Skip to main content
PMC home page
Ecology and Evolution logoLink to Ecology and Evolution
. 2015 Jan 16;5(3):743–758. doi: 10.1002/ece3.1335

Detecting a hierarchical genetic population structure: the case study of the Fire Salamander (Salamandra salamandra) in Northern Italy

Giulia Pisa 1, Valerio Orioli 1, Giulia Spilotros 2, Elena Fabbri 3, Ettore Randi 3, Luciano Bani 1,✉
PMCID: PMC4328776  PMID: 25691995

Abstract

The multistep method here applied in studying the genetic structure of a low dispersal and philopatric species, such as the Fire Salamander Salamandra salamandra, was proved to be effective in identifying the hierarchical structure of populations living in broad-leaved forest ecosystems in Northern Italy. In this study, 477 salamander larvae, collected in 28 sampling populations (SPs) in the Prealpine and in the foothill areas of Northern Italy, were genotyped at 16 specie-specific microsatellites. SPs showed a significant overall genetic variation (Global FST = 0.032, P < 0.001). The genetic population structure was assessed by using STRUCTURE 2.3.4. We found two main genetic groups, one represented by SPs inhabiting the Prealpine belt, which maintain connections with those of the Eastern foothill lowland (PEF), and a second group with the SPs of the Western foothill lowland (WF). The two groups were significantly distinct with a Global FST of 0.010 (P < 0.001). While the first group showed a moderate structure, with only one divergent SP (Global FST = 0.006, P < 0.001), the second group proved more structured being divided in four clusters (Global FST = 0.017, P = 0.058). This genetic population structure should be due to the large conurbations and main roads that separate the WF group from the Prealpine belt and the Eastern foothill lowland. The adopted methods allowed the analysis of the genetic population structure of Fire Salamander from wide to local scale, identifying different degrees of genetic divergence of their populations derived from forest fragmentation induced by urban and infrastructure sprawl.

Keywords: Amphibians, broad-leaved forests, fragmented population, microsatellites, STRUCTURE software

Introduction

Habitat destruction and degradation are considered the most important threats for wild populations, but the effects produced by the overall habitat loss are often complex to understand because many impacting factors do not act separately, but rather they play cumulatively or interactively (Giplin and Soulé 1986; Lindenmayer 1995; Young et al. 1996). These factors can shape the landscape, triggering a fragmentation process that affects the spatial distribution of animal populations by confining them to residual habitat fragments with a consequent reduction of population size. Small populations are usually more vulnerable to intrinsic demographic and genetic threatening factors, such as a higher variance of birth and death rates which leads to a higher probability of extinction and a less effective demographic response to environmental stochasticity. Moreover, small populations suffer from a higher genetic drift and inbreeding, leading to a loss of heterozygosity and genetic variability (Keller and Waller 2002; Frankham 2003, 2005). The mating of closely related individuals causes the inbreeding depression that has negative effects on demography (e.g., juvenile fitness and mortality rate among offspring; see Ralls et al. 1988; Lacy 1993; Lacy and Lindenmayer 1995), reducing population growth rates and thus the population size. In addition, the decrease of genetic diversity makes populations less adaptable to environmental variability (Frankham 2005). The smaller the population is, the more important are the effects of intrinsic threatening factors (Giplin and Soulé 1986).

Fragmentation processes generate metapopulations that are defined as a network of spatially discrete populations (i.e., subpopulations) linked by dispersal (Hanski and Simberloff 1997). The amount of dispersal between subpopulations represents the degree of their ecological connectivity. Several species naturally live in metapopulations, but their long-term persistence could be threatened by anthropogenic habitat fragmentation. Indeed, this process could lead to isolation, which is the disruption of dispersal movements and, consequently, the halting of the gene flow between subpopulations, which further emphasizes the negative effects produced by the habitat loss. Knowledge of the ecology of fragmented populations is essential in order to prevent their isolation or even restoring the ecological connectivity between them (Saunders et al. 1987; Burgman and Lindenmayer 1998). We studied the Fire Salamander Salamandra salamandra (AMPHIBIA, URODELA) genetic population structure because amphibians are usually model candidates for studies of fragmentation effects on connectivity (Moore et al. 2011). As they generally have low dispersal capabilities (Caldonazzi et al. 2007; Allentoft and O’Brien 2010) and are rather philopatric to breeding sites (Blaustein et al. 1994), amphibians are particularly susceptible to isolation. These characteristics often determine a high genetic differentiation among populations, even at restricted spatial scales (Allentoft and O’Brien 2010).

In the study area, located in Northern Italy, the species distribution still covers a wide area, although some subpopulations have declined or become locally extinct, where anthropic pressure is strong. Here, broad-leaved forest ecosystems which represent its habitat are mainly threatened by degradation, reduction, and fragmentation. Thus, the species ecology and distribution look particularly suitable to perform a general screening of forest ecosystems connectivity.

Molecular markers, such as polymorphic proteins or DNA sequences, are widely used for evaluating the effective genetic connectivity between populations, because they can distinguish breeding events, measure migration rates between generations and estimate gene flow (Avise 1994; Frankham et al. 2002; Frankham 2006). Moreover, molecular techniques require a lower sampling effort, as they usually rely on biological samples collected in a single period (Neville et al. 2006).

We chose microsatellites as molecular markers, because they are widely used in genetic population structure analyses and they have already been identified for the Fire Salamander in discrete numbers (Steinfartz et al. 2004; Hendrix et al. 2010). Microsatellites pertain to a noncoding DNA part of the genome, with no known function. This “neutral” region of DNA is thus particularly useful as it could change over time without bias induced by selection pressures. However, we stress that microsatellites have sometimes been suspected to be not completely neutral, meaning that at least some of the variation observed within and among populations may be attributed to selection (Kauer et al. 2003). Microsatellite markers generally have high mutation rates resulting in high standing allelic diversity (Selkoe and Toonen 2006). For this reason, when used for evaluating the ecological connection between populations, they should be identified in sequences with mutation rates which are low relative to the migration rates of individuals (Beebee and Rowe 2004).

The traditional Bayesian approach for the evaluation of genetic population structure from microsatellite data consists in the assignment of a genotyped representative sample of individuals to genetically homogenous groups. Usually, the sample is analyzed in one stage, and results can only highlight the main genetic structure of studied populations at wide scale. Nevertheless, some studies have stressed the usefulness of a multistep approach (Vähä et al. 2007; Harris et al. 2014), which entail a separate re-analysis of the groups identified in the previous steps, in order to identify hierarchical and more detailed genetic structure (Evanno et al. 2005; Pritchard et al. 2010). We adopted this method, as it can be very useful in large study areas with potentially fragmented habitats where local highly divergent populations can be hidden by the overall wide-scale genetic population structure.

Methods

Study area and sampling design

The study area is located in the Prealpine belt and in the foothill lowland of the Lombardy region (Northern Italy, Fig. 1). These areas were originally covered by extensive broad-leaved forests, which have been progressively removed and fragmented, especially during the last century. Forests have been replaced by a conspicuous urban sprawl particularly in the foothill lowland, while in the Prealps, they appear to be more continuous (Fig. 1).

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Study area colored according to land uses (left) and its geographical position within Italy (right): on the right, study area (black), within Lombardy (gray) in Northern Italy. On the left, forests in green, urban areas in dark–gray, farmland and other open habitats in gray, lakes, wetlands, and rivers in blue. Black lines represent main roads. Different colored dots represent sampling populations (SPs), while numbers refer to sampling locations (LOCPRIOR) with the first number indicating the SP which the sampling location pertain to. In the lower inset map, dots on the elevation map of the study area represent the Prealpine distribution of the Fire Salamander in Lombardy (the darker is the background, the higher is the elevation; from Di Cerbo and Razzetti 2004).

Sampling design was realized in order to collect genetic data over most of the species range in the study area. We identified 28 sampling populations (SPs; Fig. 1), inhabiting suitable areas separated from each other by anthropogenic (i.e., continuous urban areas, main roads, etc.) or natural barriers (i.e., lakes, main rivers) (min distance: 2900 m). Within each SP, we selected between 1 and 5 sampling locations (making a total of 57), according to Fire Salamander ecology, breeding sites availability, and area accessibility (distance between sampling locations within SPs ranges from 1300 m to 9700 m). In each sampling location, we identified between 1 and 15 breeding sites (making a total of 174) corresponding mainly to slow-flowing streams and their meanders (ponds, in some cases) located in forest areas. The sampling location contained all close breeding sites within the same continuous forest patch in the same watershed (the distance between breeding sites within the sampling locations ranges from 12 m to 4100 m) (Fig. 2). This sampling design was realized in order to reduce the probability of having only siblings within the same sample unit (sampling location).

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Sampling design of Fire Salamander larvae. Each sampling population (dotted circle) can contain a variable number of sampling locations (continuous-line ovals), which group all breeding sites (black dots) in the same continuous forest patch (green areas) and in the same watershed (black lines).

We collected 477 tissue samples by cutting the tip (about 3–4 mm) of 1–4 salamander larvae tail in each breeding site, all year round, from 2010 to 2013. We chose not to sample more than four individuals per site, in order to avoid possible bias deriving from full-sibling individuals when inferring population genetic structure by sampling larvae in breeding sites (Goldberg and Waits 2010). Tissue samples were stored in 95% ethanol in the field and subsequently kept in the laboratory at −20°C.

Salamander larvae were captured and handled with permission of the Lombardy regional administration: P. T1.2009.0016990 decreed on 2009/09/16 by the Environment, Parks and Protected Areas General Directorate of the Lombardy Region (D.G. Ambiente, Parchi e Aree Protette della Regione Lombardia) for 2010–2012, and administrative order 964 decreed on 2013/02/11 by the Agriculture General Directorate of the Lombardy Region (D.G. Agricoltura della Regione Lombardia) for 2013–2014.

DNA extraction and analyses of microsatellite markers

DNA was extracted using the Quick-g DNA™ MiniPrep kit (Zymo Research, USA) according to the manufacturer’s instructions, eluted in 180 μL of elution buffer (10 mmol/L Tris-HCl, pH 8; 0.1 mmol/L EDTA), and stored at −20°C until subsequent handlings.

All samples were genotyped by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for 20 species-specific microsatellite markers (Steinfartz et al. 2004; Hendrix et al. 2010).

PCR amplifications were carried out in a 10-μL mix reaction containing: 1-μL genomic DNA solutions from tissue extraction, 1 μL of 10× PCR buffer with 2.5 mmol/L Mg2+, 2 μL of bovine serum albumin (2%), 0.4 μL of dNTPs 10 μmol/L, and 0.2 or 0.3 μL of primer mix (forward and reverse) 10 μmol/L plus 0.25 units of Taq polymerase (5 PRIME Inc., Gaithersburg, USA) and purified water. PCR conditions were optimized for each primer pair, amplifications were performed in a 9700 ABI thermal cycler using the following protocol: (94°C × 2 min’), a number of cycles ranged from 30 to 40 at (94°C × 30 s’’) (annealing temperature × 30 s’’) (72°C × 30 s’’), and a final extension at 72°C for 10 min’. Some primer pairs (SalE8, SalE12, SalE14, SST-A6-II, and SST-B11) were amplified using a touchdown PCR starting from Ta+8°C to Ta for 8 cycles.

PCR products were analyzed in an Applied Biosystems 3130XL DNA sequencer (Life Technology, Inc.), and allele sizes were estimated using the software GENEMAPPER 4.0 (Life Technology, Inc.). Positive (known genotypes) and negative (no DNA) controls were used to check for laboratory contaminations, which never occurred. A 10% randomly selected subset of the other samples was PCR-replicated two times to check for allelic dropout and false alleles. Four of 20 microsatellite loci (Sal29, SST-F10, SST-G6, and SST-G9) were excluded from the analysis because we were not able to obtain PCR products that could be clearly interpreted.

We used Colony 2.0 (Jones and Wang 2010) to identify possible full-siblings, in order to avoid allele frequencies bias due to sampling larvae (Allendorf and Phelps 1981). We randomly selected one individual from each full-siblings dyad (Goldberg and Waits 2010) and removed the others from all further analyses. We used GenAlEx v. 6.501 (Peakall and Smouse 2006, 2012) to calculate the probability of identity (that is the probability of two independent samples having by chance the same identical genotype) in order to check whether the number of loci was suitable to identify univocally the individuals. The program LOSITAN was used to test for loci out of neutrality, which can influence the estimation of most population genetic parameters (Antao et al. 2008). The measures of the degree to which alleles at two loci were associated (linkage disequilibrium) was calculated using GENEPOP (Rousset 2008). We estimated the degree of genetic diversity among the 28 SPs, calculating global and pairwise FST (Wright 1931; Weir and Cockerham 1984), and we tested their significance by a randomization test based on 9999 permutations. These estimated probabilities were corrected using the sequentially rejective Bonferroni method (Holm 1979), that is more powerful than regular Bonferroni correction (Allendorf et al. 2013). Finally, we calculated population genetic parameters, such as the number of genotyped individuals (N), number of different alleles (Na), number of effective alleles (Ne), allelic range (AR), observed (Ho) and expected heterozygosity (He), and fixation index (FIS), for each locus on all individuals. Before performing genetic population structure analyses, we tested each locus for Hardy–Weinberg Equilibrium (HWE), checking its FIS, in order to detect an excess of homozygosity, which can bias population structure analyses. All these analyses were performed using GenAlEx v. 6.501. Nevertheless, as suggested by Allendorf et al. (2013), a deficit of heterozygosity may be caused by the presence of multiple demes (the Wahund effect, typically occurring in separate populations), sex linkage (occurring when some alleles are linked to one of the two sexes), and null alleles, but only the latter implies the removal of loci out of the HWE. We checked all loci for null alleles using Micro-Checker (Van Oosterhout et al. 2004) which can identify genotyping errors that can cause deviations from Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium and may bias population genetic analyses (Chapuis and Estoup 2007). Finally, we discharged only those loci not at equilibrium after sequentially rejective Bonferroni correction (see Allendorf et al. 2013), which also showed a probability to have null alleles.

Fire Salamander genetic population structure

Genetic population structure was performed analyzing the biparental multilocus genotypes by means of the Bayesian clustering procedure implemented in STRUCTURE 2.3.4 (Pritchard et al. 2000; Falush et al. 2003, 2007; Hubisz et al. 2009), which was designed to identify genetically distinct clusters (populations of origin, K) of the sampled individuals. This analysis gave an assignment probability of each individual (Qi) pertaining to the identified populations of origin. Populations were constructed by minimizing the departures from HWE and linkage equilibrium, which could result from recent admixtures, migration, or hybridization.

When genetic data have a weak signal, the analysis of genetic population structure by means of a Bayesian approach (as the one used by this software) can be improved with the knowledge of the sampling location of each individual. In fact, including the sampling location as a prior in the model, the clustering algorithm assumes that the probability of assignment of each individual to a population of origin varies among locations, without finding population structure where it does not exist (Hubisz et al. 2009). For this reason, we used the sampling location as LOCPRIOR in all performed analyses (see Tucker et al. 2012; Walsh et al. 2012; Kovach et al. 2013; Parsons et al. 2013).

As we did not know whether studied populations were discrete or had an admixed ancestry, we chose to run STRUCTURE using two ancestry models: “no-admixture” and “admixture”. Actually, in some cases, it was unlikely that individuals from different SPs shared recent common ancestors (Falush et al. 2003), as the distances between SPs were higher than dispersal distance for several orders of magnitude. For this reason, we performed the analysis using the “no-admixture” model, which is also recognized to be more powerful in detecting subtle population structure (Pritchard et al. 2010). Nevertheless, in other cases, SPs could be relatively close and probably not completely isolated by barriers and might actually share an admixed ancestry. In these cases, the “admixture” model seemed to be more appropriate (Porras-Hurtado et al. 2013).

