Advertisement

Conservation Genetics

, Volume 12, Issue 1, pp 31–40 | Cite as

Induced dispersal in wildlife management: experimental evaluation of the risk of hybrid breakdown and the benefit of hybrid vigor in the F1 generation

  • Clare E. Holleley
  • Richard A. Nichols
  • Michael R. Whitehead
  • Melissa R. Gunn
  • Jyoutsna Gupta
  • William B. Sherwin
Research Article

Abstract

Management practices often aim to increase the level of gene flow by either: introducing animals from captive breeding programs, translocating animals from abundant areas, or increasing the chance of animals dispersing between populations by creating habitat corridors. These practices provide opportunity for the hybrid offspring of introduced and resident animals to experience either increased fitness (hybrid vigor) or decreased fitness (hybrid breakdown). There is very little quantitative data available to adequately assess whether hybridization is likely to be beneficial or detrimental to populations managed in these ways. Using Drosophila melanogaster populations, we conducted two experiments that simulate the common management practices of translocation and wildlife habitat corridors. We monitored the frequency and magnitude of hybrid vigor and hybrid breakdown in F1 hybrids to assess the relative risks and benefits to populations and also monitored net productivity (number of adults produced from controlled crosses) to assess whether the populations were