Southeastern Naturalist
369
C. Winters, J. Ross, and P. Allman
22001177 SOUTHEASTERN NATURALIST 1V6o(3l.) :1366,9 N–3o8. 23
Population Genetics Between an Insular and Coastal
Population of Gopher Tortoises (Gopherus polyphemus) in
Southwest Florida
Colleen Winters1,*, Julie Ross2, and Phil Allman3
Abstract – Gopherus polyphemus (Gopher Tortoise) is a prominent species found in pine
flatwoods, upland scrub, and coastal dunes of the southeast United States. Geoclimatic and
anthropogenic sources of habitat changes have fragmented Gopher Tortoises into isolated
populations that may reduce gene flow, promote inbreeding, and ultimately impact popula -
tion viability. Rapid urbanization along the southwest Gulf Coast of Florida has degraded
habitat, and fragmented insular and coastal populations. To assess the diversity in these
vestige populations, we assessed the genetic structure of Gopher Tortoises on heavily developed
Marco Island (n = 61) and the adjacent mainland within Rookery Bay National
Estuarine Research Reserve (RBNERR) (n = 23) in Collier County, FL. Using microsatellite
markers, we determined that the Marco Island tortoises are genetically distinct from
the RBNERR tortoises. We identified unique alleles and reduced allelic richness in both
populations, suggesting isolation has reduced gene flow. We therefore encourage careful
management of the Marco Island Gopher Tortoises to maintain the uniqueness of the population
while preventing further loss of diversity.
Introduction
Understanding the genetic variation among populations of a species is necessary
to develop management actions that maintain the species’ genetic diversity. Genetic
structuring among populations may result from the presence of barriers that reduce
gene flow and promote drift and local selection (Futuyma 1998). Such barriers represent
discontinuity in suitable habitat and loss of functional connectivity among
population fragments (Kindlmann and Burel 2008). Subdividing populations may
increase the probability of inbreeding and decrease the likelihood of population
persistence (Lande 1987). In this paper, the genetic structures of 2 adjacent Gopherus
polyphemus (Daudin) (Gopher Tortoise) populations in southwest Florida
were investigated to better characterize genetic assemblages in the region.
The Gopher Tortoise is a widespread species that utilizes pine flatwoods,
upland scrub, and coastal dune habitats of the Coastal Plain in the southeastern
United States from Louisiana to South Carolina (Auffenberg and Franz 1978).
The species has existed in the region for 2 million years and serves keystone
functions that increase community complexity (Franz and Quitmyer 2005). Their
1Department of Biological Sciences, Towson University, 8000 York Road, Towson, MD
21252. 2Department of Marine and Ecological Sciences, Florida Gulf Coast University,
10501 FGCU Boulevard, Fort Myers, FL 33965. 3Department of Biological Sciences, Florida
Gulf Coast University, 10501 FGCU Boulevard, Fort Myers, FL 33965. *Corresponding
author - cwinters@towson.edu.
Manuscript Editor: John Placyk
Southeastern Naturalist
C. Winters, J. Ross, and P. Allman
2017 Vol. 16, No. 3
370
fossorial behavior creates microhabitats in the form of a burrow and a mound of
sand adjacent to the burrow’s entrance. Over 360 species of obligate or facultative
commensals have been reported to utilize the burrows (Eisenberg 1983, Jackson
and Milstrey 1989), including some that are legally protected (Kent et al. 1997,
Witz et al. 1991). The burrow’s apron provides habitat for some rare herbaceous
plants that consequently increases the community’s plant diversity (Kaczor and
Hartnett 1990). Furthermore, the grazing behavior of Gopher Tortoises likely influences
the floral community across the landscape as they function to disperse
seeds (Boglioli et al. 2000).
The significant loss of habitat associated with rapid urbanization, agricultural
development, and mineral mining caused Gopher Tortoise populations to decline by
80% from 1880 to 1980 (Auffenberg and Franz 1982). Remaining populations now
exist in fragmented patches of suitable habitat interwoven within a matrix of degraded
habitat that restricts population recovery (McCoy et al. 2013, Mushinsky et
al. 2006). Populations continue to decrease as urbanization and changes in land-use
further reduce remaining habitat and populations (Brady and Abbott 2014, McCoy
et al. 2006). The Gopher Tortoise is listed as federally threatened in the western portion
of their range from Louisiana to the Mobile and Tombigbee rivers in Alabama,
and are state listed as threatened in Georgia, Florida, and Louisiana, endangered in
South Carolina and Mississippi, and protected as a non-game species in Alabama
(Enge et al. 2006).
The consequences of habitat loss on Gopher Tortoises extend beyond loss of
individuals, as it also impacts recovery potential. Fragmenting populations disrupts
natural movement patterns and may result in significant loss of genetic variation
and evolutionary potential (Frankham et al. 2010, Madsden et al. 1999, Saccheri
et al. 1998). Such fragmentation may cause inbreeding depression and loss of genetic
heterozygosity. Inbreeding is linked to increased mortality in young animals,
reduced reproductive success, and lower resistance to disease, predation, and stress
(Keller and Waller 2002). A reduction in reproductive fitness negatively affects the
ability of a population to recover (Frankham 1998, Keller and Waller 2002, Reed
and Frankham 2003). The negative influence fragmentation has on recovery potential
may be exacerbated for insular populations because resources are more limited
on islands (Diamond 1976).
