Next Article in Journal
Antibacterial Activity of Rainbow Trout Plasma: In Vitro Assays and Proteomic Analysis
Next Article in Special Issue
Characterization of Vasoreactivity in a Semi-Arboreal Snake, the Tokara Habu (Protobothrops tokarensis)
Previous Article in Journal
Tryptophan and Cortisol Modulate the Kynurenine and Serotonin Transcriptional Pathway in the Kidney of Oncorhynchus kisutch
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Fergana Valley Is an Isolate of Biodiversity: A Discussion of the Endemic Herpetofauna and Description of Two New Species of Alsophylax (Sauria: Gekkonidae) from Eastern Uzbekistan
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Importance of Genetic–Fitness Correlations for the Conservation of Amphibians

Institute of Zoology, University of Veterinary Medicine of Hannover, Bünteweg 17, 30559 Hannover, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Animals 2023, 13(22), 3564; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13223564
Submission received: 9 October 2023 / Revised: 9 November 2023 / Accepted: 14 November 2023 / Published: 18 November 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Evolution, Diversity, and Conservation of Herpetofauna)

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

Threatened animal species live in small and isolated populations, often with a reduced number of individuals and reduced genetic diversity. In this review, we summarise studies on amphibian species that examined the effect of genetic diversity on the fitness of individuals or populations. We found evidence for the positive association between genetic diversity and different estimates of fitness where low genetic diversity is associated with lower fitness. Published studies are however scarce, concentrated on a handful species and with a high proportion of non-significant results reported. For the maintenance of amphibian and other animal populations, it is important to increase the research effort in this topic and, for imperilled populations, enhance genetic diversity through different types of conservation measures.

Abstract

Endangered animals suffer from isolation of their habitats. Isolation leads to a reduction in population size as well as a decrease in genetic diversity and a concomitant increase in the risk of extinction. Amphibians are the most endangered vertebrate class. Besides habitat loss, fragmentation and isolation, amphibians are threatened by emerging diseases e.g., chytrid fungus or Ranavirus. By employing experiments, researchers investigate whether changes in genetic diversity within or among isolated populations affect amphibian fitness. While genetic diversity estimates are based on molecular markers, typically microsatellites, fitness is mostly measured as tadpole performance in rearing experiments often under varying environmental conditions. Tadpole performances (e.g., body mass, growth rate and survival) have been found to be negatively affected by low genetic diversity, as several studies have found a positive association between genetic diversity and these fitness traits. Moreover, infection with pathogens also seems to be more likely in individuals or populations with lower genetic diversity. Overall, these genetic–fitness correlations seem to be more pronounced or detectable in smaller, declining populations but not in larger populations. Genomic studies, which sample a larger fraction of the genome, are still scarce in the conservation genetic literature on amphibians. These are likely to increase in upcoming years and may reveal adaptive variants that protect against dangerous pathogens or environmental changes. Altogether, genetic–fitness correlation studies should be a priority in order to develop effective management plans for the genetic rescue of isolated, imperilled amphibian populations.

1. Introduction

Genetic diversity is highly important to maintain healthy animal and plant populations and assure their long-term persistence [1,2]. If populations are isolated and small, several genetic problems might arise. First, genetic drift might lead to a random fixation and loss of alleles, which depletes the genetic variation required for ecological adaptation to changing environments. At the same time, genetic load induces the accumulation of deleterious alleles because selection is less efficient in small populations. Moreover, if the number of potential mates is restricted in a small population the risk of inbreeding—mating among relatives—rises. Inbreeding increases the number of homozygous loci including loci with deleterious, partially recessive mutations. Inbreeding depression is the consequence: it is a serious risk for declining populations because it impairs fitness traits such as birth weight, survival probability, fecundity and resistance to diseases [3,4,5].
The classical study by Reed and Frankham [6] has evidenced that genetic diversity (in the following text abbreviated as GD) in vertebrates, invertebrates and plants correlates significantly with population fitness and decreases when population sizes decline. For example, in deer mice from nine populations of Michigan, parasite load (nematode Capillaria hepatica) is a proxy for fitness that negatively correlates with GD (measured as allozyme heterozygosity) [7]. However, the consequences of decreased GD for the species and their conservation are not always clear. Populations of some species seem to persist or even grow although their GD is low (e.g., Bufo calamita [8], or Alces alces [9]; reviewed in [10]), while others suffer from inbreeding depression due to small population size and genetic load (e.g., [11,12,13]).
Despite some discrepancies in the research results, the role of GD as well as certain genetic factors is important for the persistence of populations in many taxa [14,15]. The introduction of individuals into threatened populations would enhance GD and reduce their chance of extinction resulting in a genetic rescue [16,17]. GD has been traditionally measured with neutral molecular markers such as microsatellites [18]; however, more recently the focus of research has been switched to the genomic level, a much better representation of the total genetic variation. Genomic approaches provide fine-scale genetic data for multiple loci distributed across all parts of the genome or even covering the whole genome [19].
Amphibians are particularly vulnerable to anthropogenic activities that often result in declines in population sizes. Compared to other vertebrates, a higher proportion of amphibian species (amphibians: 41%, birds: 13%) are endangered [20,21]. Amphibian populations suffer from land-use conversion, leading to habitat fragmentation and destruction as well as the contamination and spread of infectious diseases [22,23]. A total of 36 out of the more than 7486 amphibian species are already extinct or possibly extinct (156), and many other species (>3314) are affected by population declines [21]. Habitat fragmentation reduces gene flow among populations and consequently depletes genetic variation. Higher genetic distances (FST values) indicating population fragmentation have been found for amphibians (FST = 0.32, N = 33 amphibian species) than for other taxa (e.g., FST = 0.076 for birds and FST = 0.26 for reptiles, [2]). For example, studies on the yellow-bellied toads Bombina variegata in Germany revealed highly structured populations with pairwise FST values which were significantly different among most populations and an overall extremely low genetic diversity (as measured by heterozygosity, HO, HE and inbreeding FIS) in most toad localities [24,25]. Other examples for highly structured amphibian species with low GD are the Oregon spotted frog Rana pretiosa from the Pacific Northwest [26], and the Arouss Al Ayn Salamandra inframaculata from northern Israel [27].
The reduction in amphibian population sizes interacts with decreases in GD, population bottlenecks and inbreeding. Together these challenges result in fitness reductions, especially under stressful conditions (reviewed in: [28,29]). These facts pose an increasing problem for amphibian conservation. Therefore, this review aims to summarize the published evidence on the genetic–fitness correlations (GFC) in amphibian species. We consider studies that estimated GD at neutral as well as adaptive loci. Some of these studies also found particular alleles associated with fitness. Our work reveals that GFC indeed exists in many species, but that the proxies used to evaluate fitness as well as the methods to estimate GD have been diverse. We discuss how to standardize the methods, the need to increase the number of amphibian species assessed and finally the overall importance of GFC for conservation management in highly imperiled species.

2. Material and Methods

For this review, we searched for literature on amphibian species that report correlations between genetic variation and fitness (GFC) or heterozygosity and fitness (HFC). Therefore, we used the global citation databases Web of Science and PubMed in February 2023. We used the following key words for the search: amphib* OR frog* OR toad* OR newt* OR salamander* OR caecilian* OR anura* OR caudata* OR gymnophiona* AND fitness* OR infection* AND genetic diversity* OR heterozygosity fitness correlation* OR genetic fitness correlation* OR inbreeding*. From all articles displayed (Web of Science: N = 379 and PubMed: N = 262), we read the abstract and methods to decide whether the article contained the desired information for the topic. In total, we found 35 articles that met our criteria. The criteria were as follows: estimates of genetic diversity (GD) and a statistical test of association with fitness traits of an amphibian species were reported (Figure 1). To summarize information and results from the publications, we elaborated a detailed table with the following content: species, study area (country), number of sample sites investigated, genetic method used to estimate GD, estimators of GD (e.g., allelic richness), the proxies for fitness (e.g., tadpole survival or infection intensity with the chytrid fungus Bd), the applied statistical method, the presence or absence of correlations or associations between GD or certain genetic elements (e.g., immune genes) with the fitness proxies, and finally a short summary or conclusion from the study. We additionally report—only in cases where this information was available in the publication—the population size of the focal species at the sample site and values (or ranges) of genetic diversity estimates. In cases where the genetic population structure has been evaluated, we report the number of genetic clusters found (K) via Bayesian Assignment algorithms (e.g., STRUCTURE) and FST values. In experiments or when differences in the environment in the field have been measured, we shortly outline the treatments or ecological factors. Since the studies differed in the genetic markers used and analytical procedures, the results (e.g., heterozygosities) among studies cannot be directly compared. In most studies the GD measures are reported for populations (Ho or He), in some studies however GD and fitness were measured on the individual level (e.g., MLH or Bd infection intensity). This is then indicated as “indiv.” genetic variation. If available, we transferred values of correlations (r or R2) and probabilities (P) from the publication into the table. However, since the statistical models applied are highly diverse among studies this information could not be standardised. Since the information content in the table is complex we simplified the content by dividing it into three tables. The first table covers the genetic markers used to measure GD and how different fitness parameters are affected by GD and certain adaptive loci. The results of the experiments which analysed the effects of ecological conditions on fitness parameters and how these interact with GD and those that analyse the effect of small population size and/or population isolation on amphibian fitness were also tabulated.
To graphically summarise the compiled data we aggregated the diversity of the phenotypic variables measured in the original articles into eight main fitness trait categories as follows: development (1/tadpole deformities, tadpole development rate and egg hatch success), growth rate (tadpole growth rate and juvenile growth rate), fertility (adult reproductive investment and clutch size), health (Bd tolerance, 1/Bd infection and 1/Bd intensity), home range, size (tadpole mass, tadpole size, adult size and tadpole weight), and survival (tadpole survival, egg survival, clutch survival, juvenile survival and adult survival). We then registered the reported statistical effect of the GD on these fitness traits (positive, negative or non-significant) and the amphibian species studied in each case. To summarise the phylogenetic diversity of the studied species, we used a comprehensive amphibian phylogeny [30] pruned to only include the studied species using the phytools package [31].

3. Results

3.1. Study Overview

In total we found 35 studies published in a diversity of international journals that contained information about GD and at least one fitness-related trait for one up to 38 study sites (SS) in different amphibian species (Table S1). Most studies only included one species, two studies included two species [32,33] and one study included six species [34]. The later study, however, tested for the association of GD and fitness traits between, but not within, species and hence is not directly comparable to the rest of studies. One study included two closely related Atelopus species, but based on the genetic population structure analysis it was concluded that no clear genetic distinction between the two species was possible and therefore they should be considered one species [35]. In total, 33 studies considered anura, one considered caudata, one considered one anura and one caudata species, but no caecilian species was considered in the publications. Twenty-four studies were realised in the temperate zone, seven in the subtropical zone and four in the tropical zone. The species discussed were eleven temperate species, seven subtropical species and nine tropical species. The mismatch between “studies per climate zone” and “species per climate zone” is due to the fact that several temperate and one subtropical species were included in several publications: for example, the temperate species B. calamita and Rana temporaria were investigated five times and Hyla arborea four times, while none of the tropical species were included in more than one study (Figure 2, Table S1). We excluded the study of six Brazilian [34] species from Figure 1 and Figure 2 as well as Table 1 because information on the genetic diversity and fitness was not available at the species level. However, the study is still included in Table S1 and last table since the relationship between forest fragmentation and Bd infection is relevant.
The genetic markers involved were diverse. Genotyping microsatellites (N = 24) were the obvious preferred method in the lab; however, allozymes (N = 2), minisatellites (N = 1), RAPD (N = 1), AFLPs (N = 1), Cytb (N = 2) and unspecified mtDNA (N = 1) also served as measures of neutral genetic variation. Both Cytb studies were performed in combination with microsatellites. Eight studies used an adaptive immunological locus, the MHC IA or II β (exon 1 or 2) loci, four of those also used microsatellites, one combined with mtDNA, and two also used a genomic approach. Furthermore, five studies used genomic approaches: four studies sequenced SNPs (single nucleotide polymorphisms), while one study applied transcriptome sequencing (Table S1). The measures of GD depended on the molecular marker used: the most important ones for microsatellites are allelic richness (AR), observed HO and expected heterozygosity HE for populations as well as multilocus heterozygosity (MHL) for individuals. Allele frequencies and heterozygosity, gene diversity (π) and Tajimas D (TD) were also reported for MHC results, and the three CytB/mtDNA studies reported gene diversity (π) and/or Tajimas D (Table S1). Several studies comprised information about the population structure: global FST values are given in three studies [36,37,38], while pairwise/mean pairwise FST values are given for four studies [39,40,41,42]. Interestingly, the non-isolated population in Rana latastei from Italy showed much smaller pairwise FST values than the isolated populations [39]. Accordingly, for R. temporaria in Sweden, the global FST value for a fragmented study area was more than three times higher than the global FST value for a continuous habitat [37]. In five studies the population structure analyses were also applied using Bayesian cluster analysis with the program STRUCTURE [43] or NGSadmix [44]. The number of identified genetic clusters ranged from K = 2 in Anaxyrus boreas [45] to K = 10 in Litoria verreauxii [46]; thus, all amphibian species analysed showed genetic population structuring. Twenty studies were conducted on egg and/or tadpole stages, while fourteen studies included adult individuals and one study included both juveniles and adults (Table S1).

3.2. Genetic Diversity and Fitness

Measurements of GD have been conducted in all but one study (H. arborea; [47]), but the values for GD have been reported in only 22 studies (Table S1). The study on H. arborea without genetic diversity analysis compared the fitness of genetically small and isolated populations with large populations and was therefore included in this review. Fourteen studies found evidence for a positive effect of high GD on fitness traits or a negative effect of low GD (e.g., [48]; Table 1). Twelve studies found evidence for a positive effect of GD on one or several fitness traits but no effect on other fitness traits (e.g., [49]). Six studies found no effect of GD on fitness traits (e.g., [47]). Only one study found positive and negative effects of GD on fitness traits: in R. temporaria, tadpole survival and developmental rates were positively correlated with GD, while growth rate was negatively correlated [50]. Two studies found Bd infection to be higher in genetically more diverse populations [45,51], while May et al. [52] found the same relationship between neutral genetic diversity and Bd infection; however, they found no effect of GD on tadpole traits and that adaptive MHC diversity was higher in uninfected populations. None of the studies found either no effect or negative effects of GD on fitness traits. In summary, 26 studies found positive effects of GD on fitness traits in amphibians, while only four studies found a negative relationship between GD and fitness proxies, and this involved Bd infection in three cases (Table 1). Additionally, eight studies found an association between certain MHC loci or certain candidate genes related to survival and/or Bd infection (Table 1).
In terms of the measured fitness traits investigated in all studies, 35 measured fitness traits were positively correlated with GD or negatively affected by particularly low GD, while 34 fitness traits showed no relationship with GD and four fitness traits (e.g., lower or no Bd infection) were associated with lower GD. Since some studies involved two or more molecular markers, it is possible that fitness traits were correlated with the GD measured at one marker but no correlation was found for GD measured with another marker (N = 3, [34,36,53]). For example, in Bufo bufo tadpoles, survival and deformity were significantly associated with allozyme diversity but not with minisatellite diversity [36].
We compiled a total of 69 statistical tests of association between GD and fitness traits in 18 species. Four species (B. calamita, H. arborea, R. temporaria and R. sylvatica) were the most studied and accounted for 57% of all the statistical tests conducted. Overall, the majority of the reported GD effects on fitness traits were positive (>48% positive vs. 6% negative), although the number of non-significant effects reported was high overall (>45%) (Figure 3).
Table 1. Studies examining the association between fitness traits and calculated genetic diversity (GD) or a certain genetic locus (below) evaluated with different genetic markers. Note that a fitness trait can be positive, i.e., enhancing fitness (e.g., growth rate, survival) or negative, i.e., decreasing fitness (e.g., the presence of disease or deformity). Cases in which the expectation that higher GD is positively correlated with “positive” fitness is not met are marked with Animals 13 03564 i001. Those studies that contain information about GD and genetic loci associated with fitness appear twice in the table.
Table 1. Studies examining the association between fitness traits and calculated genetic diversity (GD) or a certain genetic locus (below) evaluated with different genetic markers. Note that a fitness trait can be positive, i.e., enhancing fitness (e.g., growth rate, survival) or negative, i.e., decreasing fitness (e.g., the presence of disease or deformity). Cases in which the expectation that higher GD is positively correlated with “positive” fitness is not met are marked with Animals 13 03564 i001. Those studies that contain information about GD and genetic loci associated with fitness appear twice in the table.
SpeciesGenetic Marker /LocusFitness Trait Correlated with GDCorrelationFitness trait Negatively Affected When Genetic Diversity Is LowFitness Traits Not Correlated with GD or Not Affected by Low GDCitation
Bufo bufoallozymes
minisats
tadpole survival
tadpole deformity
positive
negative
tadpole survival
tadpole deformity
[36]
Bufo calamitamicrosatstadpole growth ratepositiveegg hatch ratetadpole survival[49]
Hyla arboreaallozymes------egg hatch rate
tadpole survival
[54]
Bufo calamitamicrosats------tadpole survival
tadpole growth rate
tadpole develop. rate
tadpole time to metamorf.
[32]
Rana temporariamicrosats------tadpole survival
tadpole growth rate
tadpole develop. rate
tadpole time to metamorf.
[32]
Bufo calamitamicrosats tadpole survival
tadpole growth rate
[48]
Rana temporariamicrosatstadpole survival
tadpole develop. rate
tadpole growth rate
positive
positive
negative Animals 13 03564 i001
[50]
Rana latasteimicrosatstadpole survivalpositive [55]
Rana sylvaticamicrosatssibship survival (eggs—tadpole stage) positive tadpole weight[56]
Rana sylvaticaRAPDegg survival
tadpole survival
tadpole deformity
positive
positive
negative
[57]
Rana latasteimicrosatsegg hatch ratepositive [39]
Rana temporariamicrosatstadpole body size
tadpole survival
positive
positive
[37]
Rana temporariamicrosatstadpole weightpositive age at metamorphosis[58]
Bufa calamitaAFLPstadpole survivalpositive [38]
Rana temporariamicrosats tadpole growth rate
tadpole survival
[40]
Hyla arboreamicrosatstadpole body mass
tadpole length
tadpole stage at 37
positive
positive
positive *
[59]
Bufo calamitamicrosatsBd infection in populationpositive Animals 13 03564 i001 tadpole growth rate
tadpole develop. time
tadpole survival
[52]
Hyla arboreamicrosats adult body size
adult body condition
reproductive investment
[60]
Lithobates sevosusmicrosatsegg survival
tadpole survival
positive
positive
[61]
Anaxyrus boreasmicrosatsadult Bd infectionpositive Animals 13 03564 i001 [45]
Lithobates yavapaiensismicrosatsadult Bd tolerance
mortality
positive
negative
infection intensity
but GD lowest in uninfected pops.
[41]
Pseudacris ornatamicrosatsadult Bd infectionpositive Animals 13 03564 i001 [51]
Bombina variegatamicrosats adult Bd infection[62]
Plethodon cinereusmicrosatsadult home range size
juvenile growth rate
positive
positive
juvenile survival [63]
Hynobius tokyensismicrosatsegg survivalpositive [33]
Rana ornativentrisCytBegg survivalpositive
Pseudophryne cooroboreeSNPsadult survival after Bd infectionpositive adult infection load[42]
Rana sylvaticaMHC II β tadpole Ranavirus infection intensitynegative Ranavirus infection prevalence[64]
Litoria verreauxiigenomic SNPsadult Bd infectionnegative adult Bd infection intensity[46]
Bombina variegatamicrosatsadult Bd infectionnegative adult Bd infection intensity [65]
Rana pipiensMHC II β exon 2
microsats/mtDNA
adult Bd infection negative adult Bd infection intensity
adult Bd infection and inf. intensity
[53]
Eleutherodactylus coquigenomic SNPsadult Bd infectionnegative [66]
Genetic locus
Rana temporariaMHC II β exon 2tadpole survival allele C overrepresented, allele H underrepresented in dead tadpoles [40]
Bufo calamitaMHC II β exon 2Bd infection in populationMHC diversity higher in uninfected populations [52]
Lithobates yavapaiensisMHC II β exon 2adult frog survival after Bd infectionMHC heterozygotes and Allele Q [67]
Physalaemus pustulosusMHC II β exon 1 Bd infectionBd resistant allele P9 at higher frequency in pop most affected by Bd [68]
Pseudophryne corroboreeMHC I ABd infectionsome alleles pos. associated with infection load and susceptibility [42]
Rana sylvaticaMHC II β Ranavirus infectionintensity lowest in individuals with genotype ST1/ST7 [64]
Atelopus varius
Atelopus zeteki
transcriptome sequencessurvival of Bd infectioncandidate genes related to immune system and skin integrity associated with survival [69]
Rana pipiensMHC II β exon 2Bd infectionSupertype 4 conveys increased risk of infection [53]
* Indirect evidence, fitness increased in inter-population crosses.

3.3. Effects of Genetic Diversity on Ecological Fitness Traits

Tadpoles were commonly used for fitness experiments in which tadpole development or survival was measured under different ecological conditions (N = 11 studies, Table 2). Tadpoles were raised under high and low food regimes, under predation, competition or desiccation risk, different temperature treatments or exposure to a pathogen. Commonly, these studies provide evidence that fitness traits are affected by adverse conditions: in stressful situations like low food, presence of predators, desiccation risk, competition, unsuitable temperature, exposure to diseases or elevated UV light, fitness traits or survival were adversely affected. Particularly interesting are studies that found interactions between GD and treatments: four studies found evidence of fitness costs associated with low genetic variation under severe conditions [32,50,55,57]. For example, in Rana sylvatica mortality was higher in tadpoles of low GD when exposed to UV light [57]. Interestingly, in B. calamita a higher GD improved survival of tadpoles in water of cold temperatures, where survival was highest, but not in water of variable temperatures, a situation which was supposed to be stressful for the toads [38]. Overall, there is some evidence that a higher GD improves amphibian fitness under certain ecological conditions, while a low GD was never associated with better fitness.

3.4. Effects of Genetic Diversity on Demographic and Health-Related Fitness Traits

In amphibians as well as in other animals, isolation and fragmentation of populations is associated with small population sizes and therefore lower GD. From all studies included in this review (Table S1), thirteen found negative effects of isolation on different demographic fitness proxies (Table 3). Egg and tadpole survival was reduced in small or isolated populations in four European (B. calamita, Rowe and Beebee 2003; H. arborea [54]; R. latastei [55]; and R. temporaria [37]) one North American (Lithobates sevosus [61] and two Japanese species (Hynobius tokyoensis and Rana ornatriventris [33]). With respect to Bd infection the results are more divergent: One study on yellow-bellied toads (B. variegata) found that Bd prevalence and intensity was highest in two isolated and inbred populations [65], while in Litoria verrauxii from Australia Bd infection was absent in an isolated population [46]. Across six Brazilian species Bd infection was more intense in fragmented populations as compared to non-fragmented populations [34].

4. Discussion

Our review analysed the relationships among GD and fitness traits, in some cases together with population size and fragmentation, in amphibian populations. Most studies did not contain information on all of these items, and the number of species investigated is extremely small (N = 20 species) when considering the 8689 known amphibian species [70]. Even with these limitations, however, the overall picture is that declines in amphibian population sizes are associated with a decrease in GD, with a concomitant negative effect on fitness. This is in accordance with earlier reviews on GFC in amphibians, pointing out the relationship between small population size, genetic diversity depletion or inbreeding, and the unfavourable consequences on survival [29,71]. The state of this research field is, however, far from satisfactory: Future studies need to include a more diverse assemblage of species—for example, more species from the unstudied but highly diversified tropical families in Anura, evolutionarily distinct lineages within Caudata and Gymnophiona, genetically diverse hybridogenic species [72,73], and species using different reproductive modes and parental care strategies such as aquatic oviparity or terrestrial direct development [74,75]. Additionally, studies that link the measured fitness traits with the lifetime survival and reproductive success of populations are desirable.

4.1. Genetic–Fitness Correlations

In this report, it became apparent that GD, mostly measured at microsatellite loci, is often positively correlated with fitness traits. Fitness traits were mostly measured as traits that are related to the development of eggs and tadpoles or in some cases as Bd infection. The fitness traits of eggs and tadpoles (e.g., survival and growth rate) are generally positively correlated with increasing GD meaning that individuals in populations with a higher GD are more likely to survive and reach adulthood.
However, the situation is different for the infection with Bd. We considered Bd infection an adverse fitness trait since Bd infection has led to disease outbreaks, mass mortality and population declines. Even though the fungus is widely distributed—it has been detected in 86 of 119 countries (72%) and in 1062 of 1966 tested species (54%; [76])—the most severe declines have occurred in Meso- and South America, whereas the situation is somewhat better in Europe, North America and Africa, and no declines have been reported from Asia [23]. In our review, we found four studies in the Neotropics including nine species, which reflects this pattern of severity.
Interestingly we found three studies that documented Bd infection to be positively correlated with GD [45,51,52]. One possibility to explain this paradox, if we assume that a higher GD is coupled with better health conditions, is that GD is higher in those populations that are more connected with others via migration and gene flow. While contact with migrating individuals increases genetic exchange and therefore GD, it also increases the exposure to parasites and pathogens [45]. By the same logic, the fungus might not spread into isolated amphibian populations with less GD, which might explain the observed correlations. In contrast, some other studies show a negative relationship between GD at different genetic markers and Bd infection. One example is L. verreauxii [46], in which frogs with a higher HO were less likely to be infected; a similar result was found for B. variegata [65]. Those studies highlight the importance of individual GD for resisting the infection in populations connected by gene flow. We found no study that related GD to the infection with Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans (Bsal). The host specificity of this fungal parasite is largely restricted to Caudata [77], and associations between GD and Bsal infection appear to have not been studied or published to date.
Even though many studies showed positive relationships between GD and fitness proxies, while only a few studies showed negative correlations, nearly 46% of the calculated statistical tests were not significant (Figure 3). Even within the same species, some fitness proxies were positively correlated with GD while others were not. For example, in B. calamita, tadpole growth rate was positively correlated with GD and egg hatch rate was lower in genetically depleted populations, but tadpole survival was not affected by GD [49] and was better in a large population with higher genetic diversity compared to a small population in another study [48]. This observation points to a problem: for most species it is not clear which fitness proxies are actually related to fitness in the sense of long-term survival and reproduction. Therefore, it would be preferable to always measure a set of fitness proxies, and ideally this would be performed in several localities covering distinct environmental conditions.

4.2. Population Size and Fragmentation

Conservation of GD is not only important for amphibians. A comparison between threatened and closely related non-threatened animal and plant species revealed that the genetic diversity or heterozygosity is on average 35% reduced in the threatened group. Seemingly, inbreeding depression reduces the reproductive fitness and therefore increases extinction risk and lowers the evolutionary potential of depleted populations [78]. Conservation of GD is therefore of immense importance in small populations which otherwise are put at a high risk of extinction. At this point, we want to emphasize that in large and outbred amphibian populations, fitness traits have not been found to be correlated with GD, e.g., [32]. Instead, the negative effects of low GD seem to come into play when genetic depletion is significant and especially when genetic load and inbreeding are present [32,61].
In most studies reviewed for this report, inbreeding coefficients and estimates for population sizes are not calculated or presented. Nevertheless, we found substantial evidence for the positive association between connectivity and population size with GFCs. In eleven studies, egg and tadpole survival and development were reduced or Bd infection was more severe in isolated and/or small populations (Table 3). Notably, inbred tadpoles of L. sevosus had a lower probability of survival in an isolated population. The consequence of the elevated mortality of inbred tadpoles is the reduction in the inbreeding coefficient in later stages (juveniles and adults) because only outbred, genetically more diverse individuals survive the tadpole stage. This case emphasizes the need to measure amphibian inbreeding at different developmental stages [61].

4.3. Candidate Loci and Adaptive Markers

Some studies highlight the importance of investigating the role of adaptive markers for amphibian fitness. Those studies have been conducted mainly in the context of Bd infection (Table 1). Besides the importance of diversity at the MHC loci, certain alleles (e.g., allele Q and P9; [67,68]) seem to convey resistance and survival. Overall, the knowledge on the interaction between amphibian fitness and adaptive loci is minimal, and we hope to find more outcomes from this type of research in the future.

4.4. Interactions with Environmental Conditions

Several studies included varying environmental factors (food, predation, competition, desiccation, temperature, pathogens and sun exposure) together with GD in their experimental design (Table 2). Four of those studies found an interaction between GD and one ecological factor. In three studies the survival of tadpoles under stressful treatment was better when GD was higher [50,55,57], while GD was correlated with survival in the benign treatment in another study [38]. Even though the number of studies is low, they underline how low GD may reduce the ecological fitness of amphibians.

4.5. Recommendation for Further Studies

One problem detected in this research is the lack of standardisation of methodologies. Even though many studies investigated the effect of isolation and/or low GD on tadpole fitness, and GD was mostly evaluated with microsatellites, most of them varied in the fitness proxies that were measured (Table 1). Moreover, it is mostly unknown how fitness traits measured at different developmental or life stages are correlated with each other. While ecological conditions (e.g., food limitation [79]) affect the mass and developmental time to metamorphosis, several studies found a positive relationship between size at metamorphosis and later survival [80]. To the contrary, a long-term study including demographic modelling found that lifetime fitness of spadefoot toads in Austria (Pelobates fuscus fuscus) was weakly affected by variations in size and timing at metamorphosis [81]. These uncertainties need more research attention in the future. In most cases, measuring the relationship of fitness across life stages will remain impractical or even impossible with current funding schemes. We therefore suggest (nearly) non-invasive methods: sampling the tail tips of tadpoles and the saliva of juvenile and adult amphibians for molecular methods. Furthermore, we recommend reporting the level of isolation of the study localities, reporting GD as population HO, HE and individual MLH, and providing at least a rough estimate of population size or effective population size (NE). Currently, the use of microsatellites is declining and is increasingly being replaced by more informative methods like SNPs, where the number of molecular markers is increased a thousandfold (e.g., [82]). The effects of other adverse factors such as agrochemicals, direct exploitation and invasive species [83] on amphibian GD and fitness is another research gap. Identifying, monitoring and measuring harmful ecological conditions together with GD and population sizes of endangered species is a process of decades. To be successful it needs long-term funding and stable personnel conditions in species protection centres and scientific institutions.
A matter of current and future interest should be the correlation between neutral genetic variation and adaptive variation as well as the presence of adaptive loci that help to counteract particular adverse environmental conditions. For example, only a few studies to date have found adaptive loci associated with climatic conditions [82,84,85,86] despite the evident risk climate change poses on amphibians.

5. Conclusions

Multiple studies have shown the importance of keeping GD above critical levels for maintaining healthy and fit populations [78,87]. Low GD in small populations not only lowers the fitness of the animals but it also compromises the adaptive potential, e.g., the ability to cope with environmental changes, by modifying allele frequencies of critical genes that might prove beneficial under future conditions. In too small populations, these critical genes are at risk of being lost by chance, i.e., by genetic drift, and the probability that the genetic variants are locally adapted to current local conditions is also low. Because of these genetic inconveniencies, amphibian species protection measures should aim to preserve and manage meta-populations—subpopulations connected by gene flow—with an effective populations size (NE) of more than a thousand individuals [88]. One problem is that the NE are often unknown and hard to infer from the population size, N, in amphibians, but fortunately they can be estimated from genetic markers [89]. In amphibians, those meta-populations consist of subpopulations tied to certain resources such as breeding ponds among which migration and gene flow take place. Small and disconnected populations with low GD facing extinction risk should be reconnected to larger, geographically close meta-populations via steppingstones and artificial crossing aids such as ditches, tunnels or green bridges. If this is not possible, genetic rescue by the introduction of individuals from larger populations that are genetically diverse or by mixing of individuals from several source populations for translocation [16,90] could serve to enhance GD. In the latter case, the risk of outbreeding depression can be avoided by applying some simple rules developed by experts [91] and by limiting the introduced fraction to 5–20% of the recipient population. A review by Frankham [17] on genetic rescue revealed that the introduction of individuals from other populations into small plant, invertebrate and vertebrate populations generally resulted in higher fitness. The author concluded that the method of genetic rescue should be used more often in species protection measures.
With respect to changing environmental conditions caused by climate change or the spread of novel or introduced pathogens, it is important to unravel those critical genes that provide resistance to new negative influences (e.g., greater drought) by applying genomic methods. Once those genes have been identified, beneficial variants should be introduced into the affected threatened populations. For example, in the Yosemite toad, Anaxyrus canorus, 24 candidate genes have been identified that seem to be under climate-related selection [85]. Identifying more critical genes under selection by environmental change and how they might contribute to species conservation, together with the maintenance of a substantial level of local genetic variation, is the next challenge in genetic amphibian conservation science. This kind of research will aid the efforts of upcoming international conventions aiming to restore and maintain GD within and among populations of all species (global biodiversity framework, GBF, [92]).

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/ani13223564/s1. Table S1 contains detailed information on the species studied, molecular markers, genetic diversity measures, experiments and genetic–fitness correlation as well as the main conclusions from the studies included in this review.

Author Contributions

H.P. and A.R. conceived this review and collected the information; H.P. wrote the first version of the manuscript; A.R. and H.P. reviewed and edited the text. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The Institute of Zoology of TiHo funded the writing of the review.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data sharing is not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that there are no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Frankham, R. Genetics and extinction. Biol. Conserv. 2005, 126, 131–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Allendorf, F.W. Genetics and the conservation of natural populations: Allozymes to genomes. Mol. Ecol. 2017, 26, 420–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Lande, R. Mutation and Conservation. Conserv. Biol. 1995, 9, 782–791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Lynch, M.; Conery, J.; Burger, R. Mutation accumulation and the extinction of small populations. Am. Nat. 1995, 146, 489–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Keller, L.F.; Waller, D.M. Inbreeding effects in wild populations. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2002, 17, 230–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Reed, D.H.; Frankham, R. Correlation between fitness and genetic diversity. Conserv. Biol. 2003, 17, 230–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Meagher, S. Genetic diversity and Capillaria hepatica (Nematoda) prevalence in Michigan deer mouse populations. Evolution 1999, 53, 1318–1324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Hitchings, S.P.; Beebee, T.J.C. Persistence of British natterjack toad Bufo calamita Laurenti (Anura: Bufonidae) populations despite low genetic diversity. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 1996, 57, 69–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Broders, H.G.; Mahoney, S.P.; Montevecchi, W.A.; Davidson, W.S. Population genetic structure and the effect of founder events on the genetic variability of moose, Alces alces, in Canada. Mol. Ecol. 1999, 8, 1309–1315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Reed, D.H. Albatrosses, eagles and newts, Oh My!: Exceptions to the prevailing paradigm concerning genetic diversity and population viability? Anim. Conserv. 2010, 13, 448–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Ujvari, B.; Madsen, T.; Kotenko, T.; Olsson, M.; Shine, R.; Wittzell, H. Low genetic diversity threatens imminent extinction for the Hungarian meadow viper (Vipera ursinii rakosiensis). Biol. Conserv. 2002, 105, 127–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Fredrickson, R.J.; Siminski, P.; Woolf, M.; Hedrick, P.W. Genetic rescue and inbreeding depression in Mexican wolves. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2007, 274, 2365–2371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Sundell, T.; Kammonen, J.I.; Mustanoja, E.; Biard, V.; Kunnasranta, M.; Niemi, M.; Nykanen, M.; Nyman, T.; Palo, J.U.; Valtonen, M.; et al. Genomic evidence uncovers inbreeding and supports translocations in rescuing the genetic diversity of a landlocked seal population. Conserv. Genet. 2023, 24, 155–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Evans, S.R.; Sheldon, B.C. Interspecific patterns of genetic diversity in birds: Correlations with extinction risk. Conserv. Biol. 2008, 22, 1016–1025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Weeks, A.R.; Stoklosa, J.; Hoffmann, A.A. Conservation of genetic uniqueness of populations may increase extinction likelihood of endangered species: The case of Australian mammals. Front. Zool. 2016, 13, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Weeks, A.R.; Sgro, C.M.; Young, A.G.; Frankham, R.; Mitchell, N.J.; Miller, K.A.; Byrne, M.; Coates, D.J.; Eldridge, M.D.B.; Sunnucks, P.; et al. Assessing the benefits and risks of translocations in changing environments: A genetic perspective. Evol. Appl. 2011, 4, 709–725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Frankham, R. Genetic rescue of small inbred populations: Meta-analysis reveals large and consistent benefits of gene flow. Mol. Ecol. 2015, 24, 2610–2618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Selkoe, K.A.; Toonen, R.J. Microsatellites for ecologists: A practical guide to using and evaluating microsatellite markers. Ecol. Lett. 2006, 9, 615–629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Hohenlohe, P.A.; Funk, W.C.; Rajora, O.P. Population genomics for wildlife conservation and management. Mol. Ecol. 2021, 30, 62–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Hoffmann, M.; Hilton-Taylor, C.; Angulo, A.; Böhm, M.; Brooks, T.; Butchart, S.; Carpenter, K.E.; Chanson, J.; Collen, B.; Cox, N.A.; et al. The impact of conservation on the status of the world’s vertebrates. Science 2010, 330, 1503–1509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. IUCN. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Available online: www.iucnredlist.com (accessed on 2 October 2023).
  22. Stuart, S.N.; Chanson, J.S.; Cox, N.A.; Young, B.E.; Rodrigues, A.S.L.; Fischman, D.L.; Waller, R.W. Status and trends of amphibian declines and extinctions worldwide. Science 2004, 306, 1783–1786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Scheele, B.C.; Pasmans, F.; Skerratt, L.F.; Berger, L.; AnMartel; Beukema, W.; Acevedo, A.A.; Burrowes, P.A.; Carvalho, T.; Catenazzi, A.; et al. Amphibian fungal panzootic causes catastrophic and ongoing loss of biodiversity. Science 2019, 363, 1459–1463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Hantzschmann, A.M.; Sinsch, U.; Gottlicher, C.; Prohl, H. Conservation genetics of yellow-bellied toads (Bombina variegata): A matter of geographical scale and isolation. Conserv. Genet. 2021, 22, 83–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Pröhl, H.; Auffarth, J.; Bergmann, T.; Buschmann, H.; Balkenhol, N. Conservation genetics of the yellow-bellied toad (Bombina variegata): Population structure, genetic diversity and landscape effects in an endangered amphibian. Conserv. Genet. 2021, 22, 513–529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Blouin, M.S.; Phillipsen, I.C.; Monsen, K.J. Population structure and conservation genetics of the Oregon spotted frog, Rana pretiosa. Conserv. Genet. 2010, 11, 2179–2194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Blank, L.; Sinai, I.; Bar-David, S.; Peleg, N.; Segev, O.; Sadeh, A.; Kopelman, N.M.; Templeton, A.R.; Merila, J.; Blaustein, L. Genetic population structure of the endangered fire salamander (Salamandra infraimmaculata) at the southernmost extreme of its distribution. Anim. Conserv. 2013, 16, 412–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Cushman, S.A. Effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on amphibians: A review and prospectus. Biol. Conserv. 2006, 128, 231–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Allentoft, M.E.; O’Brien, J. Global amphibian declines, loss of genetic diversity and fitness: A review. Diversity 2010, 2, 47–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Jetz, W.; Pyron, R.A. The interplay of past diversification and evolutionary isolation with present imperilment across the amphibian tree of life. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2018, 2, 850–858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Revell, L.J. phytools: An R package for phylogenetic comparative biology (and other things). Methods Ecol. Evol. 2012, 3, 217–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Rowe, G.; Beebee, T.J.C. Fitness and microsatellite diversity estimates were not correlated in two outbred anuran populations. Heredity 2001, 87, 558–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Okamiya, H.; Kusano, T. Lower genetic diversity and hatchability in amphibian populations isolated by urbanization. Popul. Ecol. 2018, 60, 347–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Belasen, A.M.; Amses, K.R.; Clemons, R.A.; Becker, C.G.; Toledo, L.F.; James, T.Y. Habitat fragmentation in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest is associated with erosion of frog immunogenetic diversity and increased fungal infections. Immunogenetics 2022, 74, 431–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Byrne, P.G.; Whiting, M.J. Effects of simultaneous polyandry on offspring fitness in an African tree frog. Behav. Ecol. 2011, 22, 385–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Hitchings, S.P.; Beebee, T.J.C. Loss of genetic diversity and fitness in Common Toad (Bufo bufo) populations isolated by inimical habitat. J. Evol. Biol. 1998, 11, 269–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Johansson, M.; Primmer, C.R.; Merila, J. Does habitat fragmentation reduce fitness and adaptability? A case study of the common frog (Rana temporaria). Mol. Ecol. 2007, 16, 2693–2700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Rogell, B.; Thorngren, H.; Laurila, A.; Hoglund, J. Fitness costs associated with low genetic variation are reduced in a harsher environment in amphibian island populations. Conserv. Genet. 2010, 11, 489–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Ficetola, G.F.; Garner, T.W.; De Bernardi, F. Genetic diversity, but not hatching success, is jointly affected by postglacial colonization and isolation in the threatened frog, Rana latastei. Mol. Ecol. 2007, 16, 1787–1797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Zeisset, I.; Beebee, T.J.C. Larval fitness, microsatellite diversity and MHC class II diversity in common frog (Rana temporaria) populations. Heredity 2010, 104, 423–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Savage, A.E.; Becker, C.G.; Zamudio, K.R. Linking genetic and environmental factors in amphibian disease risk. Evol. Appl. 2015, 8, 560–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Kosch, T.A.; Silva, C.N.S.; Brannelly, L.A.; Roberts, A.A.; Lau, Q.; Marantelli, G.; Berger, L.; Skerratt, L.F. Genetic potential for disease resistance in critically endangered amphibians decimated by chytridiomycosis. Anim. Conserv. 2019, 22, 238–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Pritchard, J.K.; Stephens, M.; Donnelly, P. Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data. Genetics 2000, 155, 945–959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Skotte, L.; Korneliussen, T.S.; Albrechtsen, A. Estimating Individual Admixture Proportions from Next Generation Sequencing Data. Genetics 2013, 195, 693–702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Addis, B.R.; Lowe, W.H.; Hossack, B.R.; Allendorf, F.W. Population genetic structure and disease in montane boreal toads: More heterozygous individuals are more likely to be infected with amphibian chytrid. Conserv. Genet. 2015, 16, 833–844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Banks, S.; Scheele, B.; Macris, A.; Hunter, D.; Jack, C.; Fraser, C. Chytrid fungus infection in alpine tree frogs is associated with individual heterozygosity and population isolation but not population-genetic diversity. Front. Biogeogr. 2020, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Luquet, E.; Garner, T.W.; Lena, J.P.; Bruel, C.; Joly, P.; Lengagne, T.; Grolet, O.; Plenet, S. Genetic erosion in wild populations makes resistance to a pathogen more costly. Evolution 2012, 66, 1942–1952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Rowe, G.; Beebee, T.J.C. Population on the verge of a mutational meltdown? Fitness costs of genetic load for an amphibian in the wild. Evolution 2003, 57, 177–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Rowe, G.; Beebee, T.J.C.; Burke, T. Microsatellite heterozygosity, fitness and demography in natterjack toads Bufo calamita. Anim. Conserv. 1999, 2, 85–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Lesbarrères, D.; Primmer, C.R.; Laurilà, A.; Merilà, J. Environmental and population dependency of genetic variability-fitness correlations in Rana temporaria. Mol. Ecol. 2005, 14, 311–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Horner, A.A.; Hoffman, E.A.; Tye, M.R.; Hether, T.D.; Savage, A.E. Cryptic chytridiomycosis linked to climate and genetic variation in amphibian populations of the southeastern United States. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0175843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. May, S.; Zeisset, I.; Beebee, T.J.C. Larval fitness and immunogenetic diversity in chytrid-infected and uninfected natterjack toad (Bufo calamita) populations. Conserv. Genet. 2011, 12, 805–811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Trujillo, A.L.; Hoffman, E.A.; Becker, C.G.; Savage, A.E. Spatiotemporal adaptive evolution of an MHC immune gene in a frog-fungus disease system. Heredity 2021, 126, 640–655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Edenhamn, P.; Hoggren, M.; Carlson, A. Genetic diversity and fitness in peripheral and central populations of the European tree frog Hyla arborea. Hereditas 2000, 133, 115–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Pearman, P.B.; Garner, T.W.J. Susceptibility of Italian agile frog populations to an emerging strain of Ranavirus parallels population genetic diversity. Ecol. Lett. 2005, 8, 401–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Halverson, M.A.; Skelly, D.K.; Caccone, A. Inbreeding Linked to Amphibian Survival in the Wild but Not in the Laboratory. J. Hered. 2006, 97, 499–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Weyrauch, S.L.; Grubb, T.C. Effects of the interaction between genetic diversity and UV-B radiation on wood frog fitness. Conserv. Biol. 2006, 20, 802–810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Lesbarreres, D.; Schmeller, D.S.; Primmer, C.R.; Merila, J. Genetic variability predicts common frog (Rana temporaria) size at metamorphosis in the wild. Heredity 2007, 99, 41–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Luquet, E.; David, P.; Lena, J.P.; Joly, P.; Konecny, L.; Dufresnes, C.; Perrin, N.; Plenet, S. Heterozygosity-fitness correlations among wild populations of European tree frog (Hyla arborea) detect fixation load. Mol. Ecol. 2011, 20, 1877–1887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Luquet, E.; Lena, J.P.; David, P.; Prunier, J.; Joly, P.; Lengagne, T.; Perrin, N.; Plenet, S. Within- and among-population impact of genetic erosion on adult fitness-related traits in the European tree frog Hyla arborea. Heredity 2013, 110, 347–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Richter, S.C.; Nunziata, S.O. Survival to metamorphosis is positively related to genetic variability in a critically endangered amphibian species. Anim. Conserv. 2014, 17, 265–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Wagner, N.; Neubeck, C.; Guicking, D.; Finke, L.; Wittich, M.; Weising, K.; Geske, C.; Veith, M. No evidence for effects of infection with the amphibian chytrid fungus on populations of yellow-bellied toads. Dis. Aquat. Org. 2017, 123, 55–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Liebgold, E.B.; Kramer, C.F.; Roomian, T.C.; Dolezar, G.M.; Cabe, P.R. Heterozygosity-behavior and heterozygosity-fitness correlations in a salamander with limited dispersal. Popul. Ecol. 2018, 60, 251–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Savage, A.E.; Muletz-Wolz, C.R.; Grant, E.H.C.; Fleischer, R.C.; Mulder, K.P. Functional variation at an expressed MHC class II locus associates with Ranavirus infection intensity in larval anuran populations. Immunogenetics 2019, 71, 335–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Oswald, P.; Rodriguez, A.; Bourke, J.; Wagner, N.; de Buhr, N.; Buschmann, H.; von Kockritz-Blickwede, M.; Prohl, H. Locality, time and heterozygosity affect chytrid infection in yellow-bellied toads. Dis. Aquat. Org. 2020, 142, 225–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Torres-Sanchez, M.; Longo, A.V. Linking pathogen-microbiome-host interactions to explain amphibian population dynamics. Mol. Ecol. 2022, 31, 5784–5794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Savage, A.E.; Zamudio, K.R. MHC genotypes associate with resistance to a frog-killing fungus. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2011, 108, 16705–16710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Kosch, T.A.; Bataille, A.; Didinger, C.; Eimes, J.A.; Rodriguez-Brenes, S.; Ryan, M.J.; Waldman, B. Major histocompatibility complex selection dynamics in pathogen-infected tungara frog (Physalaemus pustulosus) populations. Biol. Lett. 2016, 12, 20160345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Byrne, A.Q.; Richards-Zawacki, C.L.; Voyles, J.; Bi, K.; Ibáñez, R.; Rosenblum, E.B. Whole exome sequencing identifies the potential for genetic rescue in iconic and critically endangered Panamanian harlequin frogs. Glob. Change Biol. 2021, 27, 50–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. AmphibiaWeb. AmphibiaWeb: Information on Amphibian Biology and Conservation. Available online: http://amphibiaweb.org/ (accessed on 2 October 2023).
  71. Beebee, T.J.C. Conservation genetics of amphibians. Heredity 2005, 95, 423–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Plötner, J.; Köler, F.; Uzzell, T.; Beerli, P. Molecular systematics of amphibians. In Amphib Biol; Heatwole, H., Tyler, M.J., Eds.; Surrey Beatty & Sons: Cipping Norton, Australia, 2007; Volume VII. [Google Scholar]
  73. Dedukh, D.; Litvinchuk, J.; Svinin, A.; Litvinchuk, S.; Rosanov, J.; Krasikova, A. Variation in hybridogenetic hybrid emergence between populations of water frogs from the Pelophylax esculentus complex. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0224759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Nunes-de-Almeida, C.H.L.; Haddad, C.F.B.; Toledo, L.F. A revised classification of the amphibian reproductive modes. Salamandra 2021, 57, 413–427. [Google Scholar]
  75. Liedtke, H.C.; Wiens, J.J.; Gomez-Mestre, I. The evolution of reproductive modes and life cycles in amphibians. Nat. Commun. 2022, 13, e7039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Monzon, F.C.; Rodel, M.O.; Jeschke, J.M. Tracking Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis infection across the globe. EcoHealth 2020, 17, 270–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Fisher, M.C.; Garner, T.W.J. Chytrid fungi and global amphibian declines. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2020, 18, 332–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Spielman, D.; Brook, B.W.; Frankham, R. Most species are not driven to extinction before genetic factors impact them. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2004, 101, 15261–15264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Warne, R.W.; Crespi, E.J. Larval growth rate and sex determine resource allocation and stress responsiveness across life stages in juvenile frogs. J. Exp. Zool. A 2015, 323, 191–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Tarvin, R.D.; Bermudez, C.S.; Briggs, V.S.; Warkentin, K.M. Carry-over effects of size at metamorphosis in red-eyed treefrogs: Higher survival but slower growth of larger metamorphs. Biotropica 2015, 47, 218–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Schmidt, B.R.; Hodl, W.; Schaub, M. From metamorphosis to maturity in complex life cycles: Equal performance of different juvenile life history pathways. Ecology 2012, 93, 657–667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Cummins, D.; Kennington, W.J.; Rudin-Bitterli, T.; Mitchell, N.J. A genome-wide search for local adaptation in a terrestrial-breeding frog reveals vulnerability to climate change. Glob. Change Biol. 2019, 25, 3151–3162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Beebee, T.J.C.; Griffiths, R.A. The amphibian decline crisis: A watershed for conservation biology? Biol. Conserv. 2005, 125, 271–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Beer, M.A.; Kane, R.A.; Micheletti, S.J.; Kozakiewicz, C.P.; Storfer, A. Landscape genomics of the streamside salamander: Implications for species management in the face of environmental change. Evol. Appl. 2022, 15, 220–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Maier, P.A.; Vandergast, A.G.; Bohonak, A.J. Using landscape genomics to delineate future adaptive potential for climate change in the Yosemite toad (Anaxyrus canorus). Evol. Appl. 2023, 16, 74–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Cayuela, H.; Dorant, Y.; Forester, B.R.; Jeffries, D.L.; Mccaffery, R.M.; Eby, L.A.; Hossack, B.R.; Gippet, J.M.W.; Pilliod, D.S.; Funk, W.C. Genomic signatures of thermal adaptation are associated with clinal shifts of life history in a broadly distributed frog. J. Anim. Ecol. 2022, 91, 1222–1238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Hoban, S.; Bruford, M.W.; Funk, W.C.; Galbusera, P.; Griffith, M.P.; Grueber, C.E.; Heuertz, M.; Hunter, M.E.; Hvilsom, C.; Stroil, B.K.; et al. Global Commitments to Conserving and Monitoring Genetic Diversity Are Now Necessary and Feasible. Bioscience 2021, 71, 964–976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Frankham, R.; Bradshaw, C.J.A.; Brook, B.W. Genetics in conservation management: Revised recommendations for the 50/500 rules, Red List criteria and population viability analyses. Biol. Conserv. 2014, 170, 56–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Pabijan, M.; Palomar, G.; Antunes, B.; Antoł, W.; Zieliński, P.; Babik, W. Evolutionary principles guiding amphibian conservation. Evol. Appl. 2020, 13, 857–878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Aitken, S.N.; Whitlock, M.C. Assisted gene flow to facilitate local adaptation to climate change. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2013, 44, 367–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Frankham, R.; Ballou, J.D.; Eldridge, M.D.B.; Lacy, R.C.; Ralls, K.; Dudash, M.R.; Fenster, C.B. Predicting the probability of outbreeding depression. Conserv. Biol. 2011, 25, 465–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Hoban, S.; Bruford, M.W.; Silva, J.M.d.; Funk, W.C.; Frankham, R.; Gill, M.J.; Grueber, C.E.; Heuertz, M.; Hunter, M.E.; Kershaw, F.; et al. Genetic diversity goals and targets have improved, but remain insufficient for clear implementation of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework. Conserv. Genet. 2023, 24, 181–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1. Decision flow for including publications in this review. The * is a Boolean search operator that matches any alphanumeric string.
Figure 1. Decision flow for including publications in this review. The * is a Boolean search operator that matches any alphanumeric string.
Animals 13 03564 g001
Figure 2. Distribution of studies reporting genetic diversity of populations or individuals and correlations to fitness-related traits in amphibians.
Figure 2. Distribution of studies reporting genetic diversity of populations or individuals and correlations to fitness-related traits in amphibians.
Animals 13 03564 g002
Figure 3. Graphical summary of the association between genetic diversity and fitness traits of amphibians obtained from published studies. (A) Stacked bar plots of the number of positive, negative and non-significant associations reported for the species studied. (B) Doughnut chart summarizing the proportions by fitness trait categories and statistical association results across all species.
Figure 3. Graphical summary of the association between genetic diversity and fitness traits of amphibians obtained from published studies. (A) Stacked bar plots of the number of positive, negative and non-significant associations reported for the species studied. (B) Doughnut chart summarizing the proportions by fitness trait categories and statistical association results across all species.
Animals 13 03564 g003
Table 2. Summary of studies that experimentally evaluated the effect of ecological factors on fitness traits in amphibians. GD = genetic diversity, Bd = Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (chytrid fungus). IA = interaction with the GD in the population.
Table 2. Summary of studies that experimentally evaluated the effect of ecological factors on fitness traits in amphibians. GD = genetic diversity, Bd = Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (chytrid fungus). IA = interaction with the GD in the population.
SpeciesTreatmentFitness TraitResultCitation
Bufo calamitafood: low vs. hightadpole survival
tadpole growth rate
tadpole develop. rate
tadpole time to metamorphosis
All fitness traits were better under a high food regime.[32]
Rana temporariafood: low vs. hightadpole survival
tadpole growth rate
tadpole develop. rate
tadpole time to metamorphosis
All fitness traits were better under a high food regime.[32]
Bufo calamitapredation: yes or no
competition: yes or no
desiccation: yes or no
tadpole survival
tadpole growth rate
Reduced by predation and desiccation; IA with pop.;
reduced by predation and competition; IA with pop.
[48]
Rana temporariatemperature: 14 °C, 18 °C and 21 °C
food: low vs. high
tadpole survivalIA: in stressful treatment (e.g., low food or cold temp.), survival was better at higher GD and less-related parents.[50]
Rana latasteiexposure to Ranavirus: low vs. hightadpole survivalReduced by high exposure.
IA: survival was better when GD was higher.
[55]
Rana sylvaticaUV-B light: sunlight, filter and acetate sheettadpole survival
tadpole deformity
Lowest under direct sunlight.
IA between GD and UV light was highest under direct sunlight.
[57]
Bufo calamitatemperature: 19 °C, 27 °C and variabletadpole survivalHighest under cold treatment. IA with GD.[38]
Rana temporariatemperature: 10 °C, 14 °C and 21 °Ctadpole growth rateHigher in medium and high treatment.[40]
Lithobates yavapaiensisBd: yes or noadult frog survivalUninfected individuals survived better.[67]
Hyla arboreaBd: low vs. high dosetadpole time to metamorphosis
tadpole mass
survival of froglets
Longer time at high Bd;
mass reduced at high Bd;
treatment n.s.
[47]
Table 3. The effect of isolation and/or small population size on fitness proxies in amphibian species.
Table 3. The effect of isolation and/or small population size on fitness proxies in amphibian species.
SpeciesNegative Effect of Isolation or Small Population SizeCitation
Bufo bufoSurvival was higher and deformity was lower in larger, less isolated populations. [36]
Bufo calamitaLow hatch rate in the smallest isolated populations. [49]
Hyla arboreaTadpole survival was lower in isolated ponds.[54]
Bufo calamitaTadpole survival and growth rate were lower in small populations.[48]
Rana latasteiTadpole survival was reduced in isolated populations.[55]
Rana latasteiEgg hatch rate was reduced in isolated populations.[39]
Rana temporariaTadpole body size and survival was reduced in the fragmented compared to the continuous habitat.[37]
Hyla arboreaIndividual performances were reduced in isolated, small populations compared to large, non-fragmented populations.[59]
Hyla arboreaStronger high Bd dose effect on fitness traits (Table 2) in isolated populations.[47]
Lithobates sevosusInbred tadpoles did not survive in isolated population.[61]
Hynobius tokyoensis
Rana ornativentris
Genetic diversity and egg survival were positively affected by the forested area. [33]
Bombina variegataBd prevalence and Bd intensity were highest in two inbred, isolated populations.[65]
Litoria verreauxiiNo Bd infection in isolated populations.[46]
Six tropical species (no data for single species)Bd infection was higher in fragmented populations relative to continuous populations.[34]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Pröhl, H.; Rodríguez, A. Importance of Genetic–Fitness Correlations for the Conservation of Amphibians. Animals 2023, 13, 3564. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13223564

AMA Style

Pröhl H, Rodríguez A. Importance of Genetic–Fitness Correlations for the Conservation of Amphibians. Animals. 2023; 13(22):3564. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13223564

Chicago/Turabian Style

Pröhl, Heike, and Ariel Rodríguez. 2023. "Importance of Genetic–Fitness Correlations for the Conservation of Amphibians" Animals 13, no. 22: 3564. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13223564

APA Style

Pröhl, H., & Rodríguez, A. (2023). Importance of Genetic–Fitness Correlations for the Conservation of Amphibians. Animals, 13(22), 3564. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13223564

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop