4.5 Article

Local genetic structure and relatedness in a solitary mammal, Neotoma fuscipes

期刊

BEHAVIORAL ECOLOGY AND SOCIOBIOLOGY
卷 61, 期 9, 页码 1459-1469

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00265-007-0378-2

关键词

kinship; sociality; female philopatry; social structure; woodrats

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We used DNA microsatellites to investigate temporal and spatial patterns of local genetic differentiation and relatedness in a solitary mammal, the dusky-footed woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes). Patterns of genetic variation were measured relative to spatial clusters, or neighborhoods, of woodrats. We detected significant genetic differentiation among woodrat neighborhoods in two populations spanning multiple habitat types and densities. Estimates of theta(ST) among neighborhoods ranged 0.034-0.075 and were comparable to levels reported in social mammals. Genetic differentiation at such a local scale is noteworthy because it occurred in the absence of any physical barriers to gene flow, suggesting that the patterns observed are linked to the nonrandom patterns of mating and dispersal that characterize woodrat social structure. Genetic differentiation and relatedness among neighborhoods were even higher when only resident females were analyzed. These results are consistent with a pattern of female philopatry and male-biased dispersal in woodrats. Geographic distance and relatedness were inversely correlated in adult females at intermediate densities, but not at low densities. Nonetheless, matrilineal genetic structure was apparent even at low woodrat densities based on estimates of theta (ST) among neighborhoods of resident females that were significantly greater than zero and consistently greater than estimates including all individuals. In summary, this study demonstrates a matrilineal genetic structure in dusky-footed woodrats. In addition, our results support the idea that intermediate densities may be better at facilitating the formation of spatial kin clusters than either extreme.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据