Conservation genetics of a resident population of Greylag Goose (Anser anser) at the southernmost limit of the species' distribution in Europe
-
Abstract:Background
Conservation of small and isolated populations can be challenging since they are prone to loss of genetic diversity due to random genetic drift and inbreeding. Therefore,information from the assessment of genetic diversity and structure are needed for conservation programs to determine the appropriate management strategy for the populations. We investigated the levels of genetic variability in a resident Greylag Goose (Anser anser) population,the southernmost breeding population of the species in Europe and the sole viable population of any goose species in Greece.
MethodsA fragment of mtDNA Control Region and a panel of 11 microsatellite markers were used to search for any signs of genetic impoverishment and population substructure and to reveal the underlying processes through the identification of possible past demographic events.
ResultsThe population was found to be monomorphic in the amplified fragment of the mitochondrial Control Region,with all individuals sharing a single private haplotype. Analyses showed a lack of any population substructure indicating a panmictic population. Although the population seems to have experienced a strong and recent genetic bottleneck and exhibits a small effective population size,we did not find evidence of either extremely low levels of genetic diversity or inbreeding depression.
ConclusionsThe recent demographic decline we detected and the combined influence of residency and anthropogenic factors have probably shaped the current genetic status. Our study population does not need emergency conservation actions but should be regarded as a discrete management unit. Future management strategies should focus on population and genetic monitoring and preventing further abundance declines that would increase the risk of genetic impoverishment.
-
Keywords:
- Conservation /
- Genetic variability /
- Inbreeding /
- Isolation /
- Management units /
- Microsatellites /
- mtDNA /
- Nonmigratory population
-
![]()
Figure 1. Map of the Greylag Goose populations compared in the present study. Populations 1‒6 are referred in the literature (Pellegrino et al. 2015). 1: Finnmark, 2: Vega, 3: Nord, 4: Oise, 5: Gironde, 6: Landes, 7: Prespa Lakes. Dark and light shaded areas represent the breeding and staging/wintering distribution of the Greylag Goose respectively. (Modified from BirdLife International)
![]()
Figure 2. Factorial correspondence analysis (FCA) of Greylag Goose genotypes along with 95% confidence ellipses for a different age classes (83 samples) and b different sexes (82 samples)
![]()
Figure 3. Two-dimensional plots of likelihood ratio profiles for pairs of parameters inferred by Migraine. Ancestral and actual effective population size (θanc, θ), and timing of the demographic history events (D) are on the log scale. Point estimates and the 95% confidence intervals for all parameters are given in Additional file 1: Table S6
Table 1 Estimates of genetic diversity of the Greylag Goose populations
Code Country/location Site n A Ae Ho He Fis 1 Norway Finnmark Breeding 11 4.0 ± 0.4 2.5 ± 0.3 0.481 ± 0.085 0.530 ± 0.072 0.104 ± 0.072 2 Vega Breeding 34 5.0 ± 0.9 2.9 ± 0.4 0.595 ± 0.055 0.590 ± 0.054 ‒0.038 ± 0.078 3 France North Nord Wintering 17 4.9 ± 0.7 3.2 ± 0.4 0.599 ± 0.075 0.641 ± 0.046 0.084 ± 0.080 4 Oise Wintering 15 4.3 ± 0.8 3.2 ± 0.6 0.437 ± 0.082 0.589 ± 0.079 0.246 ± 0.078 5 France South West Gironde Wintering 24 5.1 ± 0.8 3.2 ± 0.4 0.533 ± 0.062 0.626 ± 0.056 0.140 ± 0.062 6 Landes Wintering 45 5.4 ± 0.9 3.2 ± 0.4 0.563 ± 0.050 0.628 ± 0.054 0.090 ± 0.047 7 Greece Prespa Breeding + wintering (resident population) 83 4.6 ± 0.9 2.3 ± 0.3 0.451 ± 0.066 0.528 ± 0.049 0.153 ± 0.087 Values for populations 1‒6 were recalculated from Pellegrino et al. (2015), only for the loci we used in this study. Number of genotyped individuals (n) and the type of site they were collected from, number of alleles per locus (A), number of effective alleles (Ae), observed (Ho) and expected (He) heterozygosity and inbreeding coefficient (Fis). Values are presented as mean ± standard error 
下载: 导出CSV
-
-
期刊类型引用(4)
1. Wu, H., Qi, S., Fan, S. et al. Analysis of the Mitochondrial COI Gene and Genetic Diversity of Endangered Goose Breeds. Genes, 2024, 15(8): 1037. 
必应学术
2. Mai, S., Wittor, C., Merker, S. et al. DRD4 allele frequencies in greylag geese vary between urban and rural sites. Ecology and Evolution, 2023, 13(2): e9811. 必应学术
3. Vavylis, D., Bounas, A., Karris, G. et al. The state of breeding birds in Greece: Trends, threats, and implications for conservation. Bird Conservation International, 2021, 31(4): 495-509. 必应学术
4. Abdel-Kafy, E.-S.M., Ramadan, S.I., Ali, W.H. et al. Genetic and phenotypic characterization of domestic geese (Anser anser) in egypt. Animals, 2021, 11(11): 3106. 必应学术
其他类型引用(0)
