Oksana N. Zhigileva,
Viktoria S. Artishevskaya,
Anna V. Burakova,
Ekaterina A. Baitimirova

Reference to article

Zhigileva O.N., Artishevskaya V.S., Burakova A.V., Baitimirova E.A. 2018. Genetic polymorphism in amphibian populations of Protected Areas in the south of Western Siberia and the Urals. Nature Conservation Research 3(2). DOI: 10.24189/ncr.2018.024

Section Short Communications

Amphibians are an important but vulnerable component of biodiversity. Climatic changes and anthropogenic transformation of the environment can lead to changes in spawning times and habitat boundaries, causing adverse genetic processes in populations. In the present study, we assess genetic variation and differentiation among 184 individuals of four amphibian species (Rana arvalis, Rana amurensis, Rana temporaria, Bufo bufo) from seven localities of the south of Western Siberia and the Urals, Russia. To investigate the genetic diversity of these species, we used six primers for inter simple sequences repeat (ISSR) markers. Nei's gene diversity (h) varied from 0.169 to 0.311 in the local populations of amphibians; the diversity was the smallest in the common toad B. bufo and the highest in the Siberian wood frog R. amurensis. Populations of B. bufo and the moor frog R. arvalis were highly differentiated (mean multilocus GST = 0.249 and 0.268, respectively). Nei's original measures of genetic identity (I) and genetic distance (D) among the toad populations were comparable with these indexes among the studied brown frog populations. These results indicate that B. bufo and R. arvalis have a well-defined population structure with restricted gene flow between populations. We also identified a high level of genetic diversity among eggs of R. arvalis not observed in adults. Our results provide genetic evidence that all the studied species have high adaptive potential and genetic structure typical for amphibian populations. The presented data are intended to fill the gap in studying the genetic structure of the amphibian populations of the south of Western Siberia and the Urals. The data on different levels of genetic variability in amphibian populations from protected areas show their different value for conservation management. The presence of genetically impoverished populations requires monitoring of genetic diversity of amphibians. These data will be useful for conservation concerns, especially for developing appropriate management strategies.


Bufo bufo, differentiation, genetic variability, ISSR markers, Rana amurensis, Rana arvalis, Rana temporaria

Artice information

Received: 20.02.2018

The full text of the article

Beebee T.J.C., Rowe G. 2000. Microsatellite analysis of natterjack toad Bufo calamita Laurenti populations: consequences of dispersal from a Pleistocene refugium. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 69(3): 367–381. DOI: 10.1006/bijl.1999.0368
Bender W., Pierre S., Hognes D.S. 1983. Chromosomal walking and jumping to isolate DNA from Ace and rosy loci of bithorax complex in Drosophila melanogaster. Journal of Molecular Biology 168: 17–33.
Bessa-Silva A.R., da Cunha D.B., Sodre D., da Rocha T.J.O., Schneider H., Sampaio I., Sequeira F., Vallinoto M. 2015. Development and characterization of microsatellite loci for Rhinella marina (Amphibia, Bufonidae) and their transferability to two closely related species. Conservation Genetics Resources 7(1): 247–250. DOI: 10.1007/s12686-014-0349-7
Bolnykh I.I., Zhigileva O.N. 2016. Color polymorphism and genetic variability of the sand lizard (Lacerta agilis) (Lacertidae, Sauria) in the surroundings of the Tyumen and Sterlitamak cities. Sovremennaya Herpetologia 16(3–4): 107–112. DOI 10.18500/1814-6090-2016-16-3-4-107-112 [In Russian]
Chen C.C., Li K.W., Yu T.L., Chen L.H., Sheu P.Y., Tong Y.W., Huang K.J., Weng C.F. 2013. Genetic structure of Bufo bankorensis distinguished by amplified restriction fragment length polymorphism of cytochrome b. Zoological Studies 52: 48. DOI: 10.1186/1810-522X-52-48
Edenhamn P., Hoggren M., Carlson A. 2000. Genetic diversity and fitness in peripheral and central populations of the European tree frog Hyla arborea. Hereditas 133(2): 115–122. DOI: 10.1111/j.1601-5223.2000.00115.x
Faucher L., Gode C., Arnaud J.F. 2016. Development of nuclear microsatellite loci and mitochondrial single nucleotide polymorphisms for the Natterjack Toad, Bufo (Epidalea) calamita (Bufonidae), using next generation sequencing and competitive allele specific PCR (KASPar). Journal of Heredity 107(7): 660–665. DOI: 10.1093/jhered/esw068
Fontenot B.E., Makowsky R., Chippindale P.T. 2011. Nuclear-mitochondrial discordance and gene flow in a recent radiation of toads. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 59(1): 66–80. DOI: 10.1016/j.ympev.2010.12.018
Hase K., Shimada M., Nikoh N. 2012. High degree of mitochondrial haplotype diversity in the Japanease common toad Bufo japonicus in Urban Tokyo. Zoological Science 29(10): 702–708. DOI: 10.2108/zsj.29.702
Hoglund J., Wengstrom A., Rogell B., Meyer-Lucht Y. 2015. Low MHC variation in isolated island populations of the Natterjack toad (Bufo calamita). Conservation genetics 16(4): 1007–1010. DOI: 10.1007/s10592-015-0715-3
Kuzmin S.L. 2012. Amphibians of the former USSR. Moscow: KMK Scientific Press Ltd. 370 p. [In Russian]
Nei M. 1972. The genetic distance between populations. The American Naturalist 106: 283–291.
Ozdemir N., Gul S., Poyarkov N.A., Kutrup B., Tosunoglu M., Doglio S. 2014. Molecular systematics and phylogeography of Bufotes variabilis (syn. Pseudepidalea variabilis) (Pallas, 1769) in Turkey. Turkish Journal of Zoology 38(4): 412–420. DOI: 10.3906/zoo-1307-27
Palo J.U., Schmeller D.S., Laurila A., Primmer C.R., Kuzmin S.L., Merilä J. 2004. High degree of population subdivision in a widespread amphibian. Molecular Ecology 13: 2631–2644.
Rogell B., Thorngren H., Palm S., Laurila A., Hoglund J. 2010. Genetic structure in peripheral populations of the natterjack toad, Bufo calamita, as revealed by AFLP. Conservation Genetics 11(1): 173–181. DOI: 10.1007/s10592-009-0021-z
Rowe G., Beebee T.J.C., Burke T. 1998. Phylogeography of the natterjack toad Bufo calamita in Britain: genetic differentiation of native and translocated populations. Molecular Ecology 7(6): 751–760. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-294x.1998.00387.x
Ruchin A.B. 2013. The ecological niches of amphibians in the syntopic conditions. The world of science, culture and education 38(1): 342–343. [In Russian]
Shaffer G., Fellers G.M., Magee A., Voss R. 2000. The genetics of amphibian declines: population substructure and molecular differentiation in the Yosemite Toad, Bufo canorus (Anura, Bufonidae) based on single-strand conformation polymorphism analysis (SSCP) and mitochondrial DNA sequence data. Molecular Ecology 9(3): 245–257.
Simandle E.T., Peacock M.M., Zirelli L., Tracy C.R. 2006. Sixteen microsatellite loci for the Bufo boreas group. Molecular Ecology Notes 6(1): 116–119. DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-8286.2005.01159.x
Trubetskaya E.A. 2014. Effect of herbal frog (Rana temporaria Linnaeus, 1758) on a population of moor frog (Rana arvalis Nilsson, 1842) collectively spawning. Advances in Current Natural Sciences 2: 46–48.
Trujillo T., Gutierrez-Rodriguez J., Arntzen J.W., Martinez-Solano I. 2017. Morphological and molecular data to describe a hybrid population of the Common toad (Bufo bufo) and the Spined toad (Bufo spinosus) in western France. Contributions to Zoology 86(1): 1–9.
Yeh F.C., Yang R., Boyle T. 1999. POPGENE, version 1.31. University of Alberta and Centre for International Forestry Research. Available from
Zhigileva O.N., Kirina I.Y. 2015. First data on genetic variability of the Siberian wood frog Rana amurensis in Western Siberia and its differentiation from the moor frog Rana arvalis. Ecological genetics 13(3): 23–27. DOI: 10.17816/ecogen13323-27
Zhigileva O.N., Kirina I.Y., Burakova A.V. 2014. Genetic diversity and differentiation of the moor frog (Rana arvalis) in Western Siberia. Herpetology Notes 7: 569–574.
Zietjiewicz E., Rafalski A., Labuda D. 1994. Genome fingerprinting by simple sequence repeat (SSR)-anchored polymerase chain reaction amplification. Genomics 20: 176–183.