Migration from populations north of Los Angeles andor a distinct genetic
Migration from populations north of Los Angeles andor a distinct genetic population inside the San Bernardino area. Puma M86 was captured in the Santa Ana Mountains, but assigned strongly towards the eastern Peninsular Variety genetic cluster, indicating a seemingly clear population of origin. This individual assignment is in accord together with the clustering results from STRUCTURE (Figure 4).Proof of genetic bottlenecksThe Santa Ana Mountains population exhibited clear proof of a population bottleneck (Table three; Wilcoxon signrank test for heterozygote excess, and detection of a shift in the allele frequency distribution mode [36]; BOTTLENECK software program). The easternPLOS 1 plosone.orgFractured Genetics in Southern California Pumasconversion of unconserved lands along the I5 corridor by improvement and agriculture [8,48,52]. An isolated population of pumas in the Santa Monica Mountains towards the north of your Santa Ana Mountains also exhibit low values relative to other western North American populations (see Table 2 in [53]. Santa Monica pumas are isolated by urbanization of a megacity and busy wide freeways (Ventura county, including higher Los Angeles area [53]. Many situations of intraspecific predation, many consanguineous matings (father to daughter, and so forth.), and lack of profitable dispersal highlight a suite of anthropogenic processes also occurring within the Santa Ana Mountains. Our collective findings of kinked tails and quite low genetic diversity in Santa Ana pumas F95 and M96 may portend manifestations of genetic inbreeding depression comparable to those noticed in Florida panthers [54,55]; on the other hand recognizing that kinked tails can have nongenetic etiologies. Our analyses recommend that the Santa Ana Mountains puma population is very challenged in terms of genetic connectivity and genetic diversity, a result hinted at in Ernest et PubMed ID:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26017279 al. [9] and now confirmed to be an ongoing adverse method for this population. This compounds the demographic challenges of low survival prices and scant evidence of physical connectivity towards the Peninsular Ranges east of I5 (unpublished information). Beier [6] documented these similar challenges during the 990’s, and information in the ongoing UCD study recommend the trends have accelerated. Substantial habitat loss and fragmentation has occurred and is continuing to occur; Burdett et al. [0] estimated that by 2030, about 7 of puma habitat that was still accessible in 970 in southern California may have been lost to development, and fragmentation may have rendered the remainder a lot more hazardous for pumas to make use of. Riley et al [53] document a A-804598 site natural “genetic rescue” occasion: the 2009 immigration and subsequent breeding accomplishment of a single male towards the Santa Monica Mountains. This introduction of new genetic material in to the population was paramount to raising the critically low amount of genetic diversity, as also exemplified by the humanmediated genetic augmentation of Florida Panthers with Texas puma stock [56].These findings raise concerns in regards to the current status of the Santa Ana Mountains puma population, and the longerterm outlook for pumas across southern California. In specific, they highlight the urgency to sustain and boost what connectivity remains for pumas (and presumably many other species) across I5. Despite warnings [6,9] about potential critical impacts towards the Santa Ana Mountains puma population if concerted conservation action was not taken, habitat connectivity to the Peninsular Ranges has c.
