Captive breeding and reintroduction of the lesser kestrel Falco naumanni: a genetic analysis using microsatellites

Abstract

We used microsatellites to assess ongoing captive breeding and reintroduction programs of the lesser kestrel. The extent of genetic variation within the captive populations analysed did not differ significantly from that reported in wild populations. Thus, the application of widely recommended management practices, such as the registration of crosses between individuals in proper stud books and the introduction of new individuals into the genetic pools, has proven satisfactory to maintain high levels of genetic variation. The high rates of hatching failure occasionally documented in captivity can therefore not be attributed to depressed genetic variation. Even though genetic diversity in reintroduced populations did not differ significantly when compared to wild populations either, average observed heterozygosities and inbreeding coefficients were significantly lower and higher, respectively, when compared to the captive demes where released birds came. Monitoring of reproductive parameters during single-pairing breeding and paternity inference within colonial facilities revealed large variations in breeding success between reproductive adults. The relative number of breeding pairs that contributed to a large part of captiveborn birds (50-56%) was similar in both cases (28.6 and 26.9%, respectively). Thus, the chances for polygyny (rarely in this study), extra-pair paternity (not found in this study) and/or social stimulation of breeding parameters do not seem to greatly affect the genetically effective population size. Independently of breeding strategies, the release of unrelated fledglings into the same area and the promotion of immigration should be mandatory to counteract founder effects and avoid inbreeding in reintroduced populations of lesser kestrels.

Male transmission ratio distortion supports MHC-linked cryptic female choice in the lesser kestrel (Aves: Falconidae)

“…This phenomenon, known as male transmission ratio distortion (see for instance LeMaire-Adkins and Hunt (2000)), seems to more decisively affect wild colonies than captive colonies. Perhaps, selective regimes in captive colonial enclosures with ad libitum feeding and artificial incubation of eggs (see Alcaide et al (2009)) are more relaxed than in natural conditions. Nevertheless, our sample size is not high enough to reach any strong conclusion in this respect.…”

“…1/4 probability for each allele combination). Blood samples and feathers from adult kestrels and their offspring were collected, and DNA was extracted as described in Alcaide et al (2009). Twenty-four of the breeding pairs analyzed here belonged to a captive breeding centre (DEMA, www.…”

“…Eggs are artificially incubated, and once hatched, newborns are fed using irrecoverable individuals and then released during ongoing reintroduction programmes of the species. Kinship relationships within these captive breeding enclosures have been previously resolved using microsatellites as described in Alcaide et al (2009). Twenty additional families were sampled from wild colonies located in north-eastern and south-western Spain.…”

The Eye in the Sky: Combined Use of Unmanned Aerial Systems and GPS Data Loggers for Ecological Research and Conservation of Small Birds

“…Due to the lesser kestrel decline and also for research purposes, several breeding programs have been put in place in Spain in recent years [26]–[28]. One of these reintroductions was carried out in the roof of our own institute (Doñana Biological Station, Seville, Spain), where we conducted this study.…”

The causes of the low breeding success of european mink (Mustela lutreola) in captivity

“…Here, ex situ conservation breeding can play an important role and has proven to be effective [Seddon, ; Conde et al, ]. A number of cases exemplify the role conservation breeding can have in securing the survival of species [Pereladova et al, ; Alcaide et al, ; Biggins et al, ; Lindsey et al, ; Zafar‐Ul et al, ]. Managed captive populations act also as survival insurance for endangered species.…”