Primer Notes

Fc, Buchanan; Ld, Maiers; Td, Thue; Bg, De March; Re, Stewart

doi:10.1046/j.1365-294x.1998.00401.x

Cited by 64 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The extracted DNA was diluted to 10 ng/μl. Eight microsatellite loci from walruses (Buchanan et al 1998) and three from grey seals (Halichoerus grypus; Allen et al 1995) were amplified in three duplex and five single PCR reactions: 1) Orr3 + Orr11 2) Orr24 3) Orr7 + Orr23 4) Orr9 + Orr16 5) SGPV9 6) Hg3.6 7) Hg6.1 and 8) HgDii. The 15 μl PCR reactions contained double-distilled water, 1.5X PCR buffer, 0.24 μM of each primer, and 0.24 mM of each dNTP.…”

Section: Laboratory Analysesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Molecular approaches can offer valuable insights into stock structure and have been used successfully in walruses (Simonsen et al 1982, Cronin et al 1994, Andersen et al 1998, Buchanan et al 1998, Andersen and Born 2000, Born et al 2001, de March et al 2002, Andersen et al 2009, Andersen et al 2014. Using microsatellite data, Andersen et al (2009, Andersen et al 2014 (HB-DS), (after Stewart 2008).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Microsatellite assessment of walrus (Odobenus rosmarus rosmarus) stocks in Canada

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Walruses (Odobenus rosmarus rosmarus) occur in Canada from James Bay to Smith Sound and from the Canada-Greenland international boundary in Davis Strait to the longitudinal center of Canada (Fig. 1). Within this range, walruses are subdivided into seven stocks based on summering areas for the purpose of making management decisions that affect walrus and walrus habitat (Stewart 2008). Stock assessments (e.g. Breiwik and York 2009, Lugten 2010) rely on identifying units that can be managed without impact on other units. In the absence of definitive information, it is more precautionary to assume greater subdivision than exists in nature rather than to assume less (Taylor 1997, Taylor andDizon 1999). However, overly conservative subdivision can lead stock managers to overestimate the risk of stock extirpation, potentially leading to negative effects on resource users. NAMMCO Scientific Publications PS-LS), North Foxe Basin (N-FB), Central Foxe Basin (C-FB), Hudson Bay Davis Strait (HB-DS) and Southern and EasternHudson Bay (SE-HB). In this study, walrus were sampled from six of the seven stocks (SE-HB samples were not available) and genotyped at 10 microsatellite loci. All stocks were genetically diverse (average heterozygosity of 0.58) with no evidence of inbreeding (average F IS of 0.03). We detected significant genetic differentiation among the stocks and a pattern of genetic spatial autocorrelation that suggests a moderate effect of geographic distance on gene flow among stocks. Bayesian clustering suggested the six recognized stocks were elements of two larger genetic clusters-a northern Arctic population (containing BB, WJS, and PS-LS stocks) and a central Arctic population (containing C-FB, N-FB, and HB-DS stocks). These populations are moderately differentiated (F ST = 0.07), but based on evidence of contemporary movement from assignment tests, are not completely isolated. There was support for maintaining the WJS stock and a combined BB+PS-LS stock, although the latter conclusion is based on a small sample size. Similarly, there was some evidence suggesting separation of the Foxe Basin stocks from the HB-DS but not the N-FB from the C-FB stock. However, given that there are morphological and chemical differences between N-FB and C-FB stocks, there is currently insufficient evidence to support a revision of the current stock designations.

show abstract

Section: Laboratory Analysesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Microsatellite assessment of walrus (Odobenus rosmarus rosmarus) stocks in Canada

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To facilitate use of the catch history data in relation to current resource management, the catches are organized, whenever possible, by biological population and management stock. Two Atlantic walrus populations have been identified in Canada on the basis of genetic differences: the High Arctic population and the Central Arctic population (Buchanan et al 1998, de March et al 2002, Shafer et al 2014. Both populations are shared with Greenland but the number of animals moving between Canada and Greenland is unknown.…”

Section: Population Affiliationmentioning

confidence: 99%

A catch history for Atlantic walruses (Odobenus rosmarus rosmarus) in the eastern Canadian Arctic

Stewart

Higdon²,

Reeves

et al. 2014

NAMMCOSP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Knowledge of changes in abundance of Atlantic walruses (Odobenus rosmarus rosmarus) in Canada is important for assessing their current population status. This catch history collates available data and assesses their value for modelling historical populations to inform population recovery and management. Pre-historical (archaeological), historical (e.g., Hudson Bay Company journals) and modern catch records are reviewed over time by data source (whaler, land-based commercial, subsistence etc.) and biological population or management stock.Direct counts of walruses landed as well as estimates based on hunt products (e.g., hides, ivory) or descriptors (e.g., Peterhead boatloads) support a minimum landed catch of over 41,300 walruses in the eastern Canadian Arctic between 1820 and 2010. Little is known of Inuit catches prior to 1928, despite the importance of walruses to many Inuit groups for subsistence. Commercial hunting from the late 1500s to late 1700s extirpated the Atlantic walrus from Quebec and the Atlantic Provinces, but there was no commercial hunt for the species in the Canadian Arctic until ca. 1885. As the availability of bowhead whale (Balaena mysticetus) declined, whalers increasingly turned to hunting other species, including walruses. Modest numbers (max. 278/yr) were taken from the High Arctic population in the mid-1880s and large catches (up to 1400/yr) were often taken from the Central Arctic population from 1899 -1911, while the Foxe Basin stock (Central Arctic population) and Low Arctic population were largely ignored by commercial hunters. Land-based traders (ca. 1895-1928) continued the commercial hunt until regulatory changes in 1928 reserved walruses for Inuit use. Since 1950, reported walrus catches have been declining despite a steady increase in the Inuit population. Effort data are needed to assess whether lower catches stem from declining hunter effort or decreased walrus abundance. The recent take of walruses by sport hunting has been small (n=141, 1995-2010), sporadic and local.These landed catch estimates indicate the minimum numbers of walruses removed but do not account for under-reporting or lost animals that were killed but were not secured. Unreported and lost animals may represent a significant fraction of the total removals and must be considered in any modelling exercise. The sources, quality and completeness of the catch data vary widely over time and space and between the different hunt types. This variability confounds interpretation and contributes to the uncertainty that needs to be incorporated into any modelling. The data on Inuit subsistence catches before ca. 1928 are particularly fragmentary and uncertain.

show abstract

“…Genetic studies conducted on harbour seals have generally used less than 15 microsatellite markers for ''Atlantic'' harbour seals (12 in Olsen et al (2017); 15 in Anderse et al (2011); 7 in Goodman (1997); Goodman (1998)) and less than 20 for ''Pacific'' harbour seals (5 in Burg et al (1999), 8 in Curtis, Stewart & Karl (2011), 7 in Dishman (2011), 20 in Hayes et al (2006) and 6 in Herreman et al, 2009). We used the markers developed specifically for harbour seal microsatellites (Allen et al, 1995;Coltman, Bowen & Wright, 1996;Goodman, 1997) and a mix of pinniped microsatellite markers (Allen et al, 1995;Buchanan et al, 1998;Davis et al, 2002;Gelatt et al, 2001), as other harbour seal microsatellite papers (ex. Olsen et al, 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evolutionary history of a Scottish harbour seal population

Nikolic

Thompson

Bruyn

et al. 2020

PeerJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Efforts to conserve marine mammals are often constrained by uncertainty over their population history. Here, we examine the evolutionary history of a harbour seal (Phoca vitulina) population in the Moray Firth, northeast Scotland using genetic tools and microsatellite markers to explore population change. Previous fine-scale analysis of UK harbour seal populations revealed three clusters in the UK, with a northeastern cluster that included our Moray Firth study population. Our analysis revealed that the Moray Firth cluster is an independent genetic group, with similar levels of genetic diversity across each of the localities sampled. These samples were used to assess historic abundance and demographic events in the Moray Firth population. Estimates of current genetic diversity and effective population size were low, but the results indicated that this population has remained at broadly similar levels following the population bottleneck that occurred after post-glacial recolonization of the area.

show abstract

Primer Notes

Cited by 64 publications

References 11 publications

Microsatellite assessment of walrus (<i>Odobenus rosmarus rosmarus</i>) stocks in Canada

Microsatellite assessment of walrus (<i>Odobenus rosmarus rosmarus</i>) stocks in Canada

A catch history for Atlantic walruses (<i>Odobenus rosmarus rosmarus</i>) in the eastern Canadian Arctic

Evolutionary history of a Scottish harbour seal population

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About