It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Islands are often considered to be more susceptible to biological invasions and to suffer greater impacts from invaders than mainland areas, and this difference is generally attributed to differences in species introductions, ecological factors or human activities between islands and mainland areas. Genetic variation, as a good estimate of evolutionary potential, can influence the invasion process and impacts of alien species. However, few studies have compared the genetic diversity of alien species between islands and a corresponding mainland. Here, we examined the genetic variation and differentiation in feral populations (30 sampled individuals/population) of a globally invasive species (the American bullfrog, Lithobates catesbeianus) that was extensively farmed on 14 islands in the Zhoushan Archipelago of China and in three nearby regions on the mainland. We quantified the relative importance of propagule pressure and hunting pressures on the genetic variation of bullfrog populations and found that insular populations have greater genetic variation than their mainland counterparts. Although genetic differentiation between the populations was observed, no evidence of recent bottlenecks or population expansion in any of the tested population was found. Our results suggest that the propagule pressures of bullfrogs escaping from farms, multiple releases and hunting pressure influence the genetic variation among bullfrog populations. These results might have important implications for understanding the establishment and evolution of alien species on islands and for the management of invasive species.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 Institute of Zoology, 1 Beichen West Road, Chaoyang District, CAS Key Laboratory of Animal Ecology and Conservation Biology, Beijing, China (GRID:grid.458458.0) (ISNI:0000 0004 1792 6416)
2 Institute of Zoology, 1 Beichen West Road, Chaoyang District, CAS Key Laboratory of Animal Ecology and Conservation Biology, Beijing, China (GRID:grid.458458.0) (ISNI:0000 0004 1792 6416); University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China (GRID:grid.410726.6) (ISNI:0000 0004 1797 8419)
3 Nanjing Institute of Environmental Sciences under Ministry of Environmental Protection of China, Nanjing, PR China (GRID:grid.464374.6) (ISNI:0000 0004 1757 8263)
4 Chinese Academy of Fishery Sciences, Key Laboratory of Sustainable Development of Marine Fisheries, Ministry of Agriculture, Yellow Sea Fisheries Research Institute, Qingdao, China (GRID:grid.43308.3c) (ISNI:0000 0000 9413 3760)
5 Nanjing Agricultural University, College of Resources and Environmental Science, Nanjing, China (GRID:grid.27871.3b) (ISNI:0000 0000 9750 7019)