The effectiveness of the identification of populations of origin (K) may be further affected by the choice of the allele frequency model. Allele frequencies may show marked differences between distinct populations of origin and ancestral relationships between them is not expected (Rosenberg et al. 2005; Porras-Hurtado et al. 2013). In this case, the independent allele frequencies model seems to be more powerful in identifying populations highly divergent from each other (Pritchard et al. 2010) and reduces the likelihood of overestimating K (Hale et al. 2013). On the other hand, populations may show similar allele frequencies due to a shared recent ancestry (Pritchard et al. 2000; Rosenberg et al. 2005), and in this case, the correlated allele frequency model proves more powerful in detecting distinct populations of origin (Falush et al. 2003; Rosenberg et al. 2005; Porras-Hurtado et al. 2013).

The possible presence of different types of relationships between our SPs can hide a hierarchical structure that cannot be detected by a traditional one-step analysis. Indeed, in the presence of highly divergent populations, their separate analysis may improve the effectiveness of the correlated allele frequencies model in finding substructures (Evanno et al. 2005; Pritchard et al. 2010). For this reason, we adopted a multistep approach that consists of running STRUCTURE a first time in order to identify a main structure and then re-running the software separately for clusters identified in the previous step. Individuals were assigned to a cluster according to the best assignment probability (Evanno et al. 2005) of the sampling location (see LOCPRIOR above) in which they were collected. The process can be repeated until substructures of divergent populations are detected (see Vähä et al. 2007). At each step, we genetically characterized the identified clusters, testing all loci for HWE, and calculating FIS for each of them. Thus, we removed all loci out of equilibrium after sequential Bonferroni correction.

At each step, we ran STRUCTURE according to four parameter combinations using the two possible settings for “ancestry models” and “allele frequency models”, because we did not have any information on the origins and the relationships of the sampled populations. All the runs for the “no-admixture” models were performed using a burnin period of 20,000 followed by 200,000 MCMC (Hastings 1970; Green 1995), while we chose to increment burnin period to 50,000 followed by 500,000 MCMC for the “admixture” models in order to reach an equilibrium in the estimated values of their key statistical parameters (see Porras-Hurtado et al. 2013). All the analyses were replicated 20 times for K ranging from 1 to 10. The optimal K values were selected by means of STRUCTURE HARVESTER (Earl and vonHoldt 2012) following the Evanno method (Evanno et al. 2005), based on the second order rate of change in the log probability of data between successive K values. In order to identify more detailed or subtle population structures, we also considered the K values with the highest average likelihood examining the plateau of the ln Pr(X|K) (Pritchard et al. 2000). The average population assignment probability Qp and the average individual assignment probability Qi were calculated using CLUMPP 1.1.2 with the Greedy algorithm (Jakobsson and Rosenberg 2007). The graphical displays (histograms) of genetic population structures were performed using the software DISTRUCT 1.1 (Rosenberg 2004), which plots individuals as colored bars according to their average Qis.

Finally, we estimated the main genetic parameters of the groups identified in subsequent steps and calculated pairwise genetic distances among them in order to quantify the strength of genetic divergences and evaluate the ability of the multistep approach in discerning these genetic groups.

Results

Genetic variability

Among the 477 sampled individuals, the Colony software identified 26 full-sibling dyads, corresponding to 23 pairs and three triplets of full-siblings. After the removal of full-siblings, the whole dataset consisted of 448 individuals. All loci resulted neutral to selection from LOSITAN analysis after Holm–Bonferroni correction. The probability of identity for increasing locus combinations (16 loci) resulted in values as low as 7.8 × 10−12. Values lower than 0.01 are believed to adequate for population studies (Waits et al. 2001). The panel of microsatellites thus supported reliable individual genotype identification. All loci were polymorphic, with the number of different alleles (Na) ranging from 5 to 24, and the effective number of alleles (Ne) varying between 1.03 and 5.23. All these parameters, with allelic range (AR), observed (Ho) and expected (He) heterozygosity, and fixation index (FIS), for each locus, are shown in Table 1. We calculated FST statistics on a subsample (436 individuals) to allow convergence in GeneAlex algorithm, deleting locus Sal23 (which had a high number of no data) from the initial pool of 16 loci and four SPs (SP1, SP10, SP16, and SP28) with fewer than five individuals. Significant overall genetic variation was observed (15 loci: global FST = 0.032, P < 0.001). Pairwise FST between the 24 SPs ranged from 0.010 to 0.101, with 66 significant comparisons after Holm–Bonferroni correction. Sampling populations SP5, SP6, SP7, and SP12 showed the highest number of significant pairwise tests (Table 2). In the linkage disequilibrium test, no association between alleles at two loci within SPs was found. Two loci of 16 resulted not at HWE after Bonferroni correction and were removed from the further genetic population structure analyses (SalE12 and SSTB11; Table 1).

Table 1.

Population genetic parameters for 448 salamander larvae collected in Lombardy (Northern Italy): number of genotyped individuals (N), number of different alleles (Na), number of effective alleles (Ne), allelic range (AR), observed (Ho) and expected heterozygosity (He), fixation index (FIS). Hardy–Weinberg Equilibrium test: degree of freedom (Df), chi-squared value (Chi-sq), P-value (P), significance after Holm–Bonferroni correction (HB sig).

Locus Population genetic parameters HWE test
N Na Ne AR Ho He F IS Df Chi-sq P HB sig
All loci 446.06 (1.28) 9.94 (1.26) 2.79 (0.29) – 0.546 (0.042) 0.579 (0.047) 0.048 (0.013) 32 Inf. ≪0.001 sig
SalE2 448 11 2.32 216–262 0.560 0.569 0.015 55 34.41 0.987 ns
Sal3 448 11 2.49 181–327 0.569 0.598 0.048 55 54.26 0.503 ns
SalE5 448 5 1.03 180–190 0.027 0.027 −0.011 10 0.08 1.000 ns
SalE6 448 5 2.34 277–297 0.527 0.572 0.079 10 6.23 0.795 ns
SalE7 448 11 2.75 184–232 0.643 0.636 −0.010 55 33.04 0.992 ns
SalE8 446 10 4.26 143–181 0.731 0.765 0.045 45 64.92 0.027 ns
SalE11 448 6 2.21 238–258 0.513 0.548 0.064 15 12.95 0.606 ns
SalE12 441 16 4.42 223–307 0.621 0.774 0.197 120 740.25 ≪0.001 sig
SalE14 448 6 2.19 237–257 0.527 0.543 0.030 15 5.86 0.982 ns
Sal23 428 9 2.46 282–320 0.549 0.594 0.076 36 45.60 0.131 ns
SST-A6-I 448 6 1.75 207–231 0.420 0.428 0.020 15 5.05 0.992 ns
SST-A6-II 448 8 2.34 193–221 0.578 0.573 −0.010 28 16.75 0.953 ns
SST-B11 447 24 5.19 149–263 0.763 0.807 0.055 276 434.29 ≪0.001 sig
SST-C2 447 13 3.06 194–246 0.620 0.673 0.079 78 105.81 0.020 ns
SST-C3 448 5 1.67 207–227 0.400 0.400 0.001 10 5.72 0.838 ns
SST-E11 448 13 4.13 233–311 0.690 0.758 0.090 78 96.21 0.079 ns
Open in a new tab

sig, significant; ns, not significant.

Table 2.

Pairwise FST among the 24 of 28 sampling populations (SPs). Bold values were statistically significant after a randomizations test (9999 permutations) with Holm–Bonferroni correction.

SP SP2 SP3 SP4 SP5 SP6 SP7 SP8 SP9 SP11 SP12 SP13 SP14 SP15 SP17 SP18 SP19 SP20 SP21 SP22 SP23 SP24 SP25 SP26
SP2 –
SP3 0.013 –
SP4 0.017 0.021 –
SP5 0.026 0.022 0.038 –
SP6 0.040 0.039 0.040 0.036 –
SP7 0.022 0.019 0.025 0.015 0.046 –
SP8 0.041 0.023 0.048 0.027 0.060 0.022 –
SP9 0.057 0.046 0.050 0.062 0.081 0.054 0.064 –
SP11 0.015 0.018 0.013 0.035 0.048 0.023 0.036 0.038 –
SP12 0.025 0.019 0.029 0.020 0.048 0.021 0.023 0.054 0.025 –
SP13 0.042 0.040 0.035 0.059 0.062 0.045 0.066 0.055 0.029 0.047 –
SP14 0.023 0.019 0.025 0.038 0.051 0.026 0.038 0.026 0.013 0.030 0.024 –
SP15 0.049 0.048 0.054 0.075 0.064 0.065 0.066 0.061 0.046 0.064 0.073 0.048 –
SP17 0.054 0.039 0.046 0.049 0.058 0.039 0.043 0.044 0.031 0.044 0.045 0.030 0.060 –
SP18 0.034 0.032 0.038 0.042 0.057 0.037 0.035 0.045 0.024 0.035 0.041 0.024 0.067 0.028 –
SP19 0.037 0.031 0.043 0.034 0.064 0.028 0.031 0.043 0.025 0.032 0.039 0.020 0.075 0.031 0.022 –
SP20 0.030 0.025 0.036 0.031 0.054 0.031 0.039 0.033 0.023 0.037 0.042 0.018 0.054 0.044 0.033 0.028 –
SP21 0.026 0.026 0.039 0.038 0.057 0.037 0.052 0.038 0.029 0.038 0.038 0.021 0.050 0.040 0.034 0.021 0.023 –
SP22 0.023 0.021 0.028 0.044 0.049 0.036 0.043 0.040 0.016 0.039 0.027 0.010 0.043 0.035 0.024 0.029 0.022 0.023 –
SP23 0.029 0.024 0.040 0.039 0.055 0.034 0.034 0.055 0.031 0.039 0.045 0.019 0.055 0.050 0.030 0.034 0.026 0.032 0.016 –
SP24 0.030 0.029 0.037 0.036 0.059 0.026 0.034 0.052 0.024 0.021 0.035 0.020 0.063 0.040 0.033 0.018 0.034 0.032 0.031 0.037 –
SP25 0.030 0.020 0.036 0.042 0.049 0.035 0.046 0.054 0.034 0.044 0.035 0.023 0.061 0.050 0.035 0.036 0.031 0.026 0.018 0.028 0.042 –
SP26 0.033 0.029 0.041 0.049 0.057 0.042 0.050 0.042 0.027 0.049 0.040 0.017 0.060 0.040 0.025 0.029 0.028 0.027 0.012 0.027 0.040 0.021 –
SP27 0.078 0.060 0.066 0.078 0.092 0.060 0.070 0.076 0.063 0.061 0.057 0.043 0.101 0.061 0.063 0.044 0.064 0.057 0.054 0.064 0.053 0.047 0.046
Open in a new tab

Fire Salamander population structure

The first step of population structure analysis, performed on all samples (28 SPs, 448 individuals), produced consistent results among the four parameter combinations. According to the Evanno method, we identified two distinct clusters (K = 2; see Fig. 3A for the “no-admixture” model after CLUMPP analysis). CLUMPP Qp values, estimated by the four models, were always higher than 80% for both cluster 1 and 2, except for only one sampling population (SP12) for which the two “independent allele frequencies” models produced a Qp value of 58% for cluster 1. For the same SP, the two “correlated allele frequencies” models estimated a Qp value of 82% pertaining to cluster 1. For this reason, we considered the SP12 pertaining to cluster 1. The r LOCPRIOR parameter was always less than one, indicating that prior groups were informative in detecting population structure (Hubisz et al. 2009; Pritchard et al. 2010). The first cluster included all the Prealps area and the Eastern foothill lowland (and was named “PEF” group), with 24 SPs (323 individuals), while the second one corresponded to the Western foothill lowland (named “WF” group) with 4 SPs (from SP5 to SP8, 125 individuals; see Fig. 3A for the “no-admixture” model after CLUMPP analysis). Global FST for the whole sample divided in the two groups was 0.010 (14 loci: P < 0.001). See Table 3 for all population genetic parameters and the HWE test.

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Open in a new tab

Inferred populations structures for (A) the whole sample (448 individuals, 28 sampling populations, SPs) that was divided in the PEF group (light green) and the Western foothill lowland (WF) group (light brown); (B) STRUCTURE analysis performed only on the PEF group (323 individuals, 24 SPs) showed the presence of two clusters corresponding to SP12 (blue) and all the others SPs (dark red); (C) the three histograms of the WF group (125 individuals, four SPs) showed population structures with 2, 3, and 4 clusters, respectively (see Results). For K = 4, cluster 1 in green, cluster 2 in red, cluster 3 in yellow, and cluster 4 in blue. These colors correspond to those in Fig. 4. Each bar represents an individual and is colored (using DISTRUCT) according to CLUMPP individual probability of assignment (Qi) obtained from “No-admixture” models with “correlated allele frequencies” and LOCPRIOR information.

Table 3.

Population genetic parameters for the PEF (323 individuals) and Western foothill lowland (WF) (125 individuals) groups: number of genotyped individuals (N), number of different alleles (Na), number of effective alleles (Ne), allelic range (AR), observed (Ho) and expected heterozygosity (He), and fixation index (FIS). Hardy–Weinberg Equilibrium test: degree of freedom (Df), chi-squared value (Chi-sq), P-value (p), significance after Holm–Bonferroni correction (HB sig).

Population genetic parameters HWE test
Group Locus N Na Ne Ho He F IS DF Chi-sq P HB sig
PEF All loci 321.5 (1.43) 7.86 (0.84) 2.51 (0.26) 0.526 (0.046) 0.545 (0.049) 0.028 (0.013) 28 53.51. 0.003 sig
SalE2 323 10 2.43 0.591 0.588 −0.005 45 40.90 0.646 ns
Sal3 323 9 2.41 0.545 0.585 0.068 36 46.19 0.119 ns
SalE5 323 5 1.04 0.037 0.037 −0.015 10 0.12 1.000 ns
SalE6 323 4 2.30 0.517 0.565 0.085 6 5.45 0.488 ns
SalE7 323 11 2.78 0.628 0.640 0.019 55 26.77 1.000 ns
SalE8 322 8 4.12 0.727 0.758 0.041 28 42.99 0.035 ns
SalE11 323 6 2.25 0.526 0.556 0.054 15 9.09 0.873 ns
SalE14 323 6 2.07 0.502 0.518 0.031 15 8.22 0.915 ns
Sal23 303 9 2.44 0.521 0.589 0.115 36 85.64 ≪0.001 sig
SST-A6-I 323 4 1.63 0.415 0.385 −0.076 6 4.10 0.663 ns
SST-A6-II 323 8 2.35 0.570 0.575 0.009 28 12.69 0.994 ns
SST-C2 323 13 2.81 0.625 0.644 0.029 78 84.04 0.300 ns
SST-C3 323 4 1.66 0.406 0.397 −0.021 6 7.62 0.267 ns
SST-E11 323 13 4.90 0.752 0.796 0.055 78 78.86 0.451 ns
WF All loci 124,9 (0.10) 5.86 (0.53) 2.41 (0.21) 0.523 (0.048) 0.540 (0.048) 0.032 (0.020) 26 26.41 0.441 ns
SalE2 125 8 2.03 0.480 0.506 0.052 28 19.55 0.880 ns
Sal3 125 7 2.53 0.632 0.604 −0.046 21 13.38 0.895 ns
SalE5 125 1 1.00 – – – Monomorphic
SalE6 125 5 2.38 0.552 0.580 0.048 10 2.41 0.992 ns
SalE7 125 7 2.62 0.680 0.618 −0.100 21 18.93 0.589 ns
SalE8 124 9 4.39 0.742 0.772 0.039 36 37.23 0.412 ns
SalE11 125 5 2.12 0.480 0.528 0.091 10 7.53 0.675 ns
SalE14 125 4 2.42 0.592 0.586 −0.010 6 2.98 0.811 ns
Sal23 125 6 2.50 0.616 0.600 −0.026 15 11.35 0.728 ns
SST-A6-I 125 6 2.01 0.432 0.503 0.141 15 128.45 ≪0.001 sig
SST-A6-II 125 6 2.29 0.600 0.564 −0.063 15 8.34 0.909 ns
SST-C2 124 7 3.26 0.605 0.693 0.127 21 9.49 0.985 ns
SST-C3 125 4 1.67 0.384 0.403 0.047 6 1.58 0.954 ns
SST-E11 125 7 2.48 0.528 0.596 0.115 21 21.38 0.436 ns
Open in a new tab

sig, significant; ns, not significant.

