Conservation Genetics of Nordic Carnivores: Lessons from Zoos

Laikre, Linda

doi:10.1111/j.1601-5223.1999.00203.x

Cited by 33 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 68 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In captivity, a cheetah's prime reproductive period is between 3 and 10 years of age (Marker, 2000(Marker, , 2006a(Marker, , 2006b), but in general cheetah fecundity in captivity is lower than in the wild (Nowell and Jackson, 1996; also compare Marker (2000Marker ( , 2006aMarker ( , 2006b) with Kelly and Durant (2000). This is in agreement with other captive carnivorous animals (Laike, 1999;Clubb and Mason, 2007). Because we do not have data to estimate the effect of senescence on the fecundity of wild cheetahs, we consider two different cases.…”

Section: Estimating Fecunditysupporting

confidence: 72%

Management recommendations based on matrix projection models: The importance of considering biological limits

Lubben

Tenhumberg

Tyre

et al. 2008

Biological Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Estimating Fecunditysupporting

confidence: 72%

Management recommendations based on matrix projection models: The importance of considering biological limits

Lubben

Tenhumberg

Tyre

et al. 2008

Biological Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Grey wolf populations seem to be vulnerable to harmful effects of inbreeding. Inbreeding depression has been documented in wolves held in captivity (Pulliainen 1965;Laikre 1999). Negative effects of inbreeding have been documented also in natural populations of wolf.…”

Section: Conservation Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Genetic structure of the northwestern Russian wolf populations and gene flow between Russia and Finland

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We examined the genetic diversity and structure of wolf populations in northwestern Russia. Populations in Republic of Karelia and Arkhangelsk Oblast were sampled during 1995-2000, and 43 individuals were genotyped with 10 microsatellite markers. Moreover, 118 previously genotyped wolves from the neighbouring Finnish population were used as a reference population. A relatively large amount of genetic variation was found in the Russian populations, and the Karelian wolf population tended to be slightly more polymorphic than the Arkhangelsk population. We found significant inbreeding (F = 0.094) in the Karelian, but not in the Arkhangelsk population. The effective size estimates of the Karelian wolf population based on the approximate Bayesian computation and linkage disequilibrium methods were 39.9 and 46.7 individuals, respectively. AMOVA-analysis and exact test of population differentiation suggested clear differentiation between the Karelian, Arkhangelsk and Finnish wolf populations. Indirect estimates of gene flow based on the level of population differentiation (/ ST = 0.152) and frequency of private alleles (0.029) both suggested a low level of gene flow between the populations (Nm = 1.4 and Nm = 3.7, respectively). Assignment analysis of Karelian and Finnish populations suggested an even lower number of recent migrants (less than 0.03) between populations, with a larger amount of migration from Finland to Karelia than vice versa. Our findings emphasise the role of physical obstacles and territorial behaviour in creating barriers to gene flow between populations in relatively limited geographical areas, even in large-bodied mammalian species with long-distance dispersal capabilities and an apparently continuous population structure.

show abstract

“…Numerous studies have now demonstrated that inbreeding reduces adult life span of a variety of animals, including mice (Miller et al 2002), carnivores (Laikre and Ryman 1991;Laikre 1999), butterflies (Saccheri et al 1998;van Oosterhout et al 2000), hymenopterans (Henter 2003;Luna and Hawkins 2004), and Drosophila. However, many studies have failed to detect inbreeding depression on adult life span ( Johnson and Hutchinson 1993;De Clercq et al 1998;Nieminen et al 2001;Markert et al 2004;Prezotti et al 2004;Radwan et al 2004;Goncalves and Di Mare 2005) and others have shown that the effect of inbreeding on adult life span varies among lines or populations (Fowler and Whitlock 1999;Swindell and Bouzat 2006) and among rearing conditions (Pray et al 1994).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Genetic Architecture of Life Span and Mortality Rates: Gender and Species Differences in Inbreeding Load of Two Seed-Feeding Beetles

et al. 2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We examine the inbreeding load for adult life span and mortality rates of two seed beetle species, Callosobruchus maculatus and Stator limbatus. Inbreeding load differs substantially between males and females in both study populations of C. maculatus-life span of inbred females was 9-13% shorter than the life span of outbred females, whereas the life span of inbred males did not differ from the life span of outbred males. The effect of inbreeding on female life span was largely due to an increase in the slope of the mortality curve. In contrast, inbreeding had only a small effect on the life span of S. limbatus-life spans of inbred beetles were $5% shorter than those of outbred beetles, and there was no difference in inbreeding load between the sexes. The inbreeding load for mean life span was $0.4-0.6 lethal equivalents per haploid gamete for female C. maculatus and $0.2-0.3 for both males and females of S. limbatus, all within the range of estimates commonly obtained for Drosophila. However, contrary to the predictions of mutation-accumulation models, inbreeding load for loci affecting mortality rates did not increase with age in either species, despite an effect of inbreeding on the initial rate of increase in mortality. This was because mortality rates decelerated with age and converged to a mortality plateau for both outbred and inbred beetles.T HE evolution of life span, mortality rates, and patterns of senescence is of substantial interest because there is tremendous variation in these traits at all taxonomic levels (Promislow 1991) and because of the medical implications of understanding the genetics underlying mortality rates. Studies on mice, Drosophila, and Caenorhabditis elegans have identified numerous genes that influence life span and/or rates of senescence (Harshman 2002). Recent studies of life span in Drosophila melanogaster indicate that inheritance of life span can be quite complex, with both dominance and epistasis having significant effects on variation in life span (Harshman 2002;Leips and Mackay 2002;Mackay 2002;Spencer et al. 2003;Spencer and Promislow 2005). These studies also show that the genetic architecture (number of genes and degree of allelic and genic interactions) underlying life span differs between the sexes and depends on the environmental conditions in which individuals are reared.One of the major genetic mechanisms proposed to underlie senescence is the accumulation in populations of late-acting deleterious alleles due to the declining force of selection with increasing age (mutation-accumulation theory) (Hughes and Reynolds 2005). Research has now identified many genes and chromosomal regions (QTL) that affect life span in model organisms but we have few data on the frequency of deleterious alleles affecting life span (De Luca et al. 2003;Carbone et al. 2006). We have less data on the sources of variation in deleterious alleles and the age specificity of expression of those alleles and thus their effects on age-specific mortality rates.Inbreeding studies are a com...

show abstract

Conservation Genetics of Nordic Carnivores: Lessons from Zoos

Cited by 33 publications

References 68 publications

Management recommendations based on matrix projection models: The importance of considering biological limits

Management recommendations based on matrix projection models: The importance of considering biological limits

Genetic structure of the northwestern Russian wolf populations and gene flow between Russia and Finland

The Genetic Architecture of Life Span and Mortality Rates: Gender and Species Differences in Inbreeding Load of Two Seed-Feeding Beetles

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About