4.6 Article

Genetic effects of multiple generations of supportive breeding

Journal

CONSERVATION BIOLOGY
Volume 15, Issue 6, Pages 1619-1631

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2001.00173.x

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The practice of supporting weak wild populations by capturing a fraction of the wild individuals, bringing them into captivity for reproduction, and releasing their offspring into the natural habitat to mix with wild ones is called supportive breeding and has been widely applied in the fields of conservation biology and fish and wildlife management. This procedure is intended to increase population size without introducing exogenous genes into the managed population. Previous work examining the genetic effects of a single generation of supportive breeding has shown that although a successful program increases the census population size, it may reduce the genetically effective population size and thereby induce excessive inbreeding and loss of genetic variation. We expand and generalize previous analyses of supportive breeding and consider the effects of multiple generations of supportive breeding on rates of inbreeding and genetic drift. We derived recurrence equations for the inbreeding coefficient and coancestry, and thereby equations for inbreeding and variance effective sizes, under three models for selecting captive breeders: at random, preferentially among those born in captivity, and preferentially among those born in the wild. Numerical examples indicate that supportive breeding, when carried out successfully over multiple generations, may increase not only the census but also the effective size of the supported population as a whole. If supportive breeding does not result in a substantial and continuous increase of the census size of the breeding population, however, it might be genetically harmful because of elevated rates of inbreeding and genetic drift.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available