2011
DOI: 10.1007/s10592-011-0197-x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Population genetic structure and history of fragmented remnant populations of the New England cottontail (Sylvilagus transitionalis)

Abstract: The New England cottontail (Sylvilagus transitionalis) has suffered from extensive loss and fragmentation of its habitat and is now a species of conservation priority in the northeastern United States. Remnant New England cottontail populations currently occur in five geographically disjunct locations: southern Maine and southeastern New Hampshire (MENH); the Merrimack Valley in central New Hampshire (NH-MV); Cape Cod, Massachusetts (CC); parts of eastern Connecticut and Rhode Island (CTRI); and western Connec… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

6
56
2

Year Published

2011
2011
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 32 publications
(65 citation statements)
references
References 84 publications
6
56
2
Order By: Relevance
“…The New England cottontail has experienced a range‐wide population decline concurrent with regional losses of successional shrublands (i.e., dense woody shrub communities associated with early successional forest regeneration) over the 20th century resulting from reforestation and human development (Litvaitis, ). The species persists within five isolated populations covering less than 14% of its historic range (Fenderson, Kovach, Litvaitis, & Litvaitis, ; Litvaitis et al, ). Efforts to recover New England cottontails are largely dependent on creating and maintaining a network of suitable shrubland patches (Fuller & Tur, ).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The New England cottontail has experienced a range‐wide population decline concurrent with regional losses of successional shrublands (i.e., dense woody shrub communities associated with early successional forest regeneration) over the 20th century resulting from reforestation and human development (Litvaitis, ). The species persists within five isolated populations covering less than 14% of its historic range (Fenderson, Kovach, Litvaitis, & Litvaitis, ; Litvaitis et al, ). Efforts to recover New England cottontails are largely dependent on creating and maintaining a network of suitable shrubland patches (Fuller & Tur, ).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Among island mammals, the Amami rabbit revealed a high level of genetic differentiation at a small geographic scale compared with the nuclear microsatellite findings on the highly mobile Tasmanian devil ( Sarcophilus harrisii ; F ST = 0.001–0.189 among populations 10–340 km apart; Jones et al ) and low‐mobility rodents, including the Cozumel harvest mouse ( Reithrodontomys spectabilis ; F ST = 0.099 between populations 3.02 km apart; Espindola et al ) and Coues rice rat ( Oryzomys couesi cozumelae ; F ST = 0.000–0.090 among populations 1.17–26.19 km apart; Vega et al ). Such small‐scale differentiation was not detected in other genetic studies in Leporidae species with nuclear microsatellite data, including the snowshoe hare ( Lepus americanus ; F ST = 0.000­­–0.243 among populations 3–140 km apart; Burton et al ), pygmy rabbit ( Brachylagus idahoensis ; F ST = 0.005–0.138 among populations 0.5–32 km apart; Estes Zumpf et al ), New England cottontail ( Sylvilagus transitionalis ; F ST = 0.0343 between populations 44 km apart; Fenderson et al ), and mountain hare ( Lepus timidus hibernicus ; F ST = 0.000–0.116 among populations within 200 km; Hamill et al ), or with mitochondrial data for pygmy rabbit ( F ST = 0.000–0.488 among populations 0.5–32 km apart; Estes Zumpf et al ). Long‐term isolation of the Amami rabbit population on Tokunoshima Island since the Pleistocene without any immigration from other islands may have caused this unique genetic structure, which directly reflects the dispersal of the species and the effect of human activities on the island.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 81%
“…; Fenderson et al. ). However, human activities can also positively affect gene flow by creating corridors associated with roads (Crispo et al.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 96%