Mean population parameters did not significantly differ between the two groups (Table 3). Nonetheless, the PEF population had a significantly larger number of sampled individuals than the WF and a higher number of private alleles (37 in the PEF and 9 in the WF). In particular, the SalE5 locus became monomorphic in the WF subsample (Table 3).

In the second step, we re-ran a population structure analysis separately for each of the two clusters previously identified (PEF and WF groups). We first tested for HWE using GeneAlex and deleted from the analyses all loci not at equilibrium after Holm–Bonferroni correction and with null alleles. In the PEF group, only Sal23 was out of HWE, while in the WF group, SalE5 resulted monomorphic and SST-A6-I not at HWE. We therefore ran population structure without locus Sal23 for the PEF and without loci SalE5 and SST-A6-I for the WF. Neither of the “independent allele frequencies” models, ran in this step for both the PEF and the WF, converged, even increasing the length of burnin and MCMCs, respectively to 100,000 and 1,000,000. We therefore considered only the “correlated allele frequencies” models hereafter.

The results of the PEF group were similar in terms of the number of clusters identified using the “admixture” and “no-admixture” models. Both models identified two clusters, according to both the Evanno and Pritchard methods. The “admixture model” showed a distinct cluster corresponding to SP12 with a Qp of 67%. All others SPs were assigned to a single cluster, with Qps always higher than 69%. The “no-admixture” model supported the presence of 2 clusters (K = 2), and the results were consistent with the “admixture” model, identifying SP12 as a single cluster (Qp = 94%) and all other SPs pertaining to a second cluster (Qp always higher than 85%), except for SP10 which had a Qp of 67% (see Fig. 3B for the “no-admixture” model after CLUMPP analysis). Although the mean population genetic parameters did not significantly differ between the two clusters of the PEF (Table 4a), their Global FST was significantly different from zero (13 loci, FST = 0.006, P < 0.001). The two clusters showed a different number of private alleles, 33 in cluster 1 and 1 in cluster 2 (SP12). The latter also showed the locus SalE5 as monomorphic (Table 4a).

Table 4.

Population genetic parameters (with SE in parentheses) for the (a) two clusters of the PEF group and (b) four clusters of the WF group: number of genotyped individuals (N), number of different alleles (Na), number of effective alleles (Ne), allelic range (AR), observed (Ho) and expected heterozygosity (He), and fixation index (FIS). Hardy–Weinberg Equilibrium test: degree of freedom (Df), chi-squared value (Chi-sq), P-value (p), significance after Holm–Bonferroni correction (HB sig).

Population genetic parameters HWE test
Cluster Locus N Na Ne Ho He F IS DF Chi-sq P HB sig
(a)
1 All loci 278.9 (0.08) 7.69 (0.91) 2.51 (0.27) 0.525 (0.049) 0.542 (0.053) 0.023 (0.011) 26 34.88 0.114 ns
SalE2 279 10 2.41 0.577 0.584 0.013 45 49.43 0.301 ns
Sal3 279 9 2.36 0.538 0.576 0.066 36 46.72 0.109 ns
SalE5 279 5 1.04 0.043 0.042 −0.017 10 0.13 1.000 ns
SalE6 279 4 2.31 0.538 0.568 0.053 6 4.88 0.559 ns
SalE7 279 11 2.86 0.645 0.651 0.009 55 26.16 1.000 ns
SalE8 278 8 4.00 0.723 0.750 0.036 28 37.93 0.100 ns
SalE11 279 6 2.28 0.516 0.562 0.081 15 11.44 0.721 ns
SalE14 279 6 2.09 0.502 0.522 0.038 15 8.36 0.909 ns
SST-A6-I 279 4 1.61 0.401 0.378 −0.062 6 2.06 0.914 ns
SST-A6-II 279 7 2.36 0.559 0.577 0.031 21 13.83 0.877 ns
SST-C2 279 13 2.94 0.631 0.659 0.043 78 81.94 0.358 ns
SST-C3 279 4 1.64 0.405 0.390 −0.037 6 11.69 0.069 ns
SST-E11 279 13 4.70 0.749 0.787 0.048 78 75.77 0.550 ns
2 All loci 44 5.23 (0.63) 2.47 (0.33) 0.533 (0.055) 0.522 (0.054) −0.025 (0.031) 26 22.37 0.668 ns
SalE2 44 7 2.54 0.682 0.607 −0.123 21 12.30 0.931 ns
Sal3 44 5 2.71 0.591 0.631 0.064 10 27.40 0.002 ns
SalE5 44 1 1.00 – – – Monomorphic
SalE6 44 4 1.87 0.386 0.465 0.168 6 7.20 0.302 ns
SalE7 44 6 2.22 0.523 0.550 0.050 15 12.57 0.635 ns
SalE8 44 6 4.50 0.750 0.778 0.036 15 12.42 0.647 ns
SalE11 44 4 2.07 0.591 0.517 −0.142 6 6.72 0.347 ns
SalE14 44 3 1.96 0.500 0.491 −0.019 3 1.27 0.737 ns
SST-A6-I 44 4 1.75 0.500 0.429 −0.165 6 5.89 0.436 ns
SST-A6-II 44 7 2.21 0.636 0.547 −0.163 21 6.19 0.999 ns
SST-C2 44 7 2.12 0.591 0.529 −0.118 21 13.13 0.904 ns
SST-C3 44 4 1.77 0.409 0.435 0.059 6 1.63 0.951 ns
SST-E11 44 10 5.33 0.773 0.812 0.049 45 46.25 0.420 ns
(b)
1 All loci 56 5.83 (0.44) 2.47 (0.17) 0.555 (0.036) 0.574 (0.028) 0.037 (0.030) 24 20.35 0.677 ns
SalE2 56 8 1.92 0.446 0.479 0.068 28 20.53 0.845 ns
Sal3 56 7 2.50 0.571 0.601 0.049 21 12.35 0.930 ns
SalE6 56 5 2.28 0.446 0.561 0.204 10 5.28 0.872 ns
SalE7 56 7 3.07 0.750 0.674 −0.112 21 16.89 0.718 ns
SalE8 56 8 3.77 0.750 0.735 −0.021 28 16.19 0.963 ns
SalE11 56 4 1.94 0.411 0.484 0.151 6 6.47 0.373 ns
SalE14 56 4 2.14 0.607 0.533 −0.138 6 2.72 0.843 ns
Sal23 56 5 2.39 0.571 0.582 0.018 10 4.40 0.928 ns
SST-A6-II 56 5 2.34 0.607 0.573 −0.060 10 4.55 0.919 ns
SST-C2 56 7 3.11 0.625 0.679 0.079 21 9.02 0.989 ns
SST-C3 56 4 1.62 0.357 0.383 0.069 6 2.40 0.879 ns
SST-E11 56 6 2.52 0.518 0.604 0.143 15 14.55 0.484 ns
2 All loci 3 2.83 (0.37) 2.48 (0.31) 0.639 (0.119) 0.505 (0.075) −0.242 (0.140) – – – –
SalE2 3 3 2.57 1.000 0.611 −0.636 3 3.00 0.392 ns
Sal3 3 3 2.57 1.000 0.611 −0.636 3 3.00 0.392 ns
SalE6 3 2 1.80 0.000 0.444 1.000 1 3.00 0.083 ns
SalE7 3 4 3.60 1.000 0.722 −0.385 6 4.50 0.609 ns
SalE8 3 5 4.50 1.000 0.778 −0.286 10 9.00 0.532 ns
SalE11 3 1 1.00 – – – Monomorphic
SalE14 3 2 1.80 0.667 0.444 −0.500 1 0.75 0.386 ns
Sal23 3 3 2.57 0.667 0.611 −0.091 3 2.33 0.506 ns
SST-A6-II 3 2 1.80 0.667 0.444 −0.500 1 0.75 0.386 ns
SST-C2 3 4 3.00 0.667 0.667 0.000 6 6.33 0.387 ns
SST-C3 3 1 1.00 – – – Monomorphic
SST-E11 3 4 3.60 1.000 0.722 −0.385 6 4.50 0.609 ns
3 All loci 54.83 (0.11) 5.08 (0.43) 2.59 (0.24) 0.587 (0.027) 0.590 (0.025) 0.003 (0.030) 24 24.60 0.428 ns
SalE2 55 7 1.95 0.436 0.487 0.104 21 23.10 0.339 ns
Sal3 55 4 2.47 0.655 0.594 −0.101 6 10.72 0.097 ns
SalE6 55 3 2.48 0.691 0.597 −0.157 3 3.00 0.392 ns
SalE7 55 5 2.15 0.600 0.536 −0.120 10 3.91 0.951 ns
SalE8 54 7 4.99 0.759 0.800 0.051 21 26.37 0.193 ns
SalE11 55 4 2.34 0.582 0.573 −0.016 6 7.59 0.270 ns
SalE14 55 4 2.56 0.527 0.609 0.135 6 5.36 0.498 ns
Sal23 55 6 2.55 0.655 0.609 −0.076 15 6.40 0.972 ns
SST-A6-II 55 5 2.25 0.564 0.557 −0.013 10 2.21 0.994 ns
SST-C2 54 7 3.24 0.593 0.691 0.142 21 9.77 0.982 ns
SST-C3 55 3 1.93 0.491 0.482 −0.017 3 0.25 0.969 ns
SST-E11 55 6 2.21 0.491 0.548 0.104 15 15.16 0.440 ns
4 All loci 11 3.75 (0.18) 2.36 (0.14) 0.591 (0.054) 0.549 (0.044) −0.074 (0.047) 88 62.32 0.983 ns
SalE2 11 4 2.55 0.727 0.607 −0.197 6 3.97 0.680 ns
Sal3 11 4 2.81 0.727 0.645 −0.128 6 2.58 0.859 ns
SalE6 11 3 2.28 0.545 0.562 0.029 3 1.83 0.608 ns
SalE7 11 4 2.55 0.636 0.607 −0.048 6 3.20 0.783 ns
SalE8 11 4 2.44 0.545 0.591 0.077 6 11.55 0.073 ns
SalE11 11 4 2.30 0.455 0.566 0.197 6 3.28 0.772 ns
SalE14 11 4 2.92 0.818 0.657 −0.245 6 4.27 0.640 ns
Sal23 11 4 2.20 0.636 0.545 −0.167 6 1.67 0.947 ns
SST-A6-II 11 4 2.18 0.727 0.541 −0.344 6 3.59 0.732 ns
SST-C2 11 4 2.72 0.545 0.632 0.137 6 6.93 0.327 ns
SST-C3 11 2 1.10 0.091 0.087 −0.048 1 0.02 0.875 ns
SST-E11 11 4 2.22 0.636 0.550 −0.158 6 3.85 0.696 ns
Open in a new tab

sig, significant; ns, not significant.

The analysis of the WF group produced different results using the “admixture” and “no-admixture” models, because the second one identified a more subtle structure. In the “admixture” model, the Evanno method allowed us to identify two clusters, with Qps always higher than 73%. According to the Pritchard method, three clusters could be identified, although in this case, Qps were never higher than 63% and it was not possible to assign each SP to a defined population of origin. Conversely, the results of the “no-admixture” model suggested two clusters using the Evanno method and three to four clusters using the Pritchard one. In this model, Qps were generally rather higher than the previous model allowing us to ascertain a stronger genetic structure. Assuming K = 2, Qps were always higher than 86%, assigning SP5 and SP6 to cluster 1 and SP7 and SP8 to cluster 2. Considering K = 3 or K = 4, the general pattern of population structure did not change (Qps > 84% [K = 3] and Qps > 69% [K = 4] pertaining to the clusters 1 or 2). Nonetheless, the Qps pertaining to cluster three or four were relatively low for all SPs. These two clusters were represented by two groups of genetically distinct individuals, each of which collected in a unique sampling location. The group assigned to cluster 3 was split from SP5 (Qis > 93% with K = 3 and Qis > 99% with K = 4), and the group assigned to cluster 4 was split from SP7 (Qis > 66%) (see Fig. 3C for the “no-admixture” model after CLUMPP analysis). The mean population genetic parameters were not significantly different among the four cluster of the WF group, except for the number of different alleles (Na; Table 4b). In cluster 2, locus SalE11 and SST-C3 resulted monomorphic (Table 4b). Global FST for the WF group was 0.017 (12 loci: P = 0.058). Pairwise FST among the four clusters of the WF group ranged between 0.007 and 0.083, but none of them were significantly different from zero after sequential Bonferroni correction (Table 5).

Table 5.

Pairwise FST among the four clusters of the Western foothill lowland (WF) group below the diagonal. Probability based on 9999 permutations is shown above the diagonal. None of these values were significant after a Holm–Bonferroni correction.

Cluster 1 2 3 4
1 – 0.323 0.043 0.045
2 0.052 – 0.181 0.048
3 0.007 0.059 – 0.029
4 0.022 0.083 0.022 –
Open in a new tab

Discussion

This research allowed us to detect a hierarchical population structure of the Fire Salamander in a wide area of the species range in Northern Italy. The 28 sampled populations were distributed in the Prealpine area, where forest cover is more continuous, and in the foothill lowland, where forests are more fragmented (see Fig. 1). Some SPs from the Western foothill lowland appeared genetically distant from the others, according to pairwise FST (Table 2). This result was confirmed by genetic structure analyses which highlighted how these populations were strongly structured. We identified two groups, one represented by the Western Foothill populations (WF) and another one by all other populations laying in the Prealpine and Eastern Foothill areas (PEF). This was confirmed by the overall high probability of assignment of individuals to the two groups which resulted genetically distant as shown by significant pairwise FST. Even if locus SalE5 became monomorphic in the WF group, the number of effective alleles (Ne) and the observed heterozygosity (Ho) were very similar between PEF and WF, suggesting that currently there was not a loss of genetic diversity on the whole.

After the identification of these two genetically separated groups, the use of a multistep approach allowed us to identify substructured populations.

In the PEF groups, two more clusters were identified: A first one included all populations except SP12, which formed a second cluster whose separation was confirmed by both population structure analysis and pairwise FST. SP12 cluster is located in a foothill forest separated from Prealpine areas by both wide conurbation and a main road. In addition, this area was also found to be isolated by the lack of a stream network connection that may support the dispersal process and seems to be important in connecting other Eastern foothill populations to the Prealps.

The WF group could be divided from two to four groups adopting the Evanno or Pritchard method. Considering K = 2, the group is divided into a Western (SP5 and SP6) and Eastern (SP7 and SP8) cluster, divided by large conurbations and a south–north main road (Fig. 4). In addition, according to the K = 4 result, we observed another subdivision occurring in the two previous clusters (cluster 1: SP5 and SP6; cluster 3: SP7 and SP8), identifying two new clusters corresponding to two sampling locations, sampling location 5.5 (cluster 2), and sampling location 7.3 (cluster 4). Although these two new clusters are very close (with a distance of about three kilometers) to the other sampling locations of the same SP, they seem to represent separated demes. Cluster 2 appeared to be almost completely isolated by unsuitable areas for the Fire Salamander, largely represented by urban areas without stream network connections, while cluster 4 is isolated mainly by agricultural areas but with a stream connection, which could make the isolation less sharp (Fig. 4). Nevertheless, none of the pairwise FST tests for the WF group resulted significant after Holm–Bonferroni correction. This result may be conditioned by the small sample size of clusters 2 and 4, each represented by a single sampling location, with respect to the SPs they were split from.

Figure 4.

Figure 4

Open in a new tab

Population structure of the Western foothill lowland (WF) group. Numbered dots indicate sampling locations, grouped according to their sampling population (dot colors). Pie charts represent the sampling location probability of assignment to the four clusters identified by running STRUCTURE. Cluster 1: green, cluster 2: red, cluster 3: yellow, and cluster 4: blue. These colors correspond to those in Fig. 3C with K = 4. In the background main land uses: forests in green, urban areas in dark–gray, farmland, and other open habitats in gray, lakes, wetlands, and rivers in blue. Black lines represent main roads.

