MODELING PROBLEMS IN CONSERVATION GENETICS USING CAPTIVE DROSOPHILA POPULATIONS - CONSEQUENCES OF EQUALIZING FOUNDER REPRESENTATION

被引：32

作者：

LOEBEL, DA ^{[1
]}

NURTHEN, RK ^{[1
]}

FRANKHAM, R ^{[1
]}

BRISCOE, DA ^{[1
]}

CRAVEN, D ^{[1
]}

机构：

[1] MACQUARIE UNIV,SCH BIOL SCI,SYDNEY,NSW 2109,AUSTRALIA

来源：

ZOO BIOLOGY | 1992年 / 11卷 / 05期

关键词：

INBREEDING; GENETIC VARIATION; REPRODUCTIVE FITNESS; CAPTIVE BREEDING; FOUNDER EQUIVALENTS;

D O I：

10.1002/zoo.1430110504

中图分类号：

S85 [动物医学（兽医学）];

学科分类号：

0906 ;

摘要：

Equalizing founder representation is a recommended practice for maintaining captive populations. However, this procedure has not been subject to controlled experimental evaluation. The effects on inbreeding, genetic variation, and reproductive fitness of maintaining small captive populations by equalizing founder representation (EFR) versus randomly choosing parents (RC) were compared. Ten replicate lines were created with unequal founder representations, split into EFR and RC lines, and maintained for a further eight generations. Founder representations computed from pedigrees were closer to equality in the EFR lines than in the RC lines or the base population, most of the changes being evident after one generation. Significant benefits of EFR were found in lowered inbreeding (mean inbreeding coefficients of 0.35 and 0.41, respectively, for EFR and RC lines) and average heterozygosity (0.141 for EFR, 0.084 for RC, compared with 0.216 in the base population). However, EFR was not significantly better than RC in moving allele frequencies towards equalized founder representation. No significant difference was found in reproductive fitness between EFR and RC (relative fitnesses compared to the base population were 0.179 for EFR and 0.182 for RC). The use of equalization of founder representation for a few generations can be recommended in the genetic management of captive populations derived from a small number of founders that contribute unequally.

引用

页码：319 / 332

页数：14

共 22 条

[1]

Borlase S.C., Loebel D.A., Frankham R., Nurthen R.K., Briscoe D.A., Daggard G.E.

[2]

Briscoe D.A., Malpica J.M., Robertson A., Smith G.J., Frankham R., Banks R.G., Barker J.S.F.

[3]

Cruden D., The computation of inbreeding coefficient in closed populations, Journal of heredity, 40, pp. 248-251, (1949)

[4]

Foose T.J., Lande R., Flesness N.R., Rabb G., Read B., Propagation plans, Zoo Biology, 5, pp. 139-146, (1986)

[5]

Frankel O.H., Soule M.E., Conservation and evolution, (1981)

[6]

Frankham R., Contributions of Drosophila research to quantitative genetics and animal breeding, Proceedings of the 2nd world congress on genetics applied to livestock production, 5, pp. 43-56, (1982)

[7]

Frankham R., Hemmer H., Ryder O.A., Cothran E.G., Soule M.E., Murray N.D., Snyder M., Selection in captive populations, Zoo Biology, 5, pp. 127-138, (1986)

[8]

Frankham R., Loebel D.A., Modeling problems in conservation genetics using captive Drosophila populations: Rapid genetic adaptation to captivity, Zoo Biology, 11, pp. 333-342, (1992)

[9]

Frankham R., Yoo B.H., Sheldon B.L., Reproductive fitness and artificial selection in animal breeding: Culling on fitness prevents a decline in reproductive fitness in lines of Drosophila melanogaster selected for increased inebriation time, Theoretical and applied genetics, 76, pp. 909-914, (1988)

[10]

Haig S.M., Ballou J.D., Derrickson S.R., Management options for preserving genetic diversity: Reintroduction of Guam rails to the wild, Conservation biology, 4, pp. 290-300, (1990)

← 1 2 3 →