Small-scale spatial genetic structure of Alpine chamois (Rupicapra rupicapra) in Northern Dinarides

  • T. Safner
  • E. BuzanEmail author
  • A. Rezic
  • N. Šprem
Short Communication


Chamois (Rupicapra rupicapra) is a mountain-dwelling ungulate inhabiting predominantly rocky habitat with steep slopes. Since it mostly inhabits boreal habitats at high altitudes, low valleys tend to separate populations, thereby limiting gene flow. In the present study, we genotyped 54 georeferenced chamois using 20 SSR loci to test the influence of the Kupa River on the spatial genetic structure of the population in the bordering area between Croatia and Slovenia in the northern Dinaric Mountains. Both GENELAND and STRUCTURE assigned all individuals to one spatial cluster, indicating that the Kupa River does not represent a barrier to gene flow for chamois. Unfortunately, in 2015, a razor wire fence was constructed along the Croatian-Slovenian border at the Kupa River. This fence represents a major threat to the chamois population as it may cause mortality, obstruct seasonal dispersal, and reduce the effective population size. If the fence remains as it is, changes in the genetic structure and genetic diversity of the population due to the effect of drift and reduced effective population size can be predicted over the next generations.


Mountain ungulate Genetic structure Microsatellites Habitat fragmentation Northern Dinarides 



This study was supported by the Croatian Science Foundation, project IP 2016-06-5751, “DNA as evidence of distribution and vitality of endangered Balkan chamois.” We want to express our appreciation to Robert Gec, Mladen Mauhar, Stane Frbežar, and Jernej Štefančić for providing the samples for analyses.

Supplementary material

10344_2019_1259_MOESM1_ESM.doc (670 kb)
ESM 1 (DOC 670 kb)
10344_2019_1259_MOESM2_ESM.doc (54 kb)
ESM 2 (DOC 54 kb)


