Environmental correlates of species and genetic richness in lungless salamanders (family plethodontidae)

Marshall, Jeremy L.; Camp, Carlos D.

doi:10.1016/j.actao.2005.07.008

Cited by 25 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 51 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, the role of environmental heterogeneity and direct interactions in creating α-SGDCs largely remains unresolved with two exceptions. Marshall and Camp (2006) suggested environmental heterogeneity to be positively related to both the richness of lungless salamander species (Plethodontidae) and their respective allelic richnesses. On the other hand, Taberlet et al (2012) suggested that environmental heterogeneity in glacial refugia could be responsible for the negative and zero α-SGDCs in the flora of European Alpine regions.…”

Section: The Generalizability Of Sgdcsmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Since landscape level spatial genetic information for multiple species are still mostly lacking (Marshall and Camp, 2006;Fortuna et al, 2009;Robinson et al, 2010;Papadopoulou et al, 2011;Messmer et al, 2012;Taberlet et al, 2012), an intuitive approach for using SGDCs would be to predict patterns of intrapopulation genetic diversity based on information on species diversity. Such an approach could be useful for example in evaluating how different anthropogenic disturbance regimes influencing the species diversity of a community can simultaneously influence genetic diversities and thus also the viabilities of the remaining constituent populations (Vellend, 2004;Cleary et al, 2006;Evanno et al, 2009;Struebig et al, 2011).…”

Section: The Usefulness Of the α-Sgdc For Conserving Diversity Withinmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Within localities (i.e. α diversity), α-SGDC describes the relationship between species diversity in a local community and intrapopulation genetic diversity within the species, and both positive and negative α-SGDCs have been observed in natural systems (Karlin et al, 1984;Wehenkel et al, 2006;Marshall and Camp, 2006;Papadopoulou et al, 2011;Vellend et al, 2014). The sign of the α-SGDC directly indicates whether there is a conflict between the conservation of the two levels of biodiversity: Positive α-SGDCs suggest that conservation actions focusing on local species diversities also conserves intrapopulation genetic diversity, whereas negative α-SGDCs suggest that conservation of one level of diversity may compromise diversity on the other level.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Conservation implications of species–genetic diversity correlations

Kahilainen

Puurtinen

Kotiaho

2014

Global Ecology and Conservation

104

114

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tDespite its importance for the long-term viability of populations and functioning of ecosystems, the genetic diversity of populations is seldom given explicit consideration in conservation prioritization. Research on the species-genetic diversity correlation (SGDC) suggests that species diversity within a community and intrapopulation genetic diversity are positively correlated, due to the parallel influences of environmental characteristics (area, connectivity, and environmental heterogeneity) on both levels of diversity. A positive locality scale SGDC (i.e. α-SGDC) thus provides potential for simultaneous conservation of both species diversity within a locality and intrapopulation genetic diversity. However, caution is needed, since in some situations environmental characteristics can influence species diversity and genetic diversity differently, resulting in a negative α-SGDC. In such cases there can be a conflict between conservation of species diversity within localities and genetic diversity within populations. SGDCs provide useful information also for conservation planning, which considers compositional differences between localities, since the mechanisms behind α-SGDCs can also drive correlations between differentiation of community and genetic compositions (i.e. β-SGDCs). We suggest that emphasizing locality area and connectivity between similar localities in conservation planning best conserves both species and intrapopulation genetic diversity, and that focusing on highly complementary species richness may compromise conservation of genetic diversity.

show abstract

Section: The Generalizability Of Sgdcsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: The Usefulness Of the α-Sgdc For Conserving Diversity Withinmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Conservation implications of species–genetic diversity correlations

Kahilainen

Puurtinen

Kotiaho

2014

Global Ecology and Conservation

104

114

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The strength and direction of the correlation is indicated with a correlation coefficient (r) and statistical significance of the correlation is indicated with asterisk (*: P<0.05; **: P<0.01; ***: P<0.001). In one study [27] only the coefficient of determination (R 2 ) was reported. Studies that give tentative evidence for an SGDC but report no test, or have insufficient reporting to allow for testing the SGDC, are indicated with a cross ( †).…”

Section: The Usefulness Of β-Sgdcs For Conserving Diversity Between Lmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interspecific interactions influence contrasting spatial genetic structures in two closely related damselfly species

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The similarities in the theories of community ecology and population genetics suggest that species diversity within and between communities and genetic diversity within and between populations are driven by the same four general mechanisms: (1) drift, (2) dispersal, (3) selection, and (4) the formation of new variants (i.e. speciation and mutation). Since, for both species diversity and genetic diversity, the relative significances of each of the first three mechanisms are very much influenced by characteristics of the environment, correlations between species diversity and genetic diversity, i.e. species-genetic diversity correlations (SGDCs), are expected. Considering that practical conservation most often focuses on species diversity (or surrogates thereof), SGDCs could provide information on how conservation and management decisions influence genetic diversities of populations, and thus also their viabilities. Furthermore, teasing apart the drivers of the SGDCs can offer mechanistic explanations for diversity and therefore suggest a process-based approach to conservation. I studied the generalizability of SGDC and the role of environmental characteristics by means of a literary review and empirical studies on natural dragonfly and damselfly communities. I then conducted individual-based simulations to assess how inbreeding depression due to loss of genetic diversity can influence extinction rates in neutral multispecies metacommunities. My results suggest that SGDCs are highly variable in natural systems and that interactions between ecologically similar species can influence their genetic structures. Therefore, the results question the utility of using species diversity or genetic structures of ecologically similar species as surrogates for genetic diversity of species of conservation concern. Furthermore, my results suggest that if intraspecific genetic diversity is not explicitly considered, the extinction rates in multispecies metacommunities might be underestimated.

show abstract

“…For each species we generated a probability map of the potential range, which is likely restricted by climate, elevation, and landcover (Marshall and Camp, 2006;Bernardo et al, 2007). We used 1 km resolution climate and elevation layers from the WorldClim database (Hijmans et al, 2005; www.worldclim.org), which are created by interpolating observed climate data from multiple climate stations during .…”

Section: Species Distribution Modelingmentioning

confidence: 99%