Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Are species genetically more sensitive to habitat fragmentation on the periphery of their range compared to the core? A case study on the sand lizard (Lacerta agilis)

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Landscape Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Context

Species show different sensitivity to habitat loss and fragmentation depending on their specialization. Populations of a species at the range margin are generally assumed to be more stenoecious than populations at the core of the distribution and should therefore be more sensitive to habitat fragmentation.

Objectives

We evaluated the hypothesis that fragmentation effects species more strongly at the range periphery of their range compared to the core, resulting in lower genetic variability in comparable patch sizes and lower gene flow among populations.

Methods

We compared the genetic diversity and structure of five sand lizard (Lacerta agilis) populations at the margin of its range in Bulgaria and of 11 populations at the core of its distribution in Germany. We based the analysis on microsatellites, comprising 15 loci in Bulgaria and 12 in Germany.

Results

All diversity indices declined with patch size. For medium-sized patches all diversity indices were lower at the range periphery compared to the core, with two of them being significant. AICc based model selection showed strong support for core/periphery and patch size effects for observed and expected heterozygosity but only a patch size effect for allelic richness. There was no isolation-by-distance and each sampled population was allocated to a separate cluster with high probability for both countries, indicating that all populations are (almost) completely isolated.

Conclusion

Our study indicates an increased sensitivity of a species to fragmentation at the periphery compared to the core of its distribution. This differential sensitivity should be accounted for when prioritizing species based on their fragmentation sensitivity in landscape management.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Andres C, Franke F, Bleidorn C, Bernhard D, Schlegel M (2014) Phylogenetic analysis of the Lacerta agilis subspecies complex. Syst Biodivers 12:43–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arenas M, Ray N, Currat M, Excoffier L (2012) Consequences of range contractions and range shifts on molecular diversity. Mol Biol Evol 29:207–218

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Böhme W, Rödder D (2008) Amphibien und Reptilien: Verbreitungs- und Verhaltensänderungen aufgrund der Erderwärmung. In: Lozán JL, Graß H, Jendritzky G, Karbe L, Reise K (eds) Warnsignal Klima: Erderwärmung. Wissenschaftliche Auswertungen. GEO, Hamburg, pp 103–107

  • Burnham KP, Anderson AR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference. A practical information–theoretic approach. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Delaney KS, Riley SPD, Fisher RN (2010) A rapid, strong, and convergent genetic response to urban habitat fragmentation in four divergent and widespread vertebrates. PLoS One 5(9):e12767

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Devictor V, Julliard R, Jiguet F (2008) Distribution of specialist and generalist species along spatial gradients of habitat disturbance and fragmentation. Oikos 117:507–514

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dudaniec RY, Spear SF, Richardson JS, Storfer A (2012) Current and historical drivers of landscape genetic structure differ in core and peripheral salamander populations. PLoS One 7:e36769

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Eckert CG, Samis KE, Lougheed SC (2008) Genetic variation across species’ geographical ranges: the central-marginal hypothesis and beyond. Mol Ecol 17:1170–1188

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Elbing K, Günther R, Rahmel U (1996) Zauneidechse—Lacerta agilis Linnaeus, 1758. In: Günther R (ed) Die Amphibien und Reptilien Deutschlands. Fischer, Jena, pp 535–557

    Google Scholar 

  • ESRI (2011) ArcGIS Desktop: Release 10. Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands

    Google Scholar 

  • Excoffier L, Lischer HEL (2010) Arlequin suite ver 3.5: a new series of programs to perform population genetics analyses under Linux and Windows. Mol Ecol Resour 10:564–567

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fontaine MC, Baird SJE, Piry S, Ray N, Tolley KA, Duke S, Birkun A, Ferreira M, Jauniaux T, Llavona A, Öztürk B, Öztürk AA, Ridoux V, Rogan E, Sequeira M, Siebert U, Vikingsson GA, Bouquegneau J-M, Johan R, Michaux JR (2007) Rise of oceanographic barriers in continuous populations of a cetacean: the genetic structure of harbour porpoises in Old World waters. BMC Biol 5(30). doi:10.1186/1741-7007-5-30