On the whole, the identified population structure may be explained by the hypothesis of a relatively short-term fragmentation in the WF group: In this case, we cannot currently detect a significant loss of alleles, which could arise in the long term due to an inadequate gene flow. Conversely, it is likely that the PEF group (except SP12) will maintain a high number of alleles in the long term, because it is represented by a large and mainly continuous population (Fig. 3B).

Despite the fragmentation process currently only led to an evident population structure without significant differences of genetic parameters among identified clusters, in the medium and long term, it is expected it could even produce a loss of genetic diversity (e.g., Dixo et al. 2009). Indeed, the observed strong genetic population structure within the WF group is particularly worrying, because this will probably lead to a reduction in the capacity of adaptation of these populations, resulting in an increase in their probability of extinction, in relatively short time (Young et al. 1996; Reed and Frankham 2003; Arens et al. 2007). In addition, these populations will face other important threats such as further habitat loss and degradation caused by infrastructural, as well as commercial/residential development projects in their area, which has one of the highest rate of urbanization in Italy. The same fate of the WF is expected for SP12, split from the PEF group, although its isolation seems to be less strong than the one occurring between the WF and the PEF groups and within the WF group.

From a methodological point of view, the multistep approach we adopted for the genetic population structure analysis at large spatial scale allowed us to identify different cases of fragmentation in the overall population, likely corresponding to a different degree of separation, or even isolation, of populations (see sampling location 5.5, i.e., cluster 2 of WF group). The effectiveness of this approach was proved by the use of the species here investigated, the Fire Salamander, an amphibian with rather strict ecological requirements (Di Cerbo and Razzetti 2004; Schmidt et al. 2005). Nonetheless, the genetic results suggest that at wide scale, most of the salamander populations are rather continuous or large enough to not suffer the typical problem of small population; they also highlight how locally the species may suffer habitat fragmentation. This is confirmed by the presence of strong structured populations, with a generalized genetic depletion, evidenced by the presence of some monomorphic loci and many private alleles.

In conclusion, the multistep approach can be useful to detect substructured populations at local scale which cannot be observed analyzing wide-scale data in one-step only. Thus, the screening of genetic population structure from a regional to local scale can be considered effective in detecting local populations of conservation concern which resulted imperilled by threats acting locally and also for a preliminary assessment of the ecological connectivity in fragmented landscapes.

Acknowledgments

We are very grateful to the Assigning Editor and an anonymous reviewer for their appropriate and constructive suggestions to improve the article. We also thank Professor Giuseppe Bogliani for critical review of the first draft. Finally, we are very grateful to Sam and Dario Massimino for linguistic review.

Conflict of Interest

None declared.

