Conservation Genetics

, Volume 6, Issue 2, pp 205–211 | Cite as

Outbreeding depression in the common frog, Rana temporaria

  • Jörgen SagvikEmail author
  • Tobias Uller
  • Mats Olsson


Theory suggests that parental relatedness is a continuous variable with a fitness optimum that we heretoforth will refer to as ‘optimal outbreeding’. In the present paper, we test this proposition from a conservation (translocation) perspective. Amphibians are facing a global decline and many amphibian populations are today small and threatened by extinction. Because genetic differentiation is often high between amphibian populations, they could be particularly sensitive to outbreeding depression, e.g. due to breakdown of locally adapted gene complexes. We tested if outbreeding would reduce fitness in common frogs, Rana temporaria, crossed from a large and an isolated, small population, separated by 130 km, using artificial fertilization. For females from the large population, tadpoles were significantly smaller and more malformed in crosses with males from the small population, than with males from the large population. For the small population, however, no significant paternal genetic effects could be found. The difference in response to outbreeding between populations was accompanied with significant differences in the importance of maternal effects. We conclude that care should be taken when translocating frogs between distantly related populations to avoid outbreeding depression.


amphibian decline inbreeding outbreeding Rana temporaria 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alford, RA, Richards, SJ 1999Global amphibian declines: a problem in applied ecologyAnnu. Rev. Ecol. Syst.30133165Google Scholar
  2. Alstad, DN, Edmunds, GF 1983Selection, outbreeding depression, and the sex ration of scale insectsScience2209395Google Scholar
  3. Altwegg, R, Reyer, HU 2003Patterns of natural selection on size at metamorphosis in water frogsEvolution57872882PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Amos, W, Balmford, A 2001When does conservation genetics matter?Heredity87257265CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bataillon, T, Kirkpatrick, M 2000Inbreeding depression due to mildly deleterious mutations in finite populations: size does matterGenet. Res757581PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Bateson, P 1982Preferences for cousins in Japanese quailNature295236237Google Scholar
  7. Berger, L, Rybacki, M, Hotz, H 1994Artificial fertilization of water frogsAmphibia-Reptilia15408413Google Scholar
  8. Berven, KA, Grudzien, TA 1990Dispersal in the Wood frog (Rana sylvatica) - Implications for genetic population-structureEvolution4420472056Google Scholar
  9. Brede, EG, Beebee, TJC 2004Contrasting population structures in two sympatric anurans: implications for species conservationHeredity92110117PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Brown, AF 1991Outbreeding depression as a cost of dispersal in the harpacticoid copepod, Tigriopus californicusBiol. Bull.181123126Google Scholar
  11. Driscoll, DA 1998Genetic structure of the frogs Geocrinia lutea and Geocrinia rosea reflects extreme population divergence and range changes, not dispersal barriersEvolution5211471157Google Scholar
  12. Edmands, S 1999Heterosis and outbreeding depression in interpopulation crosses spanning a wide range of divergenceEvolution5317571768Google Scholar
  13. Gosner, KL 1960A simplified table for staging anuran embryos and larvae with notes on identificationHerpetologica16183190Google Scholar
  14. Hanski I, Simberloff D (1997) The metapopulation approach, its history, conceptual domain, and application to conservation. In: Metapopulation Biology: Ecology, Genetics, and Evolution (eds. Hanski I, Gilpin ME), pp. 5–26. Academic Press.Google Scholar
  15. Hitchings, SP, Beebee, TJC 1997Genetic substructuring as a result of barriers to gene flow in urban Rana temporaria (common frog) populations: implications for biodiversity conservationHeredity79117127PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Keane, B 1990Dispersal and inbreeding avoidance in the White-footed mouse, Peromyscus leucopusAnim. Behav.40143152Google Scholar
  17. Keller, LF, Waller, DM 2002Inbreeding effects in wild populationsTrends Ecol. Evol.17230241Google Scholar
  18. Lampert, KP, Rand, AS, Mueller, UG, Ryan, MJ 2003Fine-scale genetic pattern and evidence for sex-biased dispersal in the tungara frog, Physalaemus pustulosusMol. Ecol.1233253334PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Laugen, AT, Laurila, A, Merilä, J 2002Maternal and genetic contributions to geographical variation in Rana temporaria larval life-history traitsBiol. J. Linn. Soc.766170Google Scholar
  20. Laurila, A, Pakkasmaa, S, Merilä, J 2001Influence of seasonal time constraints on growth and development of common frog tadpoles: a photoperiod experimentOikos95451460Google Scholar
  21. Ledig, FT 1986Heterozygosity, heterosis, and fitness in outbreeding plantsSoulè, ME eds. Conservation Biology: The Science of Scarcity and DiversitySinauer AssociatesSunderland, MA77104Google Scholar
  22. Loman, J 2003Growth and development of larval Rana temporaria: local variation and countergradient selectionJ. Herp.37595602Google Scholar
  23. Madsen, T, Shine, R, Olsson, M, Wittzell, H 1999Conservation biology – restoration of an inbred adder populationNature4023435Google Scholar
  24. Marr, AB, Keller, LF, Arcese, P 2002Heterosis and outbreeding depression in descendants of natural immigrants to an inbred population of song sparrows (Melospiza melodia)Evolution56131142PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Newman, RA, Squire, T 2001Microsatellite variation and fine-scale population structure in the wood frog (Rana sylvatica)Mol. Ecol.1010871100PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Quinn, GP, Keough, MJ 2002Experimental Design and Data Analysis for BiologistsCambridge University PressUKGoogle Scholar
  27. Reading, CJ, Loman, J, Madsen, T 1991Breeding pond fidelity in the Common toad, Bufo bufoJ. Zool.225201211Google Scholar
  28. Reinert, HK 1991Translocation as a conservation strategy for amphibians and reptiles: Some comments, concerns, and observationsHerpetologica47357363Google Scholar
  29. Räsänen, K, Laurila, A, Merilä, J 2003Geographic variation in acid stress tolerance of the moor frog, Rana arvalis. I. Local adaptationEvolution57352362PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Seigel, RA, Dodd, CK 2002Translocations of amphibians: proven management method or experimental technique?Conserv. Biol.16552554Google Scholar
  31. Seppä, P, Laurila, A 1999Genetic structure of island populations of the anurans Rana temporaria and Bufo bufoHeredity82309317PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Shields WM (1993) The natural and unnatural history of inbreeding and outbreeding. In: The Natural History of Inbreeding and Outbreeding (ed. Thornhill NW), pp. 143–169. The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  33. Ståhlberg, F, Olsson, M, Uller, T 2001Population divergence of developmental thermal optima in Swedish common frogs, Rana temporariaJ. Evol. Biol.14755762Google Scholar
  34. Templeton, AR 1986Coadaptation and outbreeding depressionSoulé, ME eds. Conservation Biology: The Science of Scarcity and DiversitySinauer AssociatesSunderland, MA105116Google Scholar
  35. Trenham, PC, Marsh, DM 2002Amphibian translocation programs: reply to Seigel and DoddConserv. Biol.16555556Google Scholar
  36. Wake, DB 1991Declining Amphibian populationsScience253860860Google Scholar
  37. Ward, RD, Skibinski, DOF, Woodwark, M 1992Protein heterozygosity, protein-structure, and taxonomic differentiationEvol. Biol.2673159Google Scholar
  38. Waser, NM, Price, MV 1989Optimal outcrossing in Ipomopsis aggregata – seed set and offspring fitnessEvolution4310971109Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of ZoologyGöteborg UniversityGöteborgSweden
  2. 2.Department of Biological SciencesUniversity of WollongongNSWAustralia

Personalised recommendations