  • Frankham R (2005) Genetics and extinction. Biol Conserv 126:131–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerlach G, Jueterbock A, Kraemer P, Deppermann J, Harmand P (2010) Calculations of population differentiation based on GST and D: forget GST but not all of statistics! Mol Ecol 19:3845–3852

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Goslee S, Urban D (2012) ecodist: Dissimilarity-based functions for ecological analysis. Version 1.2.7. Available from http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/ecodist/index.html. Accessed November 2013

  • Grimm A, Prieto Ramirez AM, Moulherat S, Reynaud J, Henle K (2014) Life-history trait database of European reptile species. Nat Conserv 9:45–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grosse W-R (2009) Verbreitung der Kriechtiere (Reptilia) in der Stadt Leipzig (Sachsen). Jahresschr Feldherpetol Ichthyofaun Sachsen 11:47–75

    Google Scholar 

  • Guillot G (2008) Inference of structure in subdivided populations at low levels of genetic differentiation—the correlated allele frequencies model revisited. Bioinformatics 24:2222–2228

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Guillot G, Mortier F, Estoup A (2005) Geneland: a computer package for landscape genetics. Mol Ecol Notes 5:712–715

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gullberg A, Tegelström H, Olsson M (1997) Microsatellites in the sand lizard (Lacerta agilis): description, variation, inheritance, and applicability. Biochem Genet 35:281–295

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Haase D, Nuissl H (2010) The urban-to-rural gradient of land use change and impervious cover: a long-term trajectory for the city of Leipzig. J Land Use Sci 5:123–141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heller R, Siegismund HR (2009) Relationship between three measures of genetic differentiation GST, DEST and G’ST: how wrong have we been? Mol Ecol 18(10): 2080-2083

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Henle K, Davies KF, Kleyer M, Margules CR, Settele J (2004) Predictors of species sensitivity to fragmentation. Biodivers Conserv 13:207–251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirt S (2008) Landscapes of postmodernity: changes in the built fabric of Belgrade and Sofia since the end of socialism. Urban Geogr 29:785–810

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoehn M, Sarre S, Henle K (2007) The tales of two geckos: does dispersal prevent extinction in recently fragmented populations? Mol Ecol 16:3299–3312

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jellinek S, Driscoll DA, Kirkpatrick JB (2004) Environmental and vegetation variables have a greater influence than habitat fragmentation in structuring lizard communities in remnant urban bushland. Aust Ecol 29:294–304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jost L (2008) GST and its relatives do not measure differentiation. Mol Ecol 17:4015–4026

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kalinowski ST (2005) Hp-Rare 1.0: a computer program for performing rarefaction on measures of allelic richness. Mol Ecol Notes 5:187–189

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kalyabina SA, Milto KD, Ananjeva NB, Legal L, Joger U, Wink M (2001) Phylogeography and systematics of Lacerta agilis based on mitochondrial cytochrome B gene sequences: first results. Russ J Herpetol 8:149–158

    Google Scholar 

  • Märtens B (1999) Demographisch ökologische Untersuchung zu Habitatqualität, Isolation und Flächenanspruch der Zauneidechse (Lacerta agilis, Linnaeus, 1758) in der Porphyrkuppenlandschaft bei Halle (Saale) Bremen. PhD University of Bremen, Bremen

  • Mazerolle MJ (2013) AICcmodavg: model selection and multimodal inference based on (Q)AIC(c). Version 1.33. http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/AICcmodavg/index.html. Accessed 11 Nov 2013

  • Miller JR, Hobbs RJ (2002) Conservation where people live and work. Conserv Biol 16:330–337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mona S, Ray N, Arenas M, Excoffier L (2014) Genetic consequences of habitat fragmentation during a range expansion. Heredity 112:291–299

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Munwes I, Geffen E, Roll U, Friedmann A, Daya A, Tikochinski Y, Gafny S (2010) The change in genetic diversity down the core-edge gradient in the eastern spadefoot toad (Pelobates syriacus). Mol Ecol 19:2675–2689

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nei M (1973) Analysis of gene diversity in subdivided populations. PNAS 70:3321–3323

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Öckinger E, Schweiger O, Crist TO, Debinski DM, Krauss J, Kuussaari M, Petersen JD, Pöyry J, Settele J, Summerville KS, Bommarco R (2010) Life-history traits predict species responses to habitat area and isolation: a cross-continental synthesis. Ecol Lett. 13:969–979