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission’s current Gopher Tortoise
Management Plan permits the relocation of Gopher Tortoises that are potentially
impacted by development (FFWCC 2013). Moving individuals to disparate populations
can lead to outbreeding and impact local adaptive processes occurring at
recipient sites (Edmands 2007, Weeks et al. 2011). Management decisions must
therefore balance relocation efforts to prevent inbreeding depression while allowing
for local divergence. Until recently, there has been a paucity of genetic data
available to determine the impacts of such relocation ef forts.
Schwartz and Karl (2005) identified 8 genetic subpopulations of Gopher Tortoise
from 19 locations across Florida and southern Georgia. They identified evidence
of anthropogenic bottlenecks in 5 populations, and a pattern of greater divergence
north to south and weaker separation east to west. The authors recommended a
Southeastern Naturalist
371
C. Winters, J. Ross, and P. Allman
2017 Vol. 16, No. 3
compilation of genetic records for populations so that relocated tortoises can be
moved to locations that minimize negative impacts. Unfortunately, the authors
were unable to sample tortoise populations in the extreme southwest portion of
their range.
In this study, the genetic diversity of tortoises in 2 adjacent, but separated, populations
in Collier County in southwestern Florida was analyzed. Genetic structuring
and inbreeding within each population was explored as well as divergence between
the 2 populations.
Field-Site Description
We sampled 2 sites on Marco Island and 1 site on Rookery Bay National Estuarine
Research Reserve (RBNERR) (Fig. 1). Marco Island (25°56'N, 81°69'W)
is a 3100-ha urbanized barrier island in southwest Florida containing primarily
coastal dune, coastal scrub, and mangrove habitats. The Calusa people inhabited
the island as early as 500 AD and were then displaced by Spanish explorers as early
as 1500 (Waitley 1993). The island remained relatively undeveloped until the island’s
second automobile bridge was built in 1969. Marco Island is currently home
to ~18,000 people with a density of 573 individuals/km2 (USCB 2015). Gopher
Tortoises are found in 2 residential neighborhoods, in the southeast and northwest
portions of the island, separated by 6.3 km of commercial development (C. Winters,
pers. observ.). We captured by hand a total of 61 tortoises on the island.
Figure 1. Map of Florida. Inset shows areas of Gopher Tortoise sampling: Rookery Bay
National Estuarine Research Reserve RBNERR (cross) and Marco Is land (diamonds).
Southeastern Naturalist
C. Winters, J. Ross, and P. Allman
2017 Vol. 16, No. 3
372
Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve (RBNERR) (26°01'N,
81°42'W) protects 45,000 ha of estuary, mangroves, and uplands on the mainland
directly north of Marco Island. A small population of Gopher Tortoises is found
within the 2500 ha of coastal upland habitats C. Winters, pers. observ.). The property
is currently separated from Marco Island by an expanse of mangrove estuaries
and a channel, but the 2 locations were connected via a land bridge as recently as
7000 years ago (Barry 1983). Prior to that in the Pleistocene, glaciers of North
America made 4 major advances and retreats. Sea levels were as much as 133 m
below those of today, causing Florida’s peninsula to be about twice the size it is today
(Hulbert 2001, Miller 1998). During the glacial periods of this time, the coastal
plains of southern United States contained extensive grasslands that allowed for
browsers like bison, horses, and tortoises to thrive (see Myers and Ewel 1990). The
last glacial peak occurred about 10,000 years ago and was followed by interglacial
warming that increased sea level to current levels around 7000 years ago (Barry
1983). Tortoises living on Marco Island would have been separated from mainland
populations at that time. We sampled for tortoises within the xeric scrub and scrub
palmetto habitats of the reserve. The presence of non-native tortoises indicate animals
may occasionally be released within RBNERR, but it is difficult to know if
this has occurred with Gopher Tortoises.
Materials and Methods
We sampled 61 Gopher Tortoises on Marco Island and 23 from RBNERR. Individuals
were captured through opportunistic sightings while conducting site surveys
on foot or by bucket trapping (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
2013). Using both methods allowed capture of tortoises from both sexes and all age
classes. We conducted searches from May 2008 through August 2009 on Marco Island
and from October 2010 through June 2011 in RBNERR. Cagle’s (1939) method
of notching unique combinations of the marginal scutes was used on all captured tortoises.
We collected the scute shavings in sterile collection bags (Nasco Whirl-Pak,
Fort Atkinson, WI) for storage until DNA extraction. Drill bits used for marking individuals
were sterilized with 80% ethanol before and after each use.
We extracted DNA from the scute shavings following Dawes et al. (2008).
Briefly, shavings were frozen in liquid nitrogen and then ground into a powder.
The powdered shell was decalcified by incubation in 0.5 M pH 8.0 ethylenediaminetetraacetic
acid (EDTA) for 3–5 days while shaking at 37 °C. Following
decalcification, we purified DNA from the samples following the directions for the
Qiagen DNeasy Blood and Tissue Kit (Qiagen, Valencia, CA).
