Evaluating the influence of life‐history characteristics on genetic structure: a comparison of small mammals inhabiting complex agricultural landscapes

Abstract

Conversion of formerly continuous native habitats into highly fragmented landscapes can lead to numerous negative demographic and genetic impacts on native taxa that ultimately reduce population viability. In response to concerns over biodiversity loss, numerous investigators have proposed that traits such as body size and ecological specialization influence the sensitivity of species to habitat fragmentation. In this study, we examined how differences in body size and ecological specialization of two rodents (eastern chipmunk; Tamias striatus and white‐footed mouse; Peromyscus leucopus) impact their genetic connectivity within the highly fragmented landscape of the Upper Wabash River Basin (UWB), Indiana, and evaluated whether landscape configuration and complexity influenced patterns of genetic structure similarly between these two species. The more specialized chipmunk exhibited dramatically more genetic structure across the UWB than white‐footed mice, with genetic differentiation being correlated with geographic distance, configuration of intervening habitats, and complexity of forested habitats within sampling sites. In contrast, the generalist white‐footed mouse resembled a panmictic population across the UWB, and no landscape factors were found to influence gene flow. Despite the extensive previous work in abundance and occupancy within the UWB, no landscape factor that influenced occupancy or abundance was correlated with genetic differentiation in either species. The difference in predictors of occupancy, abundance, and gene flow suggests that species‐specific responses to fragmentation are scale dependent.

Functional connectivity and home range inferred at a microgeographic landscape genetics scale in a desert‐dwelling rodent

“…According to our expectations, we identified that vegetation tems (Kierepka et al, 2016). Moreover, D. merriami activity peaks exhibit a behavior tightly associated with predator avoidance (Daly, Behrends, Wilson, & Jacobs, 1992;Soltz-Herman & Valone, 2000),…”

“…FLORES-MANZANERO Et AL Swihart, & Rhodes, 2016),. whereas in O. longicaudatus, none of multiple landscape features (lakes, rivers, urban settlements, roads) facilitated dispersal.…”

The influence of breeding phenology on the genetic structure of four pond‐breeding salamanders

“…Had our study only used one caudate species as a surrogate for all of the others, our inference would have differed as we would not have had the ability resolve the influence of breeding phenology on genetic differentiation in our system. Similar comparative landscape genetic studies support this idea that genetic inference can vary substantially, even among closely related and widely distributed species, when there are subtle differences in life history (Engler, Balkenhol, Filz, Habel, & Rödder, ; Kierepka et al., ). As such, we urge stake holders to make decisions using knowledge of multiple species on the landscape even if decisions are targeted toward a single taxon.…”

“…Reduced dispersal between suitable habitat patches in turn decreases gene flow among habitat patches, which results in greater genetic differentiation. Across taxa, observed differences in genetic differentiation among closely related, co‐occurring species can often be attributed to differences in life history traits (Dawson, Louie, Barlow, Jacobs, & Swift, ; Kierepka, Anderson, Swihart, & Rhodes, ; Whiteley et al., ). In fragmented landscapes, habitat specialist species may exhibit higher degrees of genetic isolation than generalist species as is the case with eastern chipmunks ( Tamias striatus ) and white‐footed mice ( Peromyscus leucopus ) in Indiana (Kierepka et al., ).…”

Human footprint differentially impacts genetic connectivity of four wide‐ranging mammals in a fragmented landscape

“…Our study species vary in body size, dispersal ability, distribution and habitat association, traits that determine species sensitivity to habitat fragmentation (Davidson et al, ; Kierepka et al, ). Considerations based on these factors result in contradictory predictions in terms of expected spatial genetic structure for our study species (discussed below and represented in Figure ).…”