Genetic structure in Elk persists after translocation

Abstract

Elk (Cervus canadensis) translocation success is thought to be facilitated by high post‐release herd cohesion and limited movements; both should ensure genetic mixing following release. Such mixing is important to reduce potential effects of inbreeding or genetic drift, which can be especially important in small founding populations. We had a natural experiment where we could evaluate genetic mixing of 2 distinct lineages of elk after translocation to the same area. Founding elk ultimately came from north and south of a road barrier at Elk Island National Park (EINPN or EINPS, respectively), Alberta, Canada and the 2 groups were genetically distinct. During 2000 to 2003, elk originating from Elk Island National Park were translocated to Cumberland Mountains, Tennessee (TNCM) and Great Smoky Mountains National Park, North Carolina (GSMNP), USA (some elk spent time at Land Between the Lakes Recreation Area, Kentucky, USA, before their final translocation). At TNCM, translocated elk were hard released, whereas at GSMNP elk were held in pens up to 60 days before release (i.e., soft release). We hypothesized that associations formed in the source population would affect genetic structure in the future population. We predicted that matrilineal groups would stay closer together and have similar movements after translocation. We used 16 microsatellite markers to analyze genetic composition and structure of translocated elk and their offspring in the years after release. Most source elk used for translocation strongly assigned to either EINPN or EINPS (93.2%, n = 204). Evaluating the genetic structure of offspring after translocation, we found the 2 genetic groups mostly persisted ≥11 years following release. We measured the Euclidean distance between all possible pairs of telemetered female elk during each season and year and calculated the maximum distance moved from the release sites for females surviving >1 year. Mean Euclidean distances between pairwise locations of female elk were similar for each genetic cluster for each area. The mean distances for all paired locations (genetic clusters combined) in TNCM were 14.67 km (n = 4,576 ± 13.23 [SD]) and in GSMNP were 9.30 km (n = 1,468 ± 9.75). However, when looking at only simultaneous locations <50 m apart, the frequency of occurrence was higher (P < 0.001) for elk with the same genetic structure (71.1%) compared with those with different structure (28.9%). The maximum distance travelled from the release site was not different for the 2 genetic groups, but EINPN females tended to travel farther. Pairwise female distances were lower in GSMNP where we used a soft release. Release methodology and social structure appear to affect movements and possibly genetic mixing after translocation. Given that restoration success can depend on maintaining genetic diversity and number of founders, our analyses suggest that within‐cluster breeding bias can result in lower genetic variability and a smaller effective population size than previously assumed. © 2018 The Wildlife S...

Assessing genetic diversity and connectivity in a tule elk (Cervus canadensis nannodes) metapopulation in Northern California

“…Because elk persist in a matrilineal social structure with a polygynous mating system (Muller et al 2018;Nussey et al 2005;Raedeke et al 2002;Smith and Anderson 2001), we expected to detect more gene flow among male than female elk. Although comparison of corresponding female and male BayesAss estimates of gene flow did not consistently indicate higher gene flow among males than females, this may have partly reflected the biparental inheritance of markers, which are expected to reflect similarly in males and females after the first generation.…”

“…In particular, social cohesion related to the legacy of past reintroductions could be the principle driver of population structure in our study region, and perhaps among reintroduced elk populations, generally. In a study of reintroduced elk in the eastern United States, both male and female elk introduced from multiple sources to the same site segregated into breeding groups corresponding to their source populations for at least two generations after reintroduction (Muller et al 2018). This example contrasts with a natural population of elk in Idaho found to experience substantial gene flow among patchily distributed populations (Aycrigg and Garton 2014), suggesting that under natural circumstances or once populations have achieved some critical threshold in size, elk exchange genes more fluidly across the landscape.…”

Genetic signature of blind reintroductions of Iberian ibex (Capra pyrenaica) in Catalonia, Northeast Spain

“…Genetic studies pointed that the Pyrenean wild goat is clearly differentiated from the other Iberian populations [ 17 ]. Under the light of the evolutionary relations among Iberian ibex and Alpine ibex [ 61 ], our results leave room for questioning the taxonomic relations of European Capra species. In addition to providing new data from Iberian goats geographically closer to the ancient range of C .…”

Are we adequately assessing the demographic impacts of harvesting for wild‐sourced conservation translocations?

“…In some scenarios, re-wilding or restoring ecosystem processes may be the primary conservation goal in a translocation program (e.g., Baker, Gordon, & Bode, 2017;Green et al, 2018;Perino et al, 2019). For example, Elk Island National Park, Canada, has been a source for wapiti-Cervus canadensis-reintroductions into various parts of North America for several decades (e.g., Muller et al, 2018;Ryckman, Rosatte, McIntosh, Hamr, & Jenkins, 2010). Wapiti are abundant in this reserve and number over 1 million globally (Brook B O X 1 A sustainable approach to harvesting the Endangered Apennine yellow bellied toad et al, 2018).…”