We determined individual genotypes using 9 species-specific microsatellite loci
(Schwartz et al. 2003) and conducted polymerase chain reaction (PCR) in 15-ml
volumes under the following conditions: 1.5 μl 10X PCR buffer with 15 mM MgCl2
(Gene Choice, Continental Lab Products, San Diego, CA), 0.2 mM dNTPs (Roche,
Indianapolis, IN), 0.2 μm of each primer (GP15, GP19, GP26, GP30, GP55, GP61,
GP81, GP96, GP102) (Schwartz et al. 2003), 1.25 units of Taq polymerase (Gene
Choice), and 30 ng of template DNA. The PCR thermocycling program was 94 °C
Southeastern Naturalist
373
C. Winters, J. Ross, and P. Allman
2017 Vol. 16, No. 3
for 3 min; 35 cycles of 94 °C for 30 s, 60 °C for 30 s, and 72 °C for 45 s; followed
by a 5 min extension at 72 °C. PCR products were verified by gel electrophoresis on
a 1% agarose gel. We labeled the forward primer for each locus with a fluorescent
dye (Sigma Proligo, St. Louis, MO) to facilitate fragment analysis on a CEQ8000
Genetic Analysis System (Beckman Coulter, Fullerton, CA).
Statistical analyses were performed with the genotype data gathered from the
9 microsatellite loci. We determined null allele frequencies for each locus in each
population using the Expectation Maximization (EM) algorithm (Dempster et al.
(1977) in FreeNA (Chapuis and Estoup 2007). We examined linkage disequilibrium
and deviations from Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium (HWE) in GENEPOP using the
likelihood ratio test (Raymond and Rousset 1985, Slatkin and Excoffier 1996) with
1000 dememorization steps and 100 batches with 1000 replicates per batch. Alpha
level was adjusted by sequential Bonferroni correction (Rice 19 89).
We inferred population structure by Bayesian clustering with STRUCTURE
v2.3.4 (Falush et al. 2003, 2007; Hubisz et al. 2009; Pritchard et al. 2000) and
assignment in GenAlEx 6.5 (Peakall and Smouse 2006, 2012). STRUCTURE
analysis was first used to determine if the 2 sites on Marco Island were separate
populations. Further analysis included both the Marco Island and RBNERR tortoises.
In STRUCTURE, we analyzed for number of populations (K), with K values
from 1 to 10, using a burn-in of 50,000 with 100,000 Markov chain Monte Carlo
(MCMC) repeats and 20 iterations at each K assuming admixture and correlated
allele frequencies. STRUCTURE output was summarized using CLUMPAK (Kopelman
et al. 2015) and optimum K determined following methods used by Evanno
et al. (2005). We also tested population assignment utilizing GenAlEx 6.5 with bias
correction for population frequency. GenAlEx employs log-likelihoods to calculate
assignment of individuals following the method of Paetkau et al (2004).
We estimated the number of alleles or allelic richness in each population and
corrected sample sizes by rarefaction using HP-RARE (Kalinowski 2005). An estimation
of the effective number of migrants, Nm, was determined following Slatkin
(1985) in GENEPOP. We determined allele frequencies and observed (Ho) and
expected (He) heterozygosity in GenAlEx 6.5 across all loci for each population.
Wright’s FIS using Weir and Cockerham estimator θ (Weir and Cockerham 1984)
was calculated in GenAlEx; P values were obtained after 1000 permutations and
18,000 randomizations. We calculated genetic distance between the populations by
FST using GenAlEx 6.5 and DEST using the R package of DEMEtics (Gerlach et al.
2010, R Development Core Team 2009). Since FST value estimates are impacted by
the level of genetic variation within populations (Hedrick 2005, Neigel 2002), FST
was also normalized relative to a theoretical maximum value given the observed
variation (Hedrick 2005, Meirmans 2006) using RecodeData v0.1 (Meirmans
2006). We used BOTTLENECK to evaluate heterozygosity excess in each population
(Piry et al. 1999). A 2-phase mutation model (TPM) was run with the default
settings of 1000 iterations, variance of 30% and a 70% proportion of stepwise
mutations using a 2-tailed Wilcoxon sign rank test with sequential Bonferroni correction
(Rice 1989).
Southeastern Naturalist
C. Winters, J. Ross, and P. Allman
2017 Vol. 16, No. 3
374
Results
A total of 84 individuals were genotyped, 61 from Marco Island and 23 from
RBNERR, at 9 polymorphic loci. Null allele frequencies ranged from 0.00 to
0.33 (Table 1). Null alleles may be due to individuals missing genotype data for
loci, the low number of alleles present, or the sample size (Gagneux et al. 1997,
Garcia de Leon et al. 1998, Kwok et al. 1990). Eight individuals from Marco Island
were missing data for a single locus (GP26, GP19, or GP102), 1 individual
from Marco Island was missing data from 2 loci (GP96 and GP61), and 2 individuals
from RBNERR were missing data for locus GP102. All of the following
analyses were run with and without these individuals and no significant difference
in results was observed.
STRUCTURE results analyzed by CLUMPAK assigned the Marco tortoises to 3
clusters, but with less than 80% probability for all individuals. GenAlEx analysis placed all
tortoises from Marco Island (n = 61) into a single genetic cluster. Further analysis
with all samples (n = 84) separated the tortoises into 2 distinct populations, Marco
Island and RBNERR (Fig. 2). GenAlEx log-likelihood-based assignment also clustered
the tortoises into 2 separate populations (Fig. 3).
Both the Marco Island and RBNERR populations were polymorphic at all 9 loci.
