Fine‐scale spatial genetic structure of deer in a suburban landscape

Abstract

Hunting regulations traditionally applied to manage deer populations in rural areas are not well suited to management in heavily populated suburban landscapes. We evaluated the spatial genetic structure of a suburban deer population to assess the feasibility of localized management at the scale of social groups. We used fecal DNA from white‐tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) in suburban Michigan to determine whether deer in suburban landscapes maintain the matrilineal social structure that has been observed in studies of rural deer. We amplified 7 microsatellite loci from fecal pellets (n = 591) collected from August to October 2013 on public and private lands throughout Meridian Township, Ingham County, central Michigan, USA. Based on multi‐locus genotypes, we identified individuals, quantified the extent of spatial genetic structure at multiple spatial scales, identified the location and spatial extent of aggregations of related females and males, and estimated genetic neighborhood size. We also used landscape genetic analyses to evaluate associations between measures of land cover, edge density, the presence of major roads, and inter‐individual genetic distance. Spatial genetic autocorrelation was positive and significant up to a distance of 0.5 km. We did not detect correlations between landscape variables and inter‐individual genetic distance. Results indicate that deer in suburban landscapes exhibit familial structure reported for deer in more rural areas, albeit at a smaller spatial scale, and with substantial overlap among groups. Management at the spatial scales of genetically related groups of deer may be feasible in suburban communities. © 2018 The Wildlife Society.

Taxonomic status of Chinese blue sheep (Pseudois nayaur): new evidence of a distinct subspecies

“…To assess the factors affecting genetic divergence among the populations of blue sheep, we performed an analysis of isolation-by-distance (IBD) with a Mantel test among 13 sampling sites. Because environmental factors may affect genetic differentiation on a fine scale (Colson et al 2013;Lonsinger et al 2015;Crawford et al 2018), more than 6 geographic regions were selected as accurately as possible to test the relationship between geographic and genetic distances. Pairwise geographic distance was represented by log-transformed Euclidian distance, which was calculated using the program Python v 2.7 with the "arcpy" module.…”

Inconsistency Between Socio-Spatial and Genetic Structure in a Coastal Dolphin Population

“…Genetic differentiation among communities and populations can result from recent divergence with no ongoing gene flow or long-term separation with low recurrent gene flow (Nielsen and Wakeley, 2001;Palsbøll et al, 2004). Discriminating between these scenarios has important implications for conservation, as isolated communities or populations may require management measures that are dependent upon their demographic patterns, ecological and social organization, as well as their levels of exposure to anthropogenic stressors (Yannic et al, 2016;Crawford et al, 2018).…”