are taken into account.…”

“…Genetic diversity of the Bulgarian wolf population Diversity levels of Bulgarian wolves at mtDNA control region (Hd = 0.75, p = 0.022) were high as compared with other European wolf populations from European Russia, Poland, and Iberian Peninsula, with Hd range 0.34-0.67 and p range 0.009-0.016 (Sastre et al 2011, Czarnomska et al 2013 (Table S6). Observed heterozygosity at microsatellite loci (0.654) was comparable with populations from northeastern Europe (e.g.…”

“…However, local-scale genetic structure can be detected in different regions of Europe (Pilot et al 2006;Aspi et al 2008;Czarnomska et al 2013) and elsewhere in the species distribution, and appears to be determined mainly by ecological features rather than geographical barriers (e.g. Carmichael et al 2001;Geffen et al 2004;Pilot et al 2006).…”

Response of the Wolf (Canis Lupus Linnaeus, 1758) Population to Various Management Regimes at the Edge of Its Distribution Range in Western Poland, 1951-2012

“…The re-colonisation started from jump dispersal, which allowed wolves to establish packs far (376 ± 106.5 km) from the source population in EPL (Czarnomska et al, 2013;Nowak and Mysłajek, 2016).…”