None of the loci deviated from HWE. One locus pair (GP26–GP30) in the Marco Island
population showed linkage disequilibrium after sequential Bonferroni correction
(P < 0.05). Mean number of alleles was 6.67 (Marco Island) and 4.11 (RBNERR) (Table
2). Allelic richness was 3.15 in the Marco Island population and 2.58 in RBNERR.
The percentage of private alleles was 57% (34 private alleles/60 total alleles) in the
Marco Island population and 30% (11/37) in the RBNERR population (Table 2). The
effective number of migrants, Nm, was estimated to be 1.41. Pairwise estimates of
genetic differentiation between Marco Island and RBNERR were 0.14 (FST uncorrected),
0.46 (FST corrected), and 0.24 (DEST) (P < 0.001 for all estimates).
Table 1. Measurement of genetic diversity—number of alleles, number of individuals with missing alleles
and estimated null allele frequencies—in 2 Gopher Tortoise populations by locus. Loci described
by Schwartz and Karl (2003).
Number of individuals Estimated null
Number of alleles missing alleles allele frequencies
Locus Marco Island RBNERR Marco Island RBNERR Marco Island RBNERR
GP15 8 6 0 0 0.15 0.00
GP96 6 2 1* 0 0.13 0.04
GP26 3 3 2 0 0.16 0.20
GP30 7 3 0 0 0.12 0.07
GP61 9 4 1* 0 0.06 0.16
GP81 12 8 0 0 0.30 0.15
GP19 4 3 2 0 0.33 0.27
GP55 6 4 0 0 0.07 0.19
GP102 6 4 4 2 0.13 0.10
*One individual missing alleles for both loci.
Southeastern Naturalist
375
C. Winters, J. Ross, and P. Allman
2017 Vol. 16, No. 3
FIS was 0.42, P < 0.001 (Marco Island) and 0.38, P < 0.001 (RBNERR) (Table 2).
Analysis of the Marco Island samples with the TPM model in BOTTLENECK did
not detect heterozygote excess in either population, and both populations had normal
L-shaped distributions.
Figure 2. (A) Population assignment inferred by STRUCTURE for K values 1 to 10.
Optimum K determined by using the Evanno (ΔK) transformation. Bars on the x-axis
represent individual Gopher Tortoises. The y-axis is the likelihood of assignment to
a given cluster K represented by different shades of gray. (B) Estimated natural log
probability (L[K]). (C) ΔK calculated from the log probability using the Evanno transformation
(Evanno et al. 2005).
Figure 3. Population assignment by GenAlEx. Positive log-likelihood of assignment given
on axes.
Southeastern Naturalist
C. Winters, J. Ross, and P. Allman
2017 Vol. 16, No. 3
376
Discussion
We explored genetic variation of 2 adjacent but isolated Gopher Tortoise populations
in southwest Florida to determine if they form genetically distinct populations
or a single continuous population. The 2 populations were found to be genetically
distinct at multiple analyses.
Populations with low genetic diversity are less able to adapt to environmental
change (Reed et al. 2002) and are at a greater risk of extinction (Saccheri et al.
1998). Both inbreeding and genetic drift can reduce genetic diversity; however,
each influences diversity differently. Inbreeding will decrease heterozygosity but
has no direct effect on allelic richness as alleles are maintained through successful
reproduction (England et al. 2003, Frankham et al. 2002, Hartl and Clark 1997,
Lande 1988, Reed and Frankham, 2003). Genetic drift resulting from allele loss
impacts allelic richness and heterozygosity, with the strongest effect found in
small populations with limited gene flow (Crow and Kimura 1970, Wright 1931).
The long lifespan and overlapping generations of the Gopher Tortoises may offer
protection against genetic drift (Davy and Murphy 2014, Ennen et al. 2011). Both
Marco Island and Rookery Bay tortoises exhibit reduced allelic richness with a
high number of private alleles, which is expected under mutation drift equilibrium
(Crow and Kimura 1970). The inbreeding coefficient, FIS, for both populations
is significantly higher than zero (0.42 Marco Island, 0.38 RBNERR; P < 0.001;
Table 2), suggesting heterozygote deficiency in both populations.
Inbreeding and genetic drift can occur when small populations become isolated
due to habitat fragmentation or during a bottleneck. Insular populations typically
suffer increased inbreeding relative to mainland populations due to reduced population
sizes associated with the restricted resources and space (Frankham 1998).
Marco Island is a barrier island in southwest Florida with a relict population of
300 or more individuals that have been isolated from the mainland population
for ~7000 years (Barry 1983). Archeological evidence indicates the Calusa, the
first human inhabitants of the island, primarily consumed shellfish and fish, but
Gopher Tortoise shells have been discovered within Indian mounds located on the
Table 2. Measurements of genetic diversity of Gopher Tortoises from 2 populations at 9 microsatellite
loci: observed heterozygosity (Ho), expected heterozygosity (He), total number of alleles, mean
number of alleles, number of private alleles and percentage of total, allelic richness after rarefaction,
and inbreeding coefficient FIS results shown for Marco Island and Rookery Bay National Estuarine
Research Reserve (RBNERR).
Diversity measure Marco Island RBNERR
Ho 0.341 0.295
He 0.582 0.469
Total alleles 60 37
Mean alleles 6.67 4.11
Allelic richness 3.15 2.58
No. private alleles/% total 34 (57%) 11 (30%)
FIS 0.417, P < 0.001 0.377, P < 0.001
Southeastern Naturalist
377
C. Winters, J. Ross, and P. Allman
2017 Vol. 16, No. 3
island (MacMahon and Marquardt 2004). Spanish explorers arrived in the 1500s,
but urbanization did not occur until the 1970s when the island was developed into
a tourist destination (Waitley 1993). The US Census records indicate the human
population increased on Marco Island from 4700 in 1980 to 18,000 in 2015 (USCB
2015). Gopher Tortoises only remain on 2 portions of the island that have become
isolated due to residential and commercial development (C. Winters, pers. observ.).
We analyzed Marco tortoises separately from the RBNERR tortoises to determine
if they were genetically separate populations. Evanno analysis in CLUMPAK
found optimal K = 3, but likelihoods for individual assignments were below 80%,
and genetic distance between the clusters was not significant. GenAlEx assignment
placed all Marco individuals in a single cluster, and when further analyzed, the 3
proposed clusters from STRUCTURE overlapped extensively. It is important to
note that the northwest site yielded only 3 tortoise samples, with the remaining 58
coming from the southeast site. These sites on Marco Island have only been physically
isolated from one another within the last 40 years, ~1 tortoise generation, and
have not yet had sufficient time to genetically differentiate. Studies of chelonians
isolated by habitat fragmentation and population decline have failed to detect evidence
of bottleneck or genetic drift (e.g., Davy and Murphy 2014, Marsack and
Swanson 2009). It is possible that the long life span of chelonians may delay the
effects genetic isolation and decline (e.g., Davy and Murphy 2014, Marsack and
Swanson 2009). Moreover, it is likely that gradual land-use change and urbanization
over the past 40 years has led to a slow decline in the population size instead
of a rapid decline typically associated with a bottleneck event. Tests for genetic
bottlenecks are reported to have limited ability to detect them in populations with
low sample numbers (less than 30 individuals) and loci (less than 10) or for long-lived species like
Gopher Tortoises (Davy and Murphy 2014, Peery et al. 2012, Piry et al. 1999). The
total number of Gopher Tortoises on Marco Island is difficult to determine since
many reside on private properties; thus, knowing what proportion of the population
is represented by the 61 tortoises collected makes it difficult to determine if
this factor impacted the BOTTLENECK results. It is possible that the Marco Island
tortoises may be experiencing a diffuse genetic bottleneck with immediate impacts
that are difficult to identify.
RBNERR tortoises display a similar reduction in allelic richness, low inbreeding
coefficient, and a high level of unique alleles as found in the Marco Island
population. This may indicate evidence of a past or current bottleneck; however,
the sample number was low (23) and may not be enough for a conc lusive result.
This is the first study to analyze genetic divergence of an island population
from mainland Gopher Tortoises. The populations have diverged significantly by
evidence of the large number of private alleles and the multiple significant tests of
genetic differentiation. The FST estimate is higher than what has been reported for
other Gopher Tortoise populations using the same loci—0.03 at Kennedy Space
Center (Sinclair et al. 2010) and 0.24 across Florida and Georgia (Schwartz and
Karl 2005)—and similar to the findings (FST = 0.00–0.54) of Clostio et al. (2012)
using 5 of the same loci combined with 5 additional loci. Furthermore, the large
Southeastern Naturalist
C. Winters, J. Ross, and P. Allman
2017 Vol. 16, No. 3
378
number of private alleles may indicate local adaptation to environmental conditions
that vary across populations (Sjostrand et al. 2013), and should be considered for
conservation purposes of protecting unique populations (Petit e t al. 1998).
Current permitting guidelines in Florida allow Gopher Tortoises to be translocated
within 160 km north or south of the original population, but no restriction
is given for movement east and west (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission 2013). Well-informed translocations can help to maintain gene flow
and prevent genetic isolation while also preserving the unique genotypes present
in the populations. Schwartz and Karl (2005) identified 8 genetic subpopulations
of Gopher Tortoises across Florida and southern Georgia, but the extreme
southwest region of Florida was not included. Our study of Marco Island and
RBNERR expands the genetic record for Gopher Tortoises in the state of Florida.
In light of the significant genetic differentiation between the Marco Island and
RBNERR populations, it is likely that the Marco Island population is genetically
distinct from peninsular Florida populations. Recent studies of Gopher Tortoises
across their range (Clostio et al. 2012, Ennen et al. 2012) have emphasized the
need to identify unique populations as distinct management units (sensu Moritz
1994) to inform management decisions. This study has identified the Marco Island
tortoises as genetically isolated, and proper management and protection of
this species should preserve the uniqueness of the population while minimizing
further population reduction. Translocations off the island will increase the loss
of alleles leading to genetic drift; therefore, solutions that will retain individuals
on the island should be explored. Tortoises on RBNERR may also require careful
management, but genotyping of additional individuals and genetic comparison to
nearby peninsular populations should be done prior to translocations into or out
of the reserve.
Acknowledgments
A special thanks to members of the Florida Gulf Coast Herpetology Research Lab for
their time in the field and reviewing earlier versions of the manuscript. We are grateful
to Russ Burke, Bridgette Hagerty, and Rich Seigel for reviewing earlier versions of the
manuscript. We also thank Cheryl Metzger and the staff at Rookery Bay National Estuarine
Research Reserve for logistical support. Matt Finn provided the GPS and access to tortoises
for sampling. All methods were completed under Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission permit #WV08181 (Julie Ross) and Florida Gulf Coast University IACUC
#0708-05 (Phillip Allman).
Literature Cited
Auffenberg, W. and R. Franz. 1978. Gopherus polyphemus. P. 215.1, In Catalog of American
Amphibians and Reptiles. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles. New
York, NY.
Auffenberg, W. and R. Franz. 1982. The status and distribution of the gopher tortoise
(Gopherus polyphemus). Pp. 95–126, In R.B. Bury (Ed.). North American Tortoises:
Conservation and Ecology. Wildlife Research Report 12. US Fish and Wildlife Service,
Washington, DC. 126 pp.
Southeastern Naturalist
379
C. Winters, J. Ross, and P. Allman
2017 Vol. 16, No. 3
Barry, R.G. 1983. Late Pleistocene climatology. Pp. 390–407. In H.E. Wright and S.C. Proter
(Eds.). The Late Quaternary Environments of the United States, the Late Pleistocene.
University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN. 433 pp.
Boglioli, M.D., W.K. Michener, and C. Guyer. 2000. Habitat selection and modification by
the Gopher Tortoise, Gopherus polyphemus, in Georgia Longleaf Pine forest. Chelonian
Conservation and Biology 3:699–705.
Brady, K., and J.A. Abbott. 2014. Residential development and habitat fragmentation effects
on Gopher Tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) population densities. The Florida
Geographer 45:4–13.
Cagle, F.R. 1939. A system of marking turtles for future identification. Copeia
1939:170–173.
Chapuis, M.P., and A. Estoup. 2007. Microsatellite null alleles and estimation of population
differentiation. Molecular Biology and Evolution 24:621–631.
Clostio, R.W., A.M. Martinez, K.E. LeBlanc, and N.M. Anthony. 2012. Population genetic
structure of a threatened tortoise across the southeastern United States: Implications for
conservation management. Animal Conservation 15:613–625.
Crow, J.F., and M. Kimura. 1970. An Introduction to Population Genetics Theory. Blackburn
Press, Caldwell, NJ.
Davy, C.M., and R.W. Murphy. 2014. Conservation genetics of the endangered Spotted
Turtle (Clemmys guttata) illustrate the risks of “bottleneck tests”. Canadian Journal of
Zoology 92:149–162.
Dawes, P.J., C.S. Sinclair, and R.A. Seigel. 2008. Use of traditional turtle marking to obtain
DNA for population studies. Herpetological Review 39:190–191.
Dempster, A.P., N.M. Laird, and D.B. Rubin. 1977. Maximum likelihood from incomplete
data via the EM algorithm. Journal of the Royal Statistical Soc iety B 39:1–38.
Diamond, J.M. 1976. Island biogeography and conservation: Strategy and limitations. Science
193:1027–1029.
Edmands, S. 2007. Between a rock and a hard place: Evaluating the relative risks of inbreeding
and outbreeding for conservation and management. Molecular Ecology 16:463–475.
Eisenberg, J. 1983. The Gopher Tortoise as a keystone species. Proceedings of the 4th Annual
Meeting of the Gopher Tortoise Council. Florida State Museum, Gainesville, FL.
Enge, K.M., J.E. Berish, R. Bolt, A. Dziergowski, and H.R. Mushinsky. 2006. Biological
status report: Gopher Tortoise. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission,
Tallahassee, FL. 143 pp.
England, P.R., G.H.R. Osler, L.M. Woodworth, M.E. Montgomery, D.A. Briscoe, and R.
Frankham. 2003. Effects of intense versus diffuse population bottlenecks on microsatellite
genetic diversity and evolutionary potential. Conservati on Genetics 4:595–604.
Ennen, J.R., F.D. Birkhead, B.R. Kreiser, D.L. Gaillard, C.P. Qualls, and J.E. Lovich. 2011.
The effects of isolation on the demography and genetic diversity of long-lived species:
Implications for conservation and management of the Gopher Tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus).
Herpetological Conservation and Biology 6:202–214.
Ennen, J.R., B.R. Kreiser, C.P. Qualls, D. Gaillard, M. Aresco, R. Birkhead, T. Tuberville,
E. McCoy, H. Mushinsky, T. Hentges, and A. Schrey. 2012. Mitochondrial DNA assessment
of the phylogeography of the Gopher Tortoise. Journal of Fish and Wildlife
Management 3:110–122.
Evanno, G., S. Regnaut, and J. Goudet. 2005. Detecting the number of clusters of individuals
using the software STRUCTURE: A simulation study. Molecular Ecology
14:2611–2620.
Southeastern Naturalist
C. Winters, J. Ross, and P. Allman
2017 Vol. 16, No. 3
380
Falush, D., M. Stephens, and J.K. Pritchard. 2003. Inference of population structure using
multilocus genotype data: Linked loci and correlated allele frequencies. Genetics
164:1567–1587.
Falush, D., M. Stephens, and J.K. Pritchard. 2007. Inference of population structure using
multilocus genotype data: Dominant markers and null alleles. Molecular Ecology Notes
7:574–578.
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC). 2013. Gopher tortoise permitting
guidelines (Gopherus polyphemus). Available online at http://www.webcitation.
org/6Vwp1cAY8. Accessed 29 January 2017.
Frankham, R. 1998. Inbreeding and Extinction: Island Populations. Conservation Biology
12:665–675.
