Reconstruction of the colonization of southern Madagascar by introduced<i>Rattus rattus</i>

Hingston, Melanie; Goodman, Steven M.; Ganzhorn, Jörg U.; Sommer, Simone

doi:10.1111/j.1365-2699.2005.01311.x

Cited by 70 publications

(70 citation statements)

References 70 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similar levels of haplotype diversity have been found in ship rats of northern New Zealand (Miller 2008) and elsewhere in the world including islands such as Madagascar (Hingston et al 2005;Tollenaere et al 2010) and the Canary Islands (López et al 2013). Moderate haplotype diversity was also found in the Mediterranean Basin (Colangelo et al 2015).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 54%

“…Our analysis is possible due to the availability of rat samples from the island which are both contemporary (just prior to the eradication; Harper & Rutherford 2016) and historical (just after the invasion; Te Papa Museum specimens). Analysis of the hypervariable region of mitochondrial DNA, known as the D-loop, allows a broad-scale assessment of population differences, and matches recent approaches used in studies of the ship rats of Madagascar (Hingston et al 2005;Tollenaere et al 2010). By comparing the D-loop signature of rats from Big South Cape Island with that of rats from surrounding locations, which have previously been hypothesised as potential sources for the invasion (Table 1), we attempt to resolve the question, "where did the rats on Big South Cape Island come from?"…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Where did the rats of Big South Cape Island come from?

Robins

Miller²,

Russell³

et al. 2016

NZ J Ecol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The ship rat invasion of Big South Cape Island/Taukihepa in the 1960s was an ecological catastrophe that marked a turning point for the management of rodents on offshore islands of New Zealand. Despite the importance of this event in the conservation history of New Zealand, and subsequent major advances in rodent eradication and biosecurity, the source and pathway of the rat invasion of Big South Cape Island has never been identified. Using modern molecular methods on contemporary and historical tissue samples, we identify the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) haplotype of ship rats (Rattus rattus) on Big South Cape Island and compare it to that of ship rats in the neighbouring regions of Stewart Island/Rakiura and southern New Zealand, all hypothesised as possible source sites for the invasion. We identify two haplotype clusters, each comprising three closely related haplotypes; one cluster unique to Stewart Island, and the other found in southern New Zealand and elsewhere. By a process of elimination we rule that the ship rat invasion of Big South Cape Island was neither by swimming nor boat transport from Stewart Island, and is unlikely to have come from the south coast ports of New Zealand. However, because the ship rat haplotype found on Big South Cape Island is cosmopolitan to New Zealand's South Island and elsewhere, we can only confirm that the invasion likely originated from some distance, but are not able to identify the invasion source more precisely. An unexpected consequence of our study is the discovery of five new mtDNA haplotypes for R. rattus that have not been previously reported.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 54%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Where did the rats of Big South Cape Island come from?

Robins

Miller²,

Russell³

et al. 2016

NZ J Ecol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We quantified genetic differentiation among populations by calculating the 'F ST ' statistics computed with ARLEQUIN v3.5 (Excoffier and Lischer, 2010) using the pairwise distance matrix with a gamma correction of α = 0.39 (Hingston et al, 2005) on populations with high sample sizes (AG, KT, TH and KD). We constructed median joining networks for the haplotypes by estimating the pairwise differences between the haplotypes with the program PopArt (developed by Jessica Leigh: available from http://popart.otago.ac.nz/index.…”

Section: Genetic Diversity and Population Differentiationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Commensalism facilitates gene flow in mountains: a comparison between two Rattus species

Varudkar

Ramakrishnan

2015

Heredity

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A Varudkar and U RamakrishnanSmall mammal dispersal is strongly affected by geographical barriers. However, commensal small mammals may be passively transported over large distances and strong barriers by humans (often with agricultural products). This pattern should be especially apparent in topographically complex landscapes, such as mountain ranges, where valleys and/or peaks can limit dispersal of less vagile species. We predict that commensal species would have lower genetic differentiation and higher migration rates than related non-commensals in such landscapes. We contrasted population genetic differentiation in two sympatric Rattus species (R. satarae and R. rattus) in the Western Ghats mountains in southern India. We sampled rats from villages and adjacent forests in seven locations (20-640 km apart). Capture-based statistics confirmed that R. rattus is abundant in human settlements in this region, whereas R. satarae is non-commensal and found mostly in forests. Population structure analyses using~970-bp mitochondrial control region and 17 microsatellite loci revealed higher differentiation for the non-commensal species (R. satarae F-statistics = 0.420, 0.065, R. rattus F-statistics = 0.195, 0.034; mitochondrial DNA, microsatellites, respectively). Genetic clustering analyses confirm that clusters in R. satarae are more distinct and less admixed than those in R. rattus. R. satarae shows higher slope for isolation-by-distance compared with R. rattus. Although mode of migration estimates do not strongly suggest higher rates in R. rattus than in R. satarae, they indicate that migration over long distances could still be higher in R. rattus. We suggest that association with humans could drive the observed pattern of differentiation in the commensal R. rattus, consequently impacting not only their dispersal abilities, but also their evolutionary trajectories. INTRODUCTIONHumans present a strong evolutionary force, driving the trajectories of several animal and plant species closely associated with them, called commensals or synanthropes (Matisoo-Smith, 2009;Zeder, 2012). These species are believed to be intermediate between being wild and being domesticated (Vigne, 2011;Zeder, 2012) and include some of the world's most cosmopolitan species such as the house mouse (Mus musculus), brown rat (Rattus norvegicus), house sparrow (Passer domesticus) and house crow (Corvus splendens).Commensals benefit from human interactions through exploitation of anthropogenic ecosystems for food and shelter. In addition, human-mediated transport of founding individuals over long distances results in large geographical ranges for these species and colonisation of new areas, which would otherwise be inaccessible (Cucchi and Vigne, 2006;Jones et al., 2012). Consequently, human activities could promote their diffusion by eliminating ecological, as well as landscape barriers, thereby aiding in 'jump dispersal' across longer distances and potent barriers (Schrey et al., 2014).Of the prominent landscape features that act as barriers ...

show abstract

“…Biological invasions are a pervasive environmental and costly economic problem (McNely 2001;Hingston et al 2005) and include threats to in situ conservation, the persistence of local endemics (Goodman 1995;Hingston et al 2005) as well as agricultural yield and hence food security (Dieterlen 1966;Singleton et al 1999;UNEP 2002;Olson 2006). The scientific literature has seen important debates on theoretical concepts and terms used in biological invasions (see for example Valéry et al 2009;Wilson et al 2009a,b).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The scientific literature has seen important debates on theoretical concepts and terms used in biological invasions (see for example Valéry et al 2009;Wilson et al 2009a,b). In addition, numerous empirical studies have reported on invasive species and have contrasted various aspects among native and introduced ranges (Hingston et al 2005;Searle 2008;van Wilgen et al 2008;Hulme 2009). Fewer studies attempt to reconstruct biological invasion pathways (but see Dieterlen 1979;Hingston et al 2005;Muirhead & Macisaac 2005;Jansen van Vuuren & Chown 2007;Searle et al 2009a,b;Tollenaere et al 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%