Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-21T14:38:16.736Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

11 - Using molecular methods to improve the genetic management of captive breeding programs for threatened species

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 July 2014

Jamie A. Ivy
Affiliation:
San Diego Zoo
Robert C. Lacy
Affiliation:
Chicago Zoological Society
J. Andrew DeWoody
Affiliation:
Purdue University, Indiana
John W. Bickham
Affiliation:
Purdue University, Indiana
Charles H. Michler
Affiliation:
Purdue University, Indiana
Krista M. Nichols
Affiliation:
Purdue University, Indiana
Gene E. Rhodes
Affiliation:
Purdue University, Indiana
Keith E. Woeste
Affiliation:
Purdue University, Indiana
Get access

Summary

Captive breeding programs are powerful tools for the conservation of our natural resources. Both animal and plant biodiversity are in global decline (International Union for Conservation of Nature [IUCN] 2008), and the trend is for levels and rates of endangerment to continue increasing (Butchart et al. 2005; see also Chapter 1 by Honeycutt and colleagues). When in-situ conservation efforts are insufficient at stopping or reversing the decline of a species, captive populations often represent the only alternative for forestalling extinction. For example, it is currently estimated that hundreds of amphibian species will soon be extinct if emergency measures are not taken to protect populations in captivity until the threats to wild populations can be halted or overcome (Gascon et al. 2007). The success of numerous captive breeding programs has been well documented. As just a few of many examples, captive breeding programs have saved the black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes), Przewalski's horse (Equus caballus przewalskii), and the California condor (Gymnogyps californianus) from final extinction (after the last wild populations were extirpated) and new wild populations of the golden lion tamarin (Leontopithecus rosalia), Arabian oryx (Oryx leucoryx), and whooping crane (Grus americana) have been successfully re-established from captive stocks.

Conservation breeding programs aim to maintain populations that are representative of their wild counterparts, to provide a reservoir for future reintroductions and recovery efforts (see Chapter 12 by Rhodes and Latch). Thus, the genetic goals of captive population management are to minimize genetic drift, retain genetic diversity, restrict inbreeding, and limit adaptation to captivity (Lacy 1994). The foundations of most captive breeding programs are pedigree analyses, which are used to manage both the demography and genetics of captive populations (Ballou & Foose 1996).

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allendorf, FW (1993) Delay of adaptation to captive breeding by equalizing family size. Conservation Biology, 7, 416–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnold, SJ (1995) Monitoring quantitative genetic variation and evolution in captive populations. In: Population Management for Survival and Recovery: Analytical Methods and Strategies in Small Population Conservation (eds. Ballou, JD, Gilpin, M, Foose, TJ), pp. 293–317. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Baillie, JEM, Hilton-Taylor, C, Stuart, SN, editors (2004) IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. A Global Species Assessment. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, and Cambridge, UK.
Ballou, JD, Foose, TJ (1996) Demographic and genetic management of captive populations. In: Wild Mammals in Captivity (eds. Kleiman, DG, Lumpkin, S, Allen, M, Harris, H, Thompson, K), pp. 263–283. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Ballou, JD, Lacy, RC (1995) Identifying genetically important individuals for management of genetic diversity in pedigreed populations. In: Population Management for Survival and Recovery: Analytical Methods and Strategies in Small Population Conservation (eds. Ballou, JD, Gilpin, M, Foose, TJ), pp. 76–111. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Ballou, JD, Mickelberg, J (2009) International Population Management Plan for Ex-situ Golden Lion Tamarins. National Zoological Park, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Benirschke, K (1984) The frozen zoo concept. Zoo Biology, 3, 325–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bink, MCAM, Anderson, AD, van de Weg, WE, Thompson, EA (2008) Comparison of marker-based pairwise relatedness estimators on a pedigreed plant population. Theoretical and Applied Genetics, 117, 843–855.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blouin, MS, Parsons, M, Lacille, V, Lotz, S (1996) Use of microsatellite loci to classify individuals by relatedness. Molecular Ecology, 5, 393–401.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bryant, EH, Reed, DH (1999) Fitness decline under relaxed selection in captive populations. Conservation Biology, 13, 665–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butchart, SHM, Stattersfield, AJ, Baillie, J et al. (2005) Using Red List Indices to measure progress towards the 2010 target and beyond. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London-Series B: Biological Sciences, 360, 255–268.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cosson, L, Grassman, LL, Zubaid, A et al. (2007) Genetic diversity of captive binturongs (Arctictis binturong, Viverridae, Carnivora): implications for conservation. Journal of Zoology, 271, 386–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Csillery, K, Johnson, T, Beraldi, D et al. (2006) Performance of marker-based relatedness estimators in natural populations of outbred vertebrates. Genetics, 173, 2091–2101.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DeWoody, JA (2005) Molecular approaches to the study of parentage, relatedness, and fitness: practical applications for wild animals. Journal of Wildlife Management, 69, 1400–1418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Earnhardt, JM, Thompson, SD, Marhevsky, E (2001) Interactions of target population size, population parameters, and program management of viability of captive populations. Zoo Biology, 20, 169–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ely, JJ, Dye, B, Frels, WI et al. (2005) Subspecies composition and founder contribution of the captive U.S. chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) population. American Journal of Primatology, 67, 223–241.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Falconer, DS, Mackay, TFC (1996) Introduction to Quantitative Genetics, 4th edn. Pearson/Prentice, Harlow, UK.Google Scholar
Fernandez, J, Toro, MA (1999) The use of mathematical programming to control inbreeding in selection schemes. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics, 116, 447–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Field, D, Chemnick, L, Robbins, M, Garner, K, Ryder, OA (1998) Paternity determination in captive lowland gorillas and orangutans and wild mountain gorillas by microsatellite analysis. Primates, 39, 199–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foose, TJ, Lande, R, Flesness, NR, Rabb, G, Read, B (1986) Propagation plans. Zoo Biology, 5, 139–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frankham, R, Hemmer, H, Ryder, OA et al. (1986) Selection in captive environments. Zoo Biology, 5, 127–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frankham, R, Loebel, DA (1992) Modeling problems in conservation genetics using captive Drosophila populations: rapid genetic adaptation to captivity. Zoo Biology, 11, 333–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frankham, R, Manning, H, Margan, SH, Briscoe, DA (2000) Does equalisation of family sizes reduce genetic adaptation to captivity?Animal Conservation, 3, 357–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frentiu, FD, Clegg, SM, Chittock, J et al. (2008) Pedigree-free animal models: the relatedness matrix reloaded. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London-Series B: Biological Sciences, 275, 639–648.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gascon, C, Collins, JP, Moore, RD et al. (2007) Amphibian Conservation Action Plan. IUCN/SSC Amphibian Specialist Group. Gland, Switzerland.Google Scholar
Gautschi, B, Jacob, G, Negro, JJ et al. (2003) Analysis of relatedness and determination of the source of founders in the captive bearded vulture, Gypaetus barbatus, population. Conservation Genetics, 4, 479–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glaubitz, JC, Rhodes, EO, DeWoody, JA (2003) Prospects for inferring pairwise relationships with single nucleotide polymorphisms. Molecular Ecology, 12, 1039–1047.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haig, SM, Ballou, JD, Casna, NJ (1994) Identification of kin structure among Guam rail founders: a comparison of pedigrees and DNA profiles. Molecular Ecology, 3, 109–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haldane, JBS (1924) A mathematical theory of natural and artificial selection. Part I. Transactions of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 23, 10–41.Google Scholar
Hedrick, PW (2001) Conservation genetics: where are we now?Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 16, 629–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hedrick, PW (2002) The importance of the major histocompatibility complex in declining populations. In: Reproduction and Integrated Conservation Science (eds. Wildt, DE, Holt, B). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Hedrick, PW, Miller, PS, Geffen, E, Wayne, R (1997) Genetic evaluation of the three captive Mexican wolf lineages. Zoo Biology, 16, 47–69.3.0.CO;2-B>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hu, J, Pan, H, Wan, Q, Fang, S (2007) Nuclear DNA microsatellite analysis of genetic diversity in captive populations of Chinese water deer. Small Ruminant Research, 67, 252–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, AL (1991) MHC polymorphism and the design of captive breeding programs. Conservation Biology, 5, 249–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) (2008) Available at .
Ivy, JA, Miller, A, Lacy, RC, DeWoody, JA (2009) Methods and prospects for using molecular data in captive breeding programs: an empirical example using parma wallabies (Macropus parma). Journal of Heredity, 100, 441–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iyengar, A, Gilbert, T, Woodfine, T et al. (2007) Remnants of ancient genetic diversity preserved within captive groups of scimitar-horned oryx (Oryx dammah). Molecular Ecology, 16, 2436–2449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, AG, Ardren, WR (2003) Methods of parentage analysis in natural populations. Molecular Ecology, 12, 2511–2523.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jones, KL, Glenn, TC, Lacy, RC et al. (2002) Refining the whooping crane studbook by incorporating microsatellite DNA and leg banding analyses. Conservation Biology, 16, 789–799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kimura, M, Crow, JF (1963) On the maximum avoidance of inbreeding. Genetical Research, 4, 399–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, JL (1965) The effect of litter culling – or family planning – on the rate of natural selection. Genetics, 51, 425–429.Google ScholarPubMed
Kruuk, LEB, Hill, WG (2008) Introduction. Evolutionary dynamics of wild populations: the use of long-term pedigree data. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London-Series B: Biological Sciences, 275, 593–596.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lacy, RC (1994) Managing genetic diversity in captive populations of animals. In: Restoration of Endangered Species (eds. Bowles, ML, Whelan, CJ), pp. 63–89. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lacy, RC (1995) Clarification of genetic terms and their use in the management of captive populations. Zoo Biology, 14, 565–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lacy, RC (2000) Should we select genetic alleles in our conservation breeding programs?Zoo Biology, 19, 279–282.3.0.CO;2-V>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lacy, RC, Ballou, JD (1998) Effectiveness of selection in reducing the genetic load in populations of Peromyscus polionotus during generations of inbreeding. Evolution, 52, 900–909.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lande, R (1995) Breeding plans for small populations based on the dynamics of quantitative genetic variance. In: Population Management for Survival and Recovery: Analytical Methods and Strategies in Small Population Conservation (eds. Ballou, JD, Gilpin, M, Foose, TJ), pp. 318–340. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Lynch, M, Ritland, K (1999) Estimation of pairwise relatedness with molecular markers. Genetics, 152, 1753–1766.Google ScholarPubMed
Lynch, M, Walsh, B (1998) Genetic analysis of quantitative traits. Sinauer, Sunderland, MA.Google Scholar
Milligan, BG (2003) Maximum-likelihood estimation of relatedness. Genetics, 163, 1153–1167.Google ScholarPubMed
Nei, M (1973) Analysis of gene diversity in subdivided populations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 70, 3321–3323.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Norton, JE, Ashley, MV (2004) Genetic variability and population differentiation in captive Baird's tapirs (Tapirus bairdii). Zoo Biology, 23, 521–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pelletier, F, Réale, D, Watters, J, Boakes, EH, Garant, D (2009) Value of captive populations for quantitative genetics research. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 24, 263–270.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Petric, A, Long, S (2008) Population Analysis and Breeding Plan: Okapi (Okapia johnstoni) Species Survival Plan. Association of Zoos and Aquariums, Silver Spring, MD.Google Scholar
Petrie, M, Moller, AP (1991) Laying eggs in others’ nests: intraspecific brood parasitism in birds. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 6, 315–320.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Piper, WH, Rabenold, PP (1992) Use of fragment-sharing estimates from DNA fingerprinting to determine relatedness in a tropical wren. Molecular Ecology, 1, 69–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Princée, FPG (1995) Overcoming the constraints of social structure and incomplete pedigree data through low-intensity genetic management. In: Population Management for Survival and Recovery: Analytical Methods and Strategies in Small Population Conservation (eds. Ballou, JD, Gilpin, M, Foose, TJ), pp. 124–154. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Queller, DC, Goodnight, KF (1989) Estimating relatedness using genetic markers. Evolution, 43, 258–275.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ramirez, O, Altet, L, Ensenat, C et al. (2006) Genetic assessment of the Iberian wolf Canis lupus signatus captive breeding program. Conservation Genetics, 7, 861–878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reddy, A, Prakash, V, Shivaji, S (2007) A rapid, non-invasive, PCR-based method for identification of sex of the endangered Old World vultures (white-backed and long-billed vultures) – implications for captive breeding programmes. Current Science, 92, 659–662.Google Scholar
Ritland, K (1996) Estimators for pairwise relatedness and individual inbreeding coefficients. Genetical Research, 67, 175–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roff, DA (1997) Evolutionary Quantitative Genetics. Chapman & Hall, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rudnick, JALacy, RC (2008) The impact of assumptions about founder relationships on the effectiveness of captive breeding strategies. Conservation Genetics, 9, 1439–1450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruokonen, M, Andersson, A, Tegelstrom, H (2007) Using historical captive stocks in conservation: the case of the lesser white-fronted goose. Conservation Genetics, 8, 197–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russello, MA, Hyseni, C, Gibbs, JP et al. (2007) Lineage identification of Galapagos tortoises in captivity worldwide. Animal Conservation, 10, 304–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schad, K, editor (2008) Amphibian Population Management Guidelines. Amphibian Ark Amphibian Population Management Workshop; December 10–11, 2007; San Diego, CA. Amphibian Ark, available at .
Selvin, S (1980) Probability of nonpaternity determined by multiple allele codominant systems. American Journal of Human Genetics, 32, 276–278.Google ScholarPubMed
Sonesson, AK, Meuwissen, THE (2001) Minimization of rate of inbreeding for small populations with overlapping generations. Genetical Research, 77, 285–292.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Soule, M, Gilpin, M, Conway, W, Foose, T (1986) The millennium ark: how long a voyage, how many staterooms, how many passengers?Zoo Biology, 5, 101–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spinks, PQ, Shaffer, HB (2007) Conservation phylogenetics of the Asian box turtles (Geoemydidae, Cuora): mitochondrial introgression, numts, and inferences from multiple nuclear loci. Conservation Genetics, 8, 641–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, EA (1995) Genetic importance and genomic descent. In: Population Management for Survival and Recovery: Analytical Methods and Strategies in Small Population Conservation (eds. Ballou, JD, Gilpin, M, Foose, TJ), pp. 76–111. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Tzika, AC, Remy, C, Gibson, R, Milinkovitch, MC (2009) Molecular genetic analysis of a captive-breeding program: the vulnerable endemic Jamaican yellow boa. Conservation Genetics, 10, 69–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van de Casteele, T, Galbusera, P, Matthysen, E (2001) A comparison of microsatellite-based pairwise relatedness estimators. Molecular Ecology, 10, 1539–1549.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vrijenhoek, RC, Leberg, PL (1991) Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater: a comment on management for MHC diversity in captive populations. Conservation Biology, 5, 252–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, J (2003) Maximum likelihood estimation of admixture proportions from genetic data. Genetics, 164, 747–765.Google ScholarPubMed
Wang, J (2004) Monitoring and managing genetic variation in group breeding populations without individual pedigrees. Conservation Genetics, 5, 813–825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, JL (2002) An estimator for pairwise relatedness using molecular markers. Genetics, 160, 1203–1215.Google ScholarPubMed
Willis, K (1993) Use of animals with unknown ancestries in scientifically managed breeding programs. Zoo Biology, 12, 161–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willis, K (2001) Unpedigreed populations and worst-case scenarios. Zoo Biology, 20, 305–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yom-Tov, Y (1980) Intraspecific nest parasitism in birds. Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 55, 93–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, YP, Ryder, OA, Zhao, QG et al. (2005) Non-invasive giant panda paternity exclusion. Zoo Biology, 13, 569–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zink, AG (2000) The evolution of intraspecific brood parasitism in birds and insects. American Naturalist, 155, 395–405.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×