» Articles » PMID: 34837959

The Effects of Habitat Fragmentation on the Genetic Structure of Wild Boar (Sus Scrofa) Population in Lithuania

Overview
Journal BMC Genom Data
Publisher Biomed Central
Specialty Genetics
Date 2021 Nov 28
PMID 34837959
Citations 5
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Wild boar (Sus scrofa) is a widely distributed ungulate whose success can be attributed to a variety of ecological features. The genetic variation and population structure of Lithuania's wild boar population have not yet been thoroughly studied. The purposes of this study were to investigate the genetic diversity of S. scrofa and assess the effects of habitat fragmentation on the population structure of wild boar in Lithuania. A total of 96 S. scrofa individuals collected from different regions of Lithuania were genotyped using fifteen microsatellite loci.

Results: The microsatellite analysis of the wild boars indicated high levels of genetic diversity within the population. Microsatellite markers showed evidence of a single panmictic wild boar population in Lithuania according to STRUCTURE's highest average likelihood, which was K = 1. This was supported by pairwise F values and AMOVA, which indicated no differentiation between the four sampling areas. The results of the Mantel test revealed a weak isolation by distance and geographic diversity gradients that persisted between locations. Motorway fencing and heavy traffic were not an effective barrier to wild boar movement.

Conclusions: There was limited evidence of population genetic structure among the wild boar, supporting the presence of a single population across the study area and indicating that there may be no barriers hindering wild boar dispersal across the landscape. The widespread wild boar population in Lithuania, the high level of genetic variation observed within subpopulations, and the low level of variation identified between subpopulations suggest migration and gene flow between locations. The results of this study should provide valuable information in future for understanding and comparing the detailed structure of wild boar population in Lithuania following the outbreak of African swine fever.

Citing Articles

Risk and protective factors for ASF in domestic pigs and wild boar in the EU, and mitigation measures for managing the disease in wild boar.

Boklund A, Stahl K, Miranda Chueca M, Podgorski T, Vergne T, Abrahantes J EFSA J. 2024; 22(12):e9095.

PMID: 39633872 PMC: 11615515. DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2024.9095.


Experience shapes wild boar spatial response to drive hunts.

Olejarz A, Augustsson E, Kjellander P, Jezek M, Podgorski T Sci Rep. 2024; 14(1):19930.

PMID: 39198665 PMC: 11358132. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-71098-8.


Hunting for Answers: Assessing spp. Seroprevalence and Risks in Red Deer and Wild Boar in Central Portugal.

Pires H, Cardoso L, Lopes A, Fontes M, Santos-Silva S, Matos M Pathogens. 2024; 13(3).

PMID: 38535585 PMC: 10975371. DOI: 10.3390/pathogens13030242.


Seropositivity for in Wild Boar () and Red Deer () in Portugal.

Pires H, Cardoso L, Lopes A, Fontes M, Matos M, Pintado C Pathogens. 2023; 12(3).

PMID: 36986343 PMC: 10057195. DOI: 10.3390/pathogens12030421.


Changes in the Genetic Structure of Lithuania's Wild Boar () Population Following the Outbreak of African Swine Fever.

Griciuviene L, Janeliunas Z, Pileviciene S, Jurgelevicius V, Paulauskas A Genes (Basel). 2022; 13(9).

PMID: 36140730 PMC: 9498859. DOI: 10.3390/genes13091561.

References
1.
Peakall R, Smouse P . GenAlEx 6.5: genetic analysis in Excel. Population genetic software for teaching and research--an update. Bioinformatics. 2012; 28(19):2537-9. PMC: 3463245. DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/bts460. View

2.
Choi S, Lee J, Kim Y, Min M, Voloshina I, Myslenkov A . Genetic structure of wild boar (Sus scrofa) populations from East Asia based on microsatellite loci analyses. BMC Genet. 2014; 15:85. PMC: 4112609. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2156-15-85. View

3.
Evanno G, Regnaut S, Goudet J . Detecting the number of clusters of individuals using the software STRUCTURE: a simulation study. Mol Ecol. 2005; 14(8):2611-20. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2005.02553.x. View

4.
Johann F, Handschuh M, Linderoth P, Dormann C, Arnold J . Adaptation of wild boar (Sus scrofa) activity in a human-dominated landscape. BMC Ecol. 2020; 20(1):4. PMC: 6953143. DOI: 10.1186/s12898-019-0271-7. View

5.
Leblois R, Estoup A, Streiff R . Genetics of recent habitat contraction and reduction in population size: does isolation by distance matter?. Mol Ecol. 2006; 15(12):3601-15. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2006.03046.x. View