4.2 Article

Giraffe translocation population viability analysis

期刊

ENDANGERED SPECIES RESEARCH
卷 41, 期 -, 页码 245-252

出版社

INTER-RESEARCH
DOI: 10.3354/esr01022

关键词

Founding population; Giraffe; Population model; PVA; Translocation; Population viability

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Most populations of giraffes have declined in recent decades, leading to the recent IUCN decision to upgrade the species to Vulnerable status, and some subspecies to Endangered. Translocations have been used as a conservation tool to re-introduce giraffes to previously occupied areas or establish new populations, but guidelines for founding populations are lacking. To provide general guidelines for translocation projects regarding feasibility, we simulated various scenarios of translocated giraffe populations to identify viable age and sex distributions of founding populations using population viability analysis (PVA) implemented in Vortex software. We explored the parameter space for demography and the genetic load, examining how variation in founding numbers and sex ratios affected 100 yr probability of population extinction and genetic diversity. We found that even very small numbers of founders (N <= 10 females) can appear to be successful in the first decades due to transient positive population growth, but with moderate population growth rate and moderate genetic load, long-term population viability (probability of extinction <0.01) was only achieved with >= 30 females and >= 3 males released. To maintain >95% genetic diversity of the source population in an isolated population, 50 females and 5 males are recommended to compose the founding population. Sensitivity analyses revealed first-year survival and reproductive rate were the simulation parameters with the greatest proportional influence on probability of extinction and genetic diversity. These simulations highlight important considerations for translocation success and data gaps including true genetic load in wild giraffe populations.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据