Concordant molecular and phenotypic data delineate new taxonomy and conservation priorities for the endangered mountain yellow‐legged frog

Journal of Zoology - Tập 271 Số 4 - Trang 361-374 - 2007
Vance T. Vredenburg1, Rob E. Bingham1, Roland A. Knapp2, Jess A. T. Morgan3,4, Craig Moritz1, David B. Wake1
1Department of Integrative Biology and Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA
2Sierra Nevada Aquatic Research Laboratory, University of California, Mammoth Lakes, CA, USA
3*Current address: Emerging Technologies, Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries, Animal Research Institute, LMB#4, Moorooka, Queensland, Australia 4105.
4Department of Plant and Microbial Biology, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA

Tóm tắt

AbstractThe mountain yellow‐legged frogRana muscosa sensu lato, once abundant in the Sierra Nevada of California and Nevada, and the disjunct Transverse Ranges of southern California, has declined precipitously throughout its range, even though most of its habitat is protected. The species is now extinct in Nevada and reduced to tiny remnants in southern California, where as a distinct population segment, it is classified as Endangered. Introduced predators (trout), air pollution and an infectious disease (chytridiomycosis) threaten remaining populations. A Bayesian analysis of 1901 base pairs of mitochondrial DNA confirms the presence of two deeply divergent clades that come into near contact in the Sierra Nevada. Morphological studies of museum specimens and analysis of acoustic data show that the two major mtDNA clades are readily differentiated phenotypically. Accordingly, we recognize two species,Rana sierrae, in the northern and central Sierra Nevada, andR. muscosa, in the southern Sierra Nevada and southern California. Existing data indicate no range overlap. These results have important implications for the conservation of these two species as they illuminate a profound mismatch between the current delineation of the distinct population segments (southern California vs. Sierra Nevada) and actual species boundaries. For example, our study finds that remnant populations ofR. muscosaexist in both the southern Sierra Nevada and the mountains of southern California, which may broaden options for management. In addition, despite the fact that only the southern California populations are listed as Endangered, surveys conducted since 1995 at 225 historic (1899–1994) localities from museum collections show that 93.3% (n=146) ofR. sierraepopulations and 95.2% (n=79) ofR. muscosapopulations are extinct. Evidence presented here underscores the need for revision of protected population status to include both species throughout their ranges.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

Andrewertha H.G., 1954, The distribution and abundance of animals

10.1016/0169-5347(89)90203-6

Blaustein A.R., 1994, UV repair and resistance to solar UV‐B in amphibian eggs, a link to population declines?, 91, 1791

Blaustein A.R., 2002, Complexity in conservation, lessons from the global decline of amphibian populations, 5, 597

Bohonak A.J., 2002, IBD (isolation by distance), a program for analyses of isolation by distance, 93, 153

Boone M.D., 2003, Amphibian conservation, 152

10.1080/10635150590946808

Calsbeek R., 2003, Patterns of molecular evolution and diversification in a biodiversity hotspot, the California floristic province, 12, 1021

Camp C.L., 1917, Notes on the systematic status of toads and frogs of California, Univ. Calif. Publ. Zool., 17, 59

10.2307/2412881

10.1080/01621459.1988.10478639

Crump M.L., 1994, Measuring and monitoring biological diversity: standard methods for amphibians, 84

10.1046/j.1472-4642.2003.00016.x

Davidson C., 2004, Declining downwind, amphibian population declines in California and historical pesticide use, 14, 1892

10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.01030.x

10.3406/linly.1992.11011

Feldman C.R.&Spicer G.S.(2006).Comparative phylogeography of woodland reptiles in California: repeated patterns of cladogenesis and population expansion. Mol. Ecol.15 2201–2222.

10.1643/0045-8511(2001)001[0945:OCITMY]2.0.CO;2

US Fish and Wildlife Service(2002).Determination of endangered status for southern California distinct vertebrate population segment of the mountain yellow‐legged frog(Rana muscosa). Federal register US Fish and Wildlife Service.

10.1206/0003-0090(2006)297[0001:TATOL]2.0.CO;2

10.1016/S1571-0866(04)80185-4

Green D.M., 1986, Systematics and evolution of western North American frogs allied to Rana aurora and Rana boylii, karyological evidence, 35, 273

Grinnell J., 1924, Animal life in the yosemite

Hanski I., 1999, Metapopulation ecology, 10.1093/oso/9780198540663.001.0001

10.2307/1269041

Hillis D.M., 1986, Evolution of ribosomal DNA, fifty million years of recorded history in the frog genus Rana, 40, 1275

10.1016/j.ympev.2004.10.007

Hosmer D.W., 1989, Applied Logistic Regression

Huelsenbeck J.P., 2001, MRBAYES, Bayesian inference of phylogenetic trees, 17, 754

Kats L.B., 2003, Alien predators and amphibian declines, review of two decades of science and the transition to conservation, 9, 99

10.1046/j.1523-1739.2000.99099.x

10.1111/j.1365-294X.2004.02388.x

Kumar S., 2004, MEGA3, integrated software for molecular evolutionary genetics analysis and sequence alignment, 5, 150

10.1086/431283

Leache A.D., 2002, Molecular systematics of the eastern fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus), a comparison of parsimony, likelihood, and Bayesian approaches, 51, 44

10.1006/mpev.2000.0908

MacTague L., 1993, Underwater vocalization by the foothill yellow‐legged frog (Rana boylii), Trans. West. Sect. Wildl. Soc., 29, 1

Moritz C., 1999, Conservation units and translocations, strategies for conserving evolutionary processes, 130, 217

10.1080/10635150252899752

10.1098/rspb.2001.1713

10.1093/sysbio/41.3.273

10.2307/1438567

Nylander J.A.A., 2004, MrModeltest v2. Program distributed by author

Pister E.P., 2001, Wilderness fish stocking, history and perspective, 4, 279

Posada D., 1998, MODELTEST, testing the model of DNA substitution, 14, 817

10.1038/nature04246

10.1038/19297

10.3354/dao061075

10.1890/0012-9658(2006)87[1671:EIDAAP]2.0.CO;2

10.1016/j.ympev.2005.10.011

Rissler L.J., 2006, Phylogeographic lineages and species comparisons in conservation analyses, a case study of California herpetofauna, 167, 655

10.1046/j.1365-294x.1999.00793.x

Shaffer H.B., 2000, The genetics of amphibian declines, population substructure and molecular differentiation in the Yosemite toad, Bufo canorus (Anura, Bufonidae) based on single-strand conformation polymorphism analysis (SSCP) and mitochondrial DNA sequence data, 9, 245

10.1016/S0169-5347(97)01177-4

Shaffer H.B., 2004, The molecular phylogenetics of endangerment, cryptic variation and historical phylogeography of the California tiger salamander, Ambystoma californiense, 13, 3033

Sites J.W., 2003, Delimiting species, a renaissance issue in systematic biology, 18, 462

Sokal R.R., 1981, Biometry

Spinks P.Q., 2005, Range‐wide molecular analysis of the western pond turtle (Emys marmorata), cryptic variation, isolation by distance, and their conservation implications, 14, 2047

10.1515/9780691234618

Storer T., 1925, A synopsis of the Amphibia of California, Univ. Calif. Publ. Zool., 27, 1

10.1126/science.1103538

Swofford D.L., 1996, PAUP*: phylogenetic analysis using parsimony (and other methods), version 4.0

10.1006/mpev.1995.1036

Vredenburg V.T., 2004, Reversing introduced species effects, experimental removal of introduced fish leads to rapid recovery of a declining frog, 101, 7646

Vredenburg V.T., 2005, Status and conservation of US amphibians, 563

Walters R.J., 2006, The temperature‐size rule in ectotherms, may a general explanation exist after all?, 167, 510

Ziesmer T., 1997, Vocal behavior of foothill and mountain yellow‐legged frogs (Rana boylii and R. muscosa)

Zweifel R.G., 1955, Ecology, distribution, and systematics of frogs of the Rana boylei group, Univ. Calif. Publ. Zool., 54, 207

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Journal of Zoology

Tập 271 Số 4

361-374

Thông tin tác giả