  1. Adamic M, Jerina K (2010) Ungulate management in Europe in the XXI century Slovenia. In: Apollonio M, Andersen R, Putman R (eds) European ungulates and their management in the 21st century. Cambridge University, Cambridge, pp 507–527Google Scholar
  2. Blair C, Weigel DE, Balazik M, Keeley AT, Walker FM, Landguth E, Cushman S, Murphy M, Waits L, Balkenhol N (2012) A simulation-based evaluation of methods for inferring linear barriers to gene flow. Mol Ecol Resour 12:822–833CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brook BW, Tonkyn DW, O’Grady JJ, Frankham R (2002) Contribution of inbreeding to extinction risk in threatened species. Ecol Soc 6:16–23Google Scholar
  4. Brown JH (2001) Mammals on mountainsides: elevational patterns of diversity. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 10:101–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buzan VE, Bryja J, Zemanová B, Kryštufek B (2013) Population genetics of chamois in the contact zone between the Alps and the Dinaric Mountains: uncovering the role of habitat fragmentation and past management. Conserv Genet 14:401–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clark JR, Schlickeisen R, Adams A, Beetham MB, Dewey R, Li YW, Walter H (2011) Assault on wildlife: the endangered species act under attack. Defenders of Wildlife, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  7. Corlatti L, Lorenzini R, Lovari S (2011) The conservation of the chamois Rupicapra spp. Mammal Rev 41:163–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Coulon A, Cosson JF, Angibault JM, Cargnelutti B, Galan M, Morellet N, Petit E, Aulagnier S, Hewison AJM (2004) Landscape connectivity influences gene flow in a roe deer population inhabiting a fragmented landscape: an individual-based approach. Mol Ecol 13:2841–2850CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Crestanello B, Pecchioli E, Vernesi C, Mona C, Martınkova N, Janiga M, Hauffe HC, Bertorelle G (2009) The genetic impact of translocations and habitat fragmentation in chamois (Rupicapra spp). J Hered 100:691–708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Daleszczyk K, Bunevich AN (2009) Population viability analysis of European bison populations in Polish and Belarusian parts of Białowieża Forest with and without gene exchange. Biol Conserv 142:3068–3075CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Earl DA, von Holdt BM (2012) STRUCTURE HARVESTER: a website and program for visualizing STRUCTURE output and implementing the Evanno method. Conserv Genet Resour 4:359–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ferreira E, Souto L, Soares AMVM, Fonseca C (2006) Genetic structure of the wild boar (Sus scrofa L.) population in Portugal. Wildl Biol Pract 2:17–25Google Scholar
  13. Ferreira E, Souto L, Soares AMVM, Fonseca C (2009) Genetic structure of the wild boar population in Portugal: evidence of a recent bottleneck. Mamm Biol 74:274–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fonseca C, Torres R, Santos PVJ, Vingada J, Apollonio M (2014) Challenges in the management of cross-border populations of ungulate. In: Putman R, Apollonio M (eds) Behaviour and management of European ungulates. Whittles Publishing, Dunbeath, pp 192–208Google Scholar
  15. Goudet J (1995) FSTAT (version 1.2): a computer program to calculate F-statistics. J Hered 86:485–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Guillot G, Estoup A, Mortier F, Cosson JF (2005) A spatial statistical model for landscape genetics. Genetics 170:1261–1280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Guillot G, Santos F, Estoup A (2008) Analysing georeferenced population genetics data with Geneland: a new algorithm to deal with null alleles and a friendly graphical user interface. Bioinformatics 24:1406–1407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hodak H (2018) Divokoza u moru kod Stinice - snimio Marijan Perčinić. Accessed 10 Aug 2018
  19. Kavčić K, Brivio F, Grignolio S, Ugarković D, Stankić I, Safner T, Apollonio M, Šprem N (2018) Is chamois hybridization in the northern Dinaric Mountains an important factor for horn development? Wildl Biol 1:1–8.Google Scholar
  20. Kuehn R, Hindenlang KE, Holzgang O, Senn J, Stoeckle B, Sperisen C (2007) Genetic effect of transportation infrastructure on roe deer populations (Capreolus capreolus). J Hered 98:13–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Linnell JDC, Trouwborst A, Boitani L, Kaczensky P, Dj H, Reljić S, Kusak J, Majić A, Skrbinšek T, Potočnik H, Hayward WM, Milner-Gulland EJ, Buuveibaatar B, Olson AK, Badamjav L, Bischof R, Zuther S, Breitenmoser U (2016a) Border security fencing and wildlife: the end of the transboundary paradigm in Eurasia? PLoS Biol 14(6):e1002483. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. Linnell JDC, Huber DJ, Trouwborst A, Boitani L (2016b) Border controls: refugee fences fragment wildlife. Nature 529:156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Loison A, Jullien J-M, Menaut P (1999) Subpopulation structure and dispersal in two populations of chamois. J Mammal 80:620–632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lovari S, Sacconi F, Trivellini G (2006) Do alternative strategies of space use occur in male Alpine chamois? Ethol Ecol Evol 18:221–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Markov G, Zhelev P, Ben Slimen H, Suchentrunk F (2016) Population genetic data pertinent to the conservation of Bulgarian chamois (Rupicapra rupicapra balcanica). Conserv Genet 17:155–164. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nesti I, Posillico M, Lovari S (2010) Ranging behaviour and habitat selection of Alpine chamois. Ethol Ecol Evol 22:215–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Oravec A (2017) Habitat selection of alpine chamois under different climatic conditions in the Alpine and Carpathian mountain chains. 6th Symposium for research in protected areas 2 to 3 November 2017, Salzburg, pp 479–482Google Scholar
  28. Pokorny B, Flajšman K, Centore L, Felix Krope S, Šprem N (2017) Border fence: a new ecological obstacle for wildlife in Southeast Europe. Eur J Wildl Res 63(1)Google Scholar
  29. Pritchard JK, Stephens M, Donnelly P (2000) Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data. Genetics 155:945–959PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. Ramanzin M, Contiero B, Fuser S (2002) Spatial segregation and summer habitat use by alpine chamois Rupicapra rupicapra and mouflon Ovis orientalis musimon in the Dolomiti Bellunesi National Park, Italy. Pirineos 157:117–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Safner T, Miller MP, McRae BH, Fortin MJ, Manel S (2011) Comparison of Bayesian clustering and edge detection methods for inferring boundaries in landscape genetics. Int J Mol Sci 12:856–889CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Soglia D, Rossi L, Cauvin E, Citterio C, Ferroglio E, Maione S, Meneguz PG, Spalenza V, Rasero R, Sacchi P (2010) Population genetic structure of alpine chamois (Rupicapra r. rupicapra) in the Italian Alps. Eur J Wildl Res 56:845–854CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Spielman D, Brook BW, Frankham R (2004) Most species are not driven to extinction before genetic factors impact them. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 101:15261–15264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Šprem N, Buzan E (2016) The genetic impact of chamois management in the Dinarides. J Wild Manag 80:783–793CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Šprem N, Frantz CA, Cubric-Curik V, Safner T, Curik I (2013) Influence of habitat fragmentation on population structure of red deer in Croatia. Mamm Biol 78:290–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Šprem N, Zanella D, Ugarković D, Prebanić I, Gančević P, Corlatti L (2015) Unimodal activity pattern in forest dwelling chamois: typical behaviour or interspecific avoidance? Eur J Wildl Res 61:789–794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Šprem N, Piria M, Barišić D, Kusak J, Barišić D (2016) Dietary items as possible sources of 137CS in large carnivores in the Gorski Kotar forest ecosystem, Western Croatia. Sci Total Environ 542A:826–832CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tosi G, Perco F (1981) Camoscio Rupicapra rupicapra Linnaeus, 1758. In: Pavan D (ed) Distribuzione e biologia di 22 specie di Mammiferi in Italia. CNR, Rome, pp 177–184Google Scholar
  39. Treer T, Šprem N, Piria M (2014) Condition of huchen (Hucho hucho Linnaeus, 1758) from the Croatian-Slovenian River Kupa. J Appl Ichthyol 30:168–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Unterthiner S, Ferretti F, Rossi L, Lovari S (2012) Sexual and seasonal differences of space use in Alpine chamois. Ethol Ecol Evol 24:257–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Whitlock MC (2003) Fixation probability and time in subdivided populations. Genetics 164:767–779PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. Willi Y, Van Buskirk J, Schmid B, Fischer M (2006) Genetic isolation of fragmented populations is exacerbated by drift and selection. J Evol Biol 20:534–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Zemanová B, Hájková P, Bryja J, Zima J Jr, Hájková A, Zima J (2011) Development of multiplex microsatellite sets for noninvasive population genetic study of the endangered Tatra chamois. Folia Zool 60:70–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Plant Breeding, Genetics, Biometrics and Experimentation, Faculty of AgricultureUniversity of ZagrebZagrebCroatia
  2. 2.Centre of Excellence for Biodiversity and Molecular Plant Breeding (CoE CroP-BioDiv)ZagrebCroatia
  3. 3.Department of Biodiversity, Faculty of Mathematics, Natural Sciences and Information TechnologiesUniversity of PrimorskaKoperSlovenia
  4. 4.Department of Fisheries, Beekeeping, Game Management and Special Zoology, Faculty of AgricultureUniversity of ZagrebZagrebCroatia

Personalised recommendations