Data Accessibility

Sampled individuals, sampling locations, and microsatellite genotypes: Dryad

References

  1. Allendorf FW. Phelps SR. Use of allelic frequencies to describe population structure. Can. J. Fish Aquat. Sci. 1981;38:1507–1514. [Google Scholar]
  2. Allendorf FW, Luikart G. Aitken SN. Conservation and the genetics of populations. Oxford, U.K: Wiley-Blackwell; 2013. [Google Scholar]
  3. Allentoft ME. O’Brien J. Global amphibian declines, loss of genetic diversity and fitness: a review. Diversity. 2010;2:47–71. [Google Scholar]
  4. Antao T, Lopes A, Lopes RJ, Beja-Pereira A. Luikart G. LOSITAN: a workbench to detect molecular adaptation based on a Fst-outlier method. BMC Bioinformatics. 2008;9:323. doi: 10.1186/1471-2105-9-323. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Arens P, van der Sluis T, vant Westende WPC, Vosman B, Vos CC. Smulders MJM. Genetic population differentiation and connectivity among fragmented Moor frog (Rana arvalis) populations in The Netherlands. Landscape Ecol. 2007;22:1489–1500. [Google Scholar]
  6. Avise JC. Molecular markers. New York: Natural History and Evolution. Chapman & Hall; 1994. [Google Scholar]
  7. Beebee T. Rowe G. An introduction to molecular ecology. New York: Oxford University Press; 2004. [Google Scholar]
  8. Blaustein AR, Wake DB. Sousa WP. Amphibian declines: judging stability, persistence, and susceptibility of populations to local and global extinctions. Conserv. Biol. 1994;8(60):71. [Google Scholar]
  9. Burgman MA. Lindenmayer DB. Conservation biology for the Australian environment. Chipping Norton, NSW: Surrey Beatty & Sons; 1998. [Google Scholar]
  10. Caldonazzi M, Nistri A. Salamandra salamandra. In: Lanza B, Andreone F, Bologna MA, Corti C, Razzetti E, editors; Tripepi S, et al., editors. Fauna d’Italia. Calderini, Bologna, Italy: Amphibia; 2007. pp. 221–227. (in Italian) [Google Scholar]
  11. Chapuis MP. Estoup A. Microsatellite null alleles and estimation of population differentiation. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2007;24:621–631. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msl191. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Di Cerbo A. Salamandra salamandra. In: Bernini F, Bonini L, Ferri V, Gentilli A, Razzetti E, Scali S, editors; Razzetti E, et al., editors. Atlante degli Anfibi e dei Rettili della Lombardia. Provincia di Cremona, Cremona: Monografie di Pianura; 2004. pp. 64–66. In:(in Italian) http://www-3.unipv.it/webshi/images/files/atlante_lombardia.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  13. Dixo M, Metzger JP, Morgante JS. Zamudio KR. Habitat fragmentation reduces genetic diversity and connectivity among toad populations in the Brazilian Atlantic Coastal Forest. Biol. Conserv. 2009;142:1560–1569. [Google Scholar]
  14. Earl DA. vonHoldt BM. STRUCTURE HARVESTER: a website and program for visualizing STRUCTURE output and implementing the Evanno method. Conserv. Genet. Res. 2012;4:359–361. [Google Scholar]
  15. Evanno G, Regnaut S. Goudet J. Detecting the number of clusters of individuals using the software STRUCTURE: a simulation study. Mol. Ecol. 2005;14:2611–2620. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2005.02553.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Falush D, Stephens M. Pritchard JK. Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data: linked loci and correlated allele frequencies. Genetics. 2003;164:1567–1587. doi: 10.1093/genetics/164.4.1567. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Falush D, Stephens M. Pritchard JK. Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data: dominant markers and null alleles. Mol. Ecol. Notes. 2007;7:574–578. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-8286.2007.01758.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Frankham R. Genetics and conservation biology. C. R. Biol. 2003;326:S22–S29. doi: 10.1016/s1631-0691(03)00023-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Frankham R. Genetics and extinction. Biol. Conserv. 2005;126:131–140. [Google Scholar]
  20. Frankham R. Genetics and landscape connectivity. In: Crooks KR, Sanjayan MA, et al., editors. Connectivity conservation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2006. pp. 72–96. [Google Scholar]
  21. Frankham R, Ballou JD. Briscoe DA. Introduction to conservation genetics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2002. [Google Scholar]
  22. Giplin ME. Soulé ME. Minimum viable populations: processes of species extinctions. In: Soulé ME, et al., editors; Conservation biology: the science of scarcity and diversity. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates; 1986. pp. 19–34. [Google Scholar]
  23. Goldberg CS. Waits LP. Quantification and reduction of bias from sampling larvae to infer population and landscape genetic structure. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 2010;10:304–313. doi: 10.1111/j.1755-0998.2009.02755.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Green PJ. Reversible jump Markov chain Monte Carlo computation and Bayesian model determination. Biometrika. 1995;82:711–732. [Google Scholar]
  25. Hale JM, Heard GW, Smith KL, Parris KM, Austin JJ, Kearney M, et al. Structure and fragmentation of growling grass frog metapopulations. Conserv. Genet. 2013;14:313–322. [Google Scholar]
  26. Hanski I. Simberloff D. The metapopulation approach, its history, conceptual domain, and application to conservation. In: Hanski IA, Gilpin ME, et al., editors; Metapopulation biology. San Diego, CA: Academic Press; 1997. pp. 5–26. [Google Scholar]
  27. Harris LN, Moore J-S, Galpern P, Tallman RF. Taylor EB. Geographic influences on fine-scale, hierarchical population structure in northern Canadian populations of anadromous Arctic Char (Salvelinus alpinus. Environ. Biol. Fishes. 2014;97:1233–1252. [Google Scholar]
  28. Hastings WK. Monte Carlo sampling methods using Markov chains and their applications. Biometrika. 1970;57:97–109. [Google Scholar]
  29. Hendrix R, Hauswaldt S, Veith M. Steinfartz S. Strong correlation between cross-amplification success and genetic distance across all members of ‘True Salamanders’ (Amphibia: Salamandridae) revealed by Salamandra salamandra-specific microsatellite loci. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 2010;10:1038–1047. doi: 10.1111/j.1755-0998.2010.02861.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Holm S. A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scand. J. Stat. 1979;6:65–70. [Google Scholar]
  31. Hubisz MJ, Falush D, Stephens M. Pritchard JK. Inferring weak population structure with the assistance of sample group information. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 2009;9:1322–1332. doi: 10.1111/j.1755-0998.2009.02591.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Jakobsson M. Rosenberg NA. CLUMPP: a cluster matching and permutation program for dealing with label switching and multimodality in analysis of population structure. Bioinformatics. 2007;14:1801–1806. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btm233. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Jones OR. Wang JI. COLONY: a program for parentage and sibship inference from multilocus genotype data. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 2010;10:551–555. doi: 10.1111/j.1755-0998.2009.02787.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Kauer M, Dieringer D. Schlotterer C. Nonneutral admixture of immigrant genotypes in African Drosophila melanogaster populations from Zimbabwe. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2003;20:1329–1337. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msg148. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Keller LF. Waller DM. Inbreeding effects in wild populations. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2002;17:230–241. [Google Scholar]
  36. Kovach AI, Breton TS, Enterline C. Berlinsky DL. Identifying the spatial scale of population structure in anadromous rainbow smelt (Osmerus mordax. Fish. Res. 2013;141:95–106. [Google Scholar]
  37. Lacy RC. Impacts of inbreeding in natural and captive populations of vertebrates: implications for conservation. Perspect. Biol. Med. 1993;36:480–496. [Google Scholar]
  38. Lacy RC. Lindenmayer DB. A simulation study of the impacts of population subdivision on the mountain brushtail possum Trichosurus caninus ogilbyPhalangeridae, Marsupialia) in South-Eastern Australia. 2. Loss of genetic variation within and between subpopulations. Biol. Conserv. 1995;73:131–142. [Google Scholar]
  39. Lindenmayer DB. Disturbance, forest wildlife conservation and a conservative basis for forest management in the mountain ash forests of Victoria. For. Ecol. Manage. 1995;74:223–231. [Google Scholar]
  40. Moore JA, Tallmon DA, Nielsen J. Pyare S. Effects of the landscape on boreal toad gene flow: does the pattern–process relationship hold true across distinct landscapes at the Northern range margin? Mol. Ecol. 2011;20:4858–4869. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2011.05313.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Neville H, Dunham J. Peacock M. Assessing connectivity in salmonid fishes with DNA microsatellite markers. In: Crooks KR, Sanjayan MA, et al., editors; Connectivity conservation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2006. pp. 318–342. [Google Scholar]
  42. Parsons KM, Durban JW, Burdin AM, Burkanov VN, Pitman RL, Barlow J, et al. Geographic patterns of genetic differentiation among killer whales in the Northern North Pacific. J. Hered. 2013;104:737–754. doi: 10.1093/jhered/est037. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Peakall R. Smouse PE. GENALEX 6: genetic analysis in Excel. Population genetic software for teaching and research. Mol. Ecol. Notes. 2006;6:288–295. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/bts460. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Peakall R. Smouse PE. GenAlEx 6.5: genetic analysis in Excel. Population genetic software for teaching and research-an update. Bioinformatics. 2012;28:2537–2539. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/bts460. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Porras-Hurtado L, Ruiz Y, Santos C, Phillips C, Carracedo Á. Lareu M. An overview of STRUCTURE: applications, parameter settings and supporting software. Front. Genet. 2013;4:1–13. doi: 10.3389/fgene.2013.00098. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Pritchard JK, Stephens M. Donnelly PJ. Inference of population Structure using multilocus genotype data. Genetics. 2000;155:945–959. doi: 10.1093/genetics/155.2.945. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Pritchard JK, Wen X. Falush D. 2010. , and Documentation for STRUCTURE software. [Documentation file]. Available with the program at http://pritch.bsd.uchicago.edu/structure.html.
  48. Ralls K, Ballou JD. Templeton AR. Estimates of lethal equivalents and the cost of inbreeding in mammals. Conserv. Biol. 1988;2:185–193. [Google Scholar]
  49. Reed DH. Frankham R. Correlation between fitness and genetic diversity. Conserv. Biol. 2003;17:230–237. [Google Scholar]
  50. Rosenberg NA. DISTRUCT: a program for the graphical display of population structure. Mol. Ecol. Notes. 2004;4:137–138. [Google Scholar]
  51. Rosenberg NA, Mahajan S, Ramachandran S, Zhao C, Pritchard JK. Feldman MW. Clines, clusters, and the effect of study design on the inference of human population structure. PLoS Genet. 2005;1:660–671. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.0010070. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Rousset F. GENEPOP’007: a complete re-implementation of the GENEPOP software for Windows and Linux. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 2008;8:103–106. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-8286.2007.01931.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Saunders DA, Arnold GW, Burbridge AA. Hopkins AJ. Nature conservation: the role of remnants of native vegetation. Chipping Norton, NSW: Surrey Beatty & Sons; 1987. [Google Scholar]
  54. Schmidt BR, Feldmann R. Schaub M. Demographic processes underlying population growth and decline in Salamandra salamandra. Conserv. Biol. 2005;19:1149–1156. [Google Scholar]
  55. Selkoe KA. Toonen RJ. Microsatellites for ecologists: a practical guide to using and evaluating microsatellite markers. Ecol. Lett. 2006;9:615–629. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2006.00889.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Steinfartz S, Küsters D. Tautz D. Isolation and characterization of polymorphic tetranucleotide microsatellite loci in the Fire Salamander Salamandra salamandraAmphibia: Caudata. Mol. Ecol. Notes. 2004;4:626–628. [Google Scholar]
  57. Tucker KP, Hunter ME, Bonde RK, Austin JD, Clark AM, Beck CA, et al. Low genetic diversity and minimal population substructure in the endangered Florida manatee: implications for conservation. J. Mammal. 2012;93:1504–1511. [Google Scholar]
  58. Vähä JP, Erkinaro J, Niemelä E. Primmer CR. Life-history and habitat features influence the within-river genetic structure of Atlantic salmon. Mol. Ecol. 2007;16:2638–2654. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2007.03329.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Van Oosterhout C, Hutchinson WF, Wills DPM. Shipley P. MICRO-CHECKER: software for identifying and correcting genotyping errors in microsatellite data. Mol. Ecol. Notes. 2004;4:535–538. [Google Scholar]
  60. Waits L, Luikart G. Taberlet P. Estimating the probability of identity among genotypes in natural populations: cautions and guidelines. Mol. Ecol. 2001;10:249–256. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-294x.2001.01185.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Walsh J, Kovach AI, Babbitt KJ. O’Brien KM. Fine-scale population structure and asymmetrical dispersal in an obligate salt-marsh passerine, the saltmarsh sparrow (ammodramus caudacutus. Auk. 2012;129:247–258. [Google Scholar]
  62. Weir BS. Cockerham CC. Estimating F-statistics for the analysis of population structure. Evolution. 1984;38:1358–1370. doi: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.1984.tb05657.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Wright S. Evolution in Mendelian populations. Genetics. 1931;16:0097–0159. doi: 10.1093/genetics/16.2.97. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Young AG, Boyle T. Brown AHD. The population genetic consequences of habitat fragmentation for plants. Trends Ecol. Evol. 1996;2:413–418. doi: 10.1016/0169-5347(96)10045-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

Sampled individuals, sampling locations, and microsatellite genotypes: Dryad

Articles from Ecology and Evolution are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES