Conservation genetics of amphibians

Abstract

Amphibians are good models for investigating the genetics of wild animal populations because they are: (1) widely distributed in most ecosystems; (2) easy to sample in breeding assemblages; (3) often philopatric to breeding sites, generating high levels of population genetic structure; (4) amenable to controlled crossings in the laboratory; and (5) of major conservation concern. Neutral genetic markers, mostly microsatellites, have been used successfully in studies of amphibian effective population sizes and structures, and in assessing the consequences of hybridisation. Phylogeography has provided important insights into population histories and the fates of introductions. Quantitative genetic methods have demonstrated adaptive variation in life history traits of importance to fitness and therefore to population viability. Heredity (2005) 95, 423-427.

Amphibian phylogeography: a model for understanding historical aspects of species distributions

“…Amphibians have low salt tolerances and none can survive prolonged immersion in sea water (Beebee, 1996) except where salinity is atypically low, such as in the Baltic. Many oceanic islands are therefore devoid of amphibians, but some are not.…”

“…For assessing the value of phylogeographic studies, they have several advantages. Amphibians generally exhibit low individual mobility, often accompanied by high philopatry to natal sites (Beebee, 1996). Populations consequently tend to be highly structured genetically over short geographical distances, and retain high-resolution signals of historical events that generated current species distributions.…”

Syntopic frogs reveal different patterns of interaction with the landscape: A comparative landscape genetic study of Pelophylax nigromaculatus and Fejervarya limnocharis from central China

“…This view of amphibian–landscape interaction is largely drawn from several common amphibian characteristics. Amphibians are highly philopatric, which reduces gene flow and produces large genetic differentiation between subpopulations (e.g., Beebee, 2005; Cushman, 2006; Funk, Blouin, et al. 2005; Murphy, Evans, & Storfer, 2010; Zhan, Li, & Fu, 2009).…”

Effective population size is strongly correlated with breeding pond size in the endangered California tiger salamander, Ambystoma californiense

“…Quantifying the effects of landscape features on the effective population sizes of natural populations remains an important challenge in conservation genetics (Andersen et al 2004;Rowe and Beebee 2004;Beebee 2005;Wang 2009a). Effective population sizes (N e ) in wild animal systems vary widely (Scribner et al 1997;Crawford 2003;Hoffman et al 2004;Palstra and Rruzzante 2008) and determining N e for threatened and endangered species is a key component of their conservation and management (Andersen et al 2004;Rowe and Beebee 2004;Beebee 2005;Schwartz et al 2007).…”

“…Effective population sizes (N e ) in wild animal systems vary widely (Scribner et al 1997;Crawford 2003;Hoffman et al 2004;Palstra and Rruzzante 2008) and determining N e for threatened and endangered species is a key component of their conservation and management (Andersen et al 2004;Rowe and Beebee 2004;Beebee 2005;Schwartz et al 2007). Reduced effective population sizes can lead to deleterious effects, including inbreeding depression and loss of genetic diversity, which can diminish the ability of a species or population to adapt to environmental change and to respond to risks from diseases and pathogens (Crnokrak and Roff 1999;Nieminen et al 2001;Keller et al 2002;Frankham 2005).…”