Natural, not urban, barriers define population structure for a coastal endemic butterfly

Abstract

Habitat loss and fragmentation are the major causes of biodiversity loss, and, increasingly, habitat is fragmented by urbanization. Yet, the degree to which urbanization creates barriers to animal dispersal remains poorly understood. We used population genetic techniques to determine whether urbanization and/or natural landscape features are dispersal barriers to a butterfly, Atrytonopsis new species 1, throughout its range on coastal sand dunes that are increasingly threatened by development. Using AFLP markers that produced 89 polymorphic loci, we found significant population structure across the range of Atrytonopsis sp1. We found no indication that existing levels of urbanization were barriers to Atrytonopsis sp1 dispersal. Rather, two natural barriers, an ocean inlet and maritime forest, explained the genetic structure. Even in areas with long histories of urbanization, we found no significant isolation-by-distance relationship, and there was very low genetic differentiation between sampling locations. Consequently, conservation strategies for Atrytonopsis sp1, and potentially for other mobile insects that use open-structured habitats, should not focus explicitly on habitat corridors through urban areas, but rather should seek to preserve and restore as much habitat as possible across the butterfly's range.

Parnassius apollo nevadensis: identification of recent population structure and source–sink dynamics

“…The South population boundary towards the northeast (where it meets the North population) could be defined by the distance and presence of natural barriers (Fig. 1), which in some cases can be more influential than human disturbance (Leidner and Haddad 2010). In this case, the natural barriers or filters are the mountain peaks of Sierra Nevada, which define a zone over 3000 metres of altitude where there are no Apollo butterflies, which the butterflies probably cannot cross easily (in white in Fig.…”

Occupancy dynamics in human‐modified landscapes in a tropical island: implications for conservation design

“…This finding is consistent with independent work that showed that bullfinches moved through the urban matrix using similar forest patches (70-80% cover) to return to the place of capture during translocation experiments (Irizarry, 2012). It follows that permeability, the ease with which birds move through a matrix (Gobeil & Villard, 2002), could be enhanced by integrating knowledge about interpatch distance (Hanski, 1998Haddad, 1999, 2000Leider & Haddad, 2010;Irizarry, 2012). This implies that improvements in permeability across the eastern portion of our study area (i.e.…”

Fine-scale genetic structure of an endangered population of the Mormon metalmark butterfly (Apodemia mormo) revealed using AFLPs

“…2 Principal coordinate analysis of all 14 sub-populations performed in GENALEX v.6.0 (Peakall and Smouse 2006), and based on a genetic distance matrix (F ST ). The genetically differentiated regions previously identified by BARRIER are outlined study is among only a few to apply AFLPs to an endangered butterfly (Gompert et al 2006;Leidner and Haddad 2010) and is the first to do so using non-lethal tissue samples. Given the difficulties often associated with developing and scoring microsatellite markers for many Lepidoptera species (Zhang 2004;Meglécz et al 2007) our results indicate that AFLPs represent a suitable alternative molecular marker for conducting conservation genetic studies of butterflies.…”

“…Mountain apollo, Parnassius apollo: Lushai et al 2000; Cranberry fritillary, Boloria aquilonaris: Vandewostejine and Baguette 2002; Karner blue, Lycaedies melissa samuelis: Gompert et al 2006; Regal fritillary, Speyeria idalia: Keyghobadi et al 2006; Marsh fritillary, Euphydryas aurinia: Sigaard et al 2008, Crystal skipper, Atrytonopsis sp. : Leidner andHaddad 2010). Microsatellite markers are a popular marker of choice in conservation genetic studies due to their putative neutrality and high variability.…”

“…More recently, several genetic studies of butterflies have successfully employed AFLPs instead (e.g. Takami et al 2004;Kronforst et al 2007), however, in only a few cases have AFLPs been applied in a conservation context (Gompert et al 2006;Collier et al 2010;Leidner and Haddad 2010).…”