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Palumbi SR (2003) Population genetics, demographic connectivity, and the design of marine reserves. Ecol Appl 13:S146–S158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pike N (2011) Using false discovery rates for multiple comparisons in ecology and evolution. Methods Ecol Evol 2:278–282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • R Core Team (2015) A language and environment for statistical computing. Version 3.1.1. Available at: http://www.r-project.org/

  • Raymond M, Rousset F (1995) GENEPOP (Version 1.2): Population genetics software for exact tests and ecumenicism. J Hered 86:9–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Rousset F (1997) Genetic differentiation and estimation of gene flow from F-statistics under isolation by distance. Genetics 145:1219–1228

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz TS, Olsson M (2008) Microsatellite markers developed for a Swedish population of sand lizard (Lacerta agilis). Conserv Genet 9:715–717

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sillero N, Campos J, Bonardi A, Corti C, Creemers R, Crochet P-A, Crnobrnja Isailovic J, Denoël M, Ficetola GF, Gonçalves J, Kuzmin S, Lymberakis P, de Pous P, Rodríguez A, Sindaco R, Speybroeck J, Toxopeus B, Vieites DR, Vences M (2014) Updated distribution and biogeography of amphibians and reptiles of Europe. Amphib Reptil 35:1–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soulé ME (1986) Viable populations for conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoyanov A, Tzankov N, Naumov B (2011) Die Amphibien und Reptilien Bulgariens. Chimaira, Frankfurt am Main

    Google Scholar 

  • Tukey JW (1959) A quick, compact two-sample test to Duckworth’s specifications. Technometrics 1:31–48

    Google Scholar 

  • Tzankov N, Popgeorgiev G, Kornilev Y, Petrov B, Zidarova S, Stefanov T (2015) Sofia. In: Kelcey J (ed) Vertebrates and invertebrates of European cities: selected non-avian fauna. Springer, New York, pp 179–206

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Van Oosterhout C, Hutchinson WF, Wills DPM, Shipley P (2004) Micro-Checker: software for identifying and correcting genotyping errors in microsatellite data. Mol Ecol Notes 4:535–538

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright S (1951) The genetical structure of populations. Ann Eugenics 15:323–354

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wright S (1978) Evolution and the genetics of populations. Genetics 16:97–159

    Google Scholar 

  • Young AG, Clarke GM (2000) Genetics, demography and viability of fragmented populations. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Conrad Helm, Stefan Schaffer, Ana María Prieto Ramírez, Ronny Wolf and Nico Hesselbarth for assisting in the field and Heiko Stukkas for assistance concerning some of the statistical analyses.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Conservation Biology, UFZ – Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, Permoserstr. 15, 04318, Leipzig, Germany

    Klaus Henle & Annegret Grimm

  2. Working group Molecular Evolution and Animal Systematics, Institute of Biology, University of Leipzig, Talstr. 33, 04103, Leipzig, Germany

    Claudia Andres, Detlef Bernhard & Martin Schlegel

  3. iDIV–German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, Deutscher Platz 5e, 04103, Leipzig, Germany

    Klaus Henle & Martin Schlegel

  4. Invertebrates Department, National Museum of Natural History, Sofia, Tsar Osvoboditel Blvd. 1, 1000, Sofia, Bulgaria

    Pavel Stoev

  5. Pensoft Publishers Ltd., 12, Prof. G. Zlatarski St., 1700, Sofia, Bulgaria

    Pavel Stoev

  6. Vertebrates Department, National Museum of Natural History, Sofia, Tsar Osvoboditel Blvd. 1, 1000, Sofia, Bulgaria

    Nikolay Tzankov

Authors
  1. Klaus Henle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Claudia Andres
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Detlef Bernhard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Annegret Grimm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Pavel Stoev
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Nikolay Tzankov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Martin Schlegel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Klaus Henle.

Additional information

Nikolay Tzankov recently deceased

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Henle, K., Andres, C., Bernhard, D. et al. Are species genetically more sensitive to habitat fragmentation on the periphery of their range compared to the core? A case study on the sand lizard (Lacerta agilis). Landscape Ecol 32, 131–145 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-016-0418-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-016-0418-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation