Ex situ versus in situ Eurasian lynx populations: implications for successful breeding and genetic rescue

Abstract

The main aim of ex situ programmes in conservation is to provide a suitable source of individuals for future reintroductions or reinforcement of existing populations. A fundamental prerequisite is creating and maintaining healthy and sustainable captive populations that show high levels of phenotypic and genetic similarity to their wild counterparts. The Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx) is a model of a locally extinct species that has been subject to long-term captive breeding and of past and ongoing reintroduction efforts. To test for genetic suitability of ex situ population, a comparative genetic evaluation including in situ populations was undertaken. The assignment analysis of 97 captive lynx from 45 European zoos, wildlife parks and private breeds was performed using 124 lynx from different wild Eurasian populations belonging to three evolutionary lineages: the Carpathian, the Northern, and the Siberian lynx. The results showed a high proportion of Siberian lynx (51%) in the European captive lynx population. Remaining captive animals were assigned to either the Carpathian (28%), or the Northern lynx lineage (13%). Admixture between lineages was rather low (8%). Notably, no or very low difference in genetic diversity was detected between the wild and captive lynx populations. Our results support the potential of the captive population to provide genetically suitable individuals for genetic rescue programmes. The transfer of genes between isolated populations, including those in captivity, should become an important management tool to preserve genetic variability and prevent inbreeding depression in native and reintroduced populations of this iconic predator.

Can genetic rescue help save Arabia's last big cat?

“…Together, our simulations highlight the potential of a genetic rescue effect by using the captive population, but also a need for whole genome analyses to thoroughly understand the evolutionary genomic consequences of the different scenarios for genetic rescue. Increasingly, calls are made for evidence‐based risk assessments for species that could benefit from genetic rescue, but which may have been reproductively isolated (e.g., see Krojerová‐Prokešová et al., 2023; Parmesan et al., 2023; Pavlova et al., 2023).…”

“…Increasingly, calls are made for evidence-based risk assessments for species that could benefit from genetic rescue, but which may have been reproductively isolated (e.g., see Krojerová-Prokešová et al, 2023;Parmesan et al, 2023;Pavlova et al, 2023).…”

“…This effectively converts the masked load into a realized load, resulting in a reduction in individual fitness and population viability (Bertorelle et al, 2022). Recent reports of successful population recovery and their integration into conservation planning show the value of captive populations for genetic rescue (Fitzpatrick et al, 2020(Fitzpatrick et al, , 2023Hoffmann et al, 2021;Jackson et al, 2022;Krojerová-Prokešová et al, 2023;Miller et al, 2020).…”

“…This effectively converts the masked load into a realized load, resulting in a reduction in individual fitness and population viability (Bertorelle et al., 2022 ). Recent reports of successful population recovery and their integration into conservation planning show the value of captive populations for genetic rescue (Fitzpatrick et al., 2020 , 2023 ; Hoffmann et al., 2021 ; Jackson et al., 2022 ; Krojerová‐Prokešová et al., 2023 ; Miller et al., 2020 ). However, obtaining relevant data that can inform genetic rescue continues to be challenging, particularly for large carnivores that naturally persist at low densities (Alexander et al., 2015 ; Bellemain et al., 2007 ; Farhadinia et al., 2018 ; Jiang et al., 2015 ).…”