The genetic network of greater sage‐grouse: Range‐wide identification of keystone hubs of connectivity

Genetic networks can characterize complex genetic relationships among groups of individuals, which can be used to rank nodes most important to the overall connectivity of the system. Ranking allows scarce resources to be guided toward nodes integral to connectivity. The greater sage‐grouse (Centroce...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inEcology and evolution Vol. 8; no. 11; pp. 5394 - 5412
Main Authors Cross, Todd B., Schwartz, Michael K., Naugle, David E., Fedy, Brad C., Row, Jeffrey R., Oyler‐McCance, Sara J.
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published England John Wiley & Sons, Inc 01.06.2018
John Wiley and Sons Inc
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:Genetic networks can characterize complex genetic relationships among groups of individuals, which can be used to rank nodes most important to the overall connectivity of the system. Ranking allows scarce resources to be guided toward nodes integral to connectivity. The greater sage‐grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) is a species of conservation concern that breeds on spatially discrete leks that must remain connected by genetic exchange for population persistence. We genotyped 5,950 individuals from 1,200 greater sage‐grouse leks distributed across the entire species’ geographic range. We found a small‐world network composed of 458 nodes connected by 14,481 edges. This network was composed of hubs—that is, nodes facilitating gene flow across the network—and spokes—that is, nodes where connectivity is served by hubs. It is within these hubs that the greatest genetic diversity was housed. Using indices of network centrality, we identified hub nodes of greatest conservation importance. We also identified keystone nodes with elevated centrality despite low local population size. Hub and keystone nodes were found across the entire species’ contiguous range, although nodes with elevated importance to network‐wide connectivity were found more central: especially in northeastern, central, and southwestern Wyoming and eastern Idaho. Nodes among which genes are most readily exchanged were mostly located in Montana and northern Wyoming, as well as Utah and eastern Nevada. The loss of hub or keystone nodes could lead to the disintegration of the network into smaller, isolated subnetworks. Protecting both hub nodes and keystone nodes will conserve genetic diversity and should maintain network connections to ensure a resilient and viable population over time. Our analysis shows that network models can be used to model gene flow, offering insights into its pattern and process, with application to prioritizing landscapes for conservation. Genetic networks characterize complex genetic relationships among groups of individuals. We modeled a genetic network across the entire range of the greater sage‐grouse—genotyping 5,950 individuals, from 1,200 leks, at 15 microsatellite loci—and described the underlying structure of the network. We identified hubs and keystone nodes (nodes with greater contribution to network connectivity than would be expected given the population size of the node) that are likely of increased conservation value given their centrality to the network.
Bibliography:Funding information
This study was supported by grants from the Montana and Dakotas Bureau of Land Management (07‐IA‐11221643‐343, 10‐IA‐11221635‐027, and 14‐IA‐11221635‐059), the Great Northern Landscape Conservation Cooperative (12‐IA‐11221635‐132), and the Natural Resources Conservation Service—Sage‐grouse Initiative (13‐IA‐11221635‐054). Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. The views in this article are those of the authors and of the U.S. Geological Survey; however, these views do not necessarily reflect those of other employers.
ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ISSN:2045-7758
2045-7758
DOI:10.1002/ece3.4056