Frankham, R., D.A. Briscoe, and J.D. Ballou. 2002. Introduction to Conservation Genetics.
Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.
Frankham, R., J.D. Ballou, and D.A. Briscoe. 2010. Introduction to Conservation Genetics.
2nd Edition. Press Syndicate for the University of Cambridge, Camb ridge, UK.
Franz, R. and I.R. Quitmyer. 2005. A fossil and zooarchaeological history of the Gopher
Tortoise, Gopherus polyphemus, in the southeastern United States. Bulletin of the
Florida Museum of Natural History 45:179–199.
Futuyma, D. 1998. Evolutionary Biology. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA.751 pp.
Gagneux, P, C. Boesch, and D.S. Woodruff. 1997. Microsatellite scoring errors associated
with noninvasive genotyping based on nuclear DNA amplified from shed hair. Molecular
Ecology 6:861–868.
Garcia de Leon, F.J., M. Canonne, E. Quillet, F. Bonhomme, and B. Chatain. 1998. The
application of microsatellite markers to breeding programmes in the Sea Bass, Dicentrarchus
labrax. Aquaculture 159:303–316.
Gerlach, G, A. Jueterbock, P. Kraemer, J. Depperman, and P. Harmand. 2010. Calculations
of population differentiation based on G(ST) and D: Forget G(ST) but not all of statistics!
Molecular Ecology 19:3845–3852.
Hartl, D.L., and A.G. Clark. 1997. Principles of Population Genetics, 3rd Edition. Sinauer
Associates, Sunderland, MA. 481 pp.
Hedrick, P.W. 2005. A standardized genetic differentiation measure. Evolution 59:1633–1638.
Hubisz, M.J., D. Falush, M. Stephens, and J.K. Pritchard. 2009. Inferring weak population
structure with assistance of sample group information. Molecular Ecology Resources
9:1322–1332.
Hulbert, R.C. 2001. The Fossil Vertebrates of Florida. University Press of Florida, Gainesville,
FL. 350 pp.
Jackson, D.R., and E.G. Milstrey. 1989. The fauna of Gopher Tortoise burrows. In J.E.
Diemer (Ed.). Gopher Tortoise Relocation Symposium Proceedings, Report #5. Florida
Game and Freshwater Fish Commission, Tallahassee, FL. 109 pp.
Kaczor, S.A., and D.C. Hartnett. 1990. Gopher Tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) effects
on soils and vegetation in a Florida Sandhill Community. American Midland Naturalist
123:100–111.
Kalinowski, S.T. 2005. HP-RARE: A computer program for performing rarefaction on measures
of allelic diversity. Molecular Ecology Notes 5:187–189.
Keller, L.F. and D.M. Waller. 2002. Inbreeding effects in wild populations. Trends in Ecology
and Evolution.17:230–241.
Kent, D.M., M.A. Langston, and D.W. Hanf. 1997. Observations of vertebrates associated
with Gopher Tortoise burrows in Orange County, Florida. Florida Scientist 60:193–196.
Southeastern Naturalist
381
C. Winters, J. Ross, and P. Allman
2017 Vol. 16, No. 3
Kindlmann, P., and F. Burel. 2008. Connectivity measures: A review. Landscape Ecology
23:879–890.
Kopelman N.M., J. Mayzel, M. Jakobsson , N.A. Rosenberg, and I. Mayrose. 2015.
CLUMPAK: A program for identifying clustering modes and packaging population
structure inferences across K. Molecular Ecology Resources 15:1 179–1191.
Kwok, S., D.E. Kellog, N. McKinney, D. Spasic, L. Goda, C. Levenson, and J.J. Sninsky.
1990. Effects of primer-template mismatches on the polymerase chain reaction: Human
immunodeficiency virus 1 model studies. Nucleic Acids Research 18:999–1005.
Lande, R. 1987. Extinction thresholds in demographic models of territorial populations.
American Naturalist 130:624–635.
Lande, R. 1988. Genetics and demography in biological conservation. Science
241:1455–1460.
MacMahon, D.A., and W.H. Marquardt. 2004. The Calusa and Their Legacy: South Florida
People and Their Environments. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, F L. 240 pp.
Madsen, T., R. Shine, M. Olsson, and H. Wittzell. 1999. Restoration of an inbred adder
population. Nature 402:34–35.
Marsack, K., and B.J. Swanson. 2009. A genetic analysis of the impact of generation time
and road-based habitat fragmentation on Eastern Box Turtles (Terrapene c. Carolina).
Copeia 4:647–652.
McCoy, E.D., H.R. Mushinsky, and J. Landzey. 2006. Declines of the Gopher Tortoise on
protected lands. Biological Conservation 128:120–127.
McCoy, E.D., K.A. Basiotis, K.M. Connor, and H.R. Mushinsky. 2013. Habitat selection increases
the isolating effect of habitat fragmentation on the Gopher Tortoise. Behavioral
Ecology and Sociobiology 67:815–821.
Meirmans, P.G. 2006. Using the AMOVA framework to estimate a standardized genetic
differentiation measure. Evolution 60:2399–2402.
Miller, J.J. 1998. An Environmental History of Northeast Florida. University of Florida
Press, Gainesville, FL. 229 pp.
Moritz, C. 1994. Defining “evolutionarily significant units” for conservation. Trends in
Ecology and Evolution 9:373–375.
Mushinsky, H.R., E.D. McCoy, J.S. Berish, R.E. Ashton, and D.S. Wilson. 2006. Gopherus
polyphemus – Gopher Tortoise. Pp. 350–375, In P.A. Meylan (Ed.) Biology and Conservation
of Florida Turtles. Chelonian Research Monographs, Lunenburg, MA. 376 pp.
Myers, R.L., and J.J. Ewel. 1990. Ecosystems of Florida. University Press of Florida, Orlando,
FL. 765 pp.
Neigel, J.E. 2002. Is F-ST obsolete? Conservation Genetics 3:167–173.
Paetkau, D., R. Slade, M. Burden, and A. Estoup. 2004. Genetic assignment methods for direct,
real-time estimation of migration rate: A simulation-based exploration of accuracy
and power. Molecular Ecology 13:55–65.
Peakall, R., and P.E. Smouse. 2006. GENALEX 6: Genetic analysis in Excel. Population
genetic software for teaching and research. Molecular Ecology R esources 6:288–295.
Peakall, R., and P.E. Smouse. 2012. GENALEX 6.5: Genetic analysis in Excel. Population
genetic software for teaching and research: An update. Bioinformatics 28:2537–2539.
Peery, M.Z., R. Kirby, B.N. Reid, R. Stoelting, E. Doucet-Bёer, S. Robinson, C. Vásquez-
Carrillo, J.N. Pauli, and P.J. Palsbøll. 2012. Reliability of genetic bottleneck tests for
detecting recent population declines. Molecular Ecology 21:3403 –3418.
Petit, R., A. Mousadik, and O. Pons. 1998. Identifying populations for conservation on the
basis of genetic markers. Conservation Biology 12:844–855.
Southeastern Naturalist
C. Winters, J. Ross, and P. Allman
2017 Vol. 16, No. 3
382
Piry, S., G. Luikart, and J.M. Cornuet. 1999. BOTTLENECK: A computer program for
detecting recent reductions in the effective population size using allele frequency data.
Journal of Heredity 90:502–503.
Pritchard J.K., M. Stephens, and P. Donnelly. 2000. Inference of population structure using
multilocus genotype data. Genetics 155:945–959.
R Development Core Team. 2009. R: A language and environment for statistical computing.
Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project.org. Available
online at http://www.webcitation.org/6VwpYeihX. Accessed 29 January 2017.
Raymond, M., and F. Rousset. 1985. GENEPOP v. 1.2: Population genetics software for
exact tests and ecumenicism. Journal of Heredity 83:239.
Reed, D.H., and R. Frankham. 2003. Correlation between fitness and genetic diversity.
Conservation Biology 17: 230–237.
Reed, D.H., D.A.Briscoe, and R. Frankham. 2002. Inbreeding and extinction: The effect of
environmental stress and lineage. Conservation Genetics 3:301–3 07.
Rice, W.R. 1989. Analyzing tables of statistical tests. Evolution 43:223–225.
Saccheri, I., M. Kuussaari, M. Kankare, P. Vikman, W. Fortelius, and I. Hanski. 1998. Inbreeding
and extinction in a butterfly metapopulation. Nature 39 2:491–494.
Schwartz T.S., and S.A. Karl. 2005. Population and conservation genetics of the Gopher
Tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus). Conservation Genetics 6:917–928.
Schwartz T.S., M. Osentoski, T. Lamb, and S.A. Karl. 2003. Microsatellite loci for the
North American tortoises (genus Gopherus) and their applicability to other tortoise species.
Molecular Ecology Notes 3:283–286.
Sinclair C.S., P.J. Dawes, and R.A. Seigel. 2010. Genetic structuring of Gopher Tortoise
(Gopherus polyphemus) populations on the Kennedy Space Center, Florida, USA. Herpetological
Conservation and Biology 5:189–195.
Sjostrand, A., P. Sjodin, and M. Jakobsson. 2013. Private haplotypes can reveal local adaptation.
BMC Genetics 15:61.
Slatkin, M. 1985. Rare alleles as indicators of gene flow . Evolution 39:53–65.
Slatkin, M., and L. Excoffier. 1996. Testing for linkage disequilibrium in genotypic data
using the expectation-maximization algorithm. Heredity 76:377–3 83.
United States Census Bureau (USCB). 2015. Marco Island current demography data 2015.
Available online at http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/00. Accessed
21 November 2016.
Waitley, D. 1993. The Last Paradise: The Building of Marco Island. Pickering Press, Miami,
FL. 177 pp.
Weeks, A.R., C.M. Sgro, A.G. Young, R. Frankham, N.J. Mitchell, K.A. Miller, M. Byrne,
D.J. Coates, M.D.B. Eldridge, P. Sunnucks, M.F. Breed, E.A. James, and A.A. Hoffmann.
2011. Assessing the benefits and risks of translocation in changing environments:
A genetic perspective. Evolutionary Applications 4:709–725.
Weir, B.S. and C.C. Cockerham. 1984. Estimating F-statistics for the analysis of population
structure. Evolution 38:1358–1370.
Witz, B.W., D.S. Wilson, and M.D. Palmer. 1991. Distribution of Gopherus polyphemus
and its vertebrate symbionts in three burrow categories. American Midland Naturalist
126:152–158.
Wright, S. 1931. Evolution in Mendelian populations. Genetics 16 :97–159.