How does dispersal shape the genetic patterns of animal populations in European cities? A simulation approachuse asterix (*) to get italics

Paul Savary, Cécile Tannier, Jean-Christophe Foltête, Marc Bourgeois, Gilles Vuidel, Aurélie Khimoun, Hervé Moal, Stéphane GarnierPlease use the format "First name initials family name" as in "Marie S. Curie, Niels H. D. Bohr, Albert Einstein, John R. R. Tolkien, Donna T. Strickland"

2024

<p><em>Context and objectives</em></p> <p>Although urbanization is a major driver of biodiversity erosion, it does not affect all species equally. The neutral genetic structure of populations in a given species is affected by both genetic drift and gene flow processes. In cities, the size of animal populations determines drift and can depend on multiple processes whereas gene flow essentially depends on the ability of species to disperse across urban areas. Considering this, we tested whether variations in dispersal constraints alone could explain the variability of neutral genetic patterns commonly observed in urban areas. Besides, we assessed how the spatial distribution of urban green spaces (UGS) and peri-urban forests acts on these patterns.</p> <p><em>Methods</em>&nbsp;</p> <p>We simulated multi-generational genetic processes in virtual populations of animal species occupying either UGS or forest areas (both considered as a virtual species habitat) within and around 325 European cities. We used three dispersal cost scenarios determining the ability of species to cross the least favorable land cover types, while maintaining population sizes constant among scenarios. We then assessed genetic diversity and genetic differentiation patterns for each city and each habitat type across the three cost scenarios.</p> <p><em>Results</em>&nbsp;</p> <p>Overall, as dispersal across the least favorable land cover types was more constrained, genetic diversity decreased and genetic differentiation increased. Across scenarios, the scale and strength of the relationship between genetic differentiation and dispersal cost-distances varied substantially, alike previously observed empirical genetic patterns. Forest areas contributed more to habitat connectivity than UGS, due to their larger area and mostly peri-urban location. Hence, population-level genetic diversity was higher in forests than in UGS and genetic differentiation was higher between UGS populations than between forest populations. However, interface habitat patches allowing individuals to move between different habitat types seemed to locally buffer these contrasts by promoting gene flow.</p> <p><em>Discussion and conclusion&nbsp;</em></p> <p>Our results showed that variations in spatial patterns of dispersal, and thus gene flow, could explain the variability of empirically observed genetic patterns in urban contexts. Besides, the largest habitat areas and biodiversity sources are likely to be found in areas surrounding city centers. This should encourage urban planners to pay attention to the areas promoting dispersal movements between urban habitats (e.g., UGS) and peri-urban habitats (e.g.. forests), rather than among urban habitats, when managing urban biodiversity.</p>

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8180746You should fill this box only if you chose 'All or part of the results presented in this preprint are based on data'. URL must start with http:// or https://

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8180746You should fill this box only if you chose 'Scripts were used to obtain or analyze the results'. URL must start with http:// or https://

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8180746You should fill this box only if you chose 'Codes have been used in this study'. URL must start with http:// or https://

urban ecology; ecological networks; gene flow; biodiversity conservation; green infrastructures

NonePlease indicate the methods that may require specialised expertise during the peer review process (use a comma to separate various required expertises).

Biodiversity, Conservation biology, Dispersal & Migration, Eco-evolutionary dynamics, Human impact, Landscape ecology, Molecular ecology, Population ecology, Spatial ecology, Metacommunities & Metapopulations, Terrestrial ecology

Jason Munshi-South jmunshisouth@fordham.edu, Marta Szulkin marta.szulkin@uw.edu.pl, Ruth Rivkin ruthrivkin@gmail.com, Christopher A. Lepczyk cal0044@auburn.edu, Joscha Beninde beninde@uni-trier.de, Brian C. Verrelli bverrelli@vcu.edu, Milena Stillfried stillfried@izw-berlin.de, Stéphanie Manel [stephanie.manel@cefe.cnrs.fr] suggested: Thomas Broquet: tbroquet@sb-roscoff.fr, Stéphanie Manel [stephanie.manel@cefe.cnrs.fr] suggested: Melanie Murphy: Melanie.Murphy@uwyo.edu, Stéphanie Manel [stephanie.manel@cefe.cnrs.fr] suggested: Benjamin Dauphin : benjamin.dauphin@wsl.ch, Rolf Holderegger [rolf.holderegger@usys.ethz.ch] suggested: Marco Moretti: marco.moretti@wsl.ch , Niko Balkenhol [niko.balkenhol@forst.uni-goettingen.de] suggested: Trishna Dutta (Trishna.Dutta@efi.int), Niko Balkenhol [niko.balkenhol@forst.uni-goettingen.de] suggested: Erin Landguth (erin.landguth@mso.umt.edu), Stephen Spear [sfspear@usgs.gov] suggested: Bill Peterman peterman.73@osu.edu, Stephen Spear [sfspear@usgs.gov] suggested: Erin Landguth erin1.landguth@umontana.edu, Stephen Spear [sfspear@usgs.gov] suggested: Kathy Zeller katherine.zeller@usda.gov, Clinton Epps [clinton.epps@oregonstate.edu] suggested: Christina Aiello christina.aiello@oregonstate.edu, Cristina Aiello [christina.aiello@oregonstate.edu] suggested: Clinton Epps clinton.epps@oregonstate.edu, Cristina Aiello [christina.aiello@oregonstate.edu] suggested: Michael Buchalksi Michael.Buchalski@wildlife.ca.gov, Cristina Aiello [christina.aiello@oregonstate.edu] suggested: Tyler Creech tyler.creech@gmail.com, Nathaniel Pope [natep@uoregon.edu] suggested: Rodolfo Jaffe (r.jaffe@ib.usp.br), Nathaniel Pope [natep@uoregon.edu] suggested: Bill Peterman (peterman.73@osu.edu), Nathaniel Pope [natep@uoregon.edu] suggested: Antonio R. Castilla (arcastilla@okstate.edu), Nusha Keyghobadi [nkeyghob@uwo.ca] suggested: I'm so sorry, I would love to review this ms but you've caught me at a very busy time., Nusha Keyghobadi [nkeyghob@uwo.ca] suggested: Suggested reviewers:, Nusha Keyghobadi [nkeyghob@uwo.ca] suggested: - Niko Balkenhol, University of Goettingen, niko.balkenhol@forst.uni-goettingen.de, Nusha Keyghobadi [nkeyghob@uwo.ca] suggested: - Yessica Rico, Instituto de Ecologia AC, yessica.rico@inecol.mx, Nusha Keyghobadi [nkeyghob@uwo.ca] suggested: - Amanda Xuereb, Université Laval Quebec, ac.lavalu@1.bereux.adnama, Yessica Rico suggested: Erin Landguth erin.landguth@gmail.com , Yessica Rico suggested: Niko Bankenhol niko.balkenhol@forst.uni-goettingen.de, Sean Schoville [sean.schoville@wisc.edu] suggested: Jason Munshi-South, jason@nycevolution.org, Sean Schoville [sean.schoville@wisc.edu] suggested: Nicole A. Fusco, nfusco1@fordham.edu, Marco Andrello [marco.andrello@ias.cnr.it] suggested: Sorry Aurélie, I do not have time to review this ms now., Dries Bonte suggested: maxime dahirel maxime.dahirel@yahoo.com, Dries Bonte suggested: Femke Batsleer femke.batsleer@ugent.be, Thomas Hovestadt suggested: Emanuel Fronhofer emanuel.fronhofer@umontpellier.fr

e.g. John Doe john@doe.com

No need for them to be recommenders of PCIEcology. Please do not suggest reviewers for whom there might be a conflict of interest. Reviewers are not allowed to review preprints written by close colleagues (with whom they have published in the last four years, with whom they have received joint funding in the last four years, or with whom they are currently writing a manuscript, or submitting a grant proposal), or by family members, friends, or anyone for whom bias might affect the nature of the review - see the code of conduct

2023-07-25 19:09:16

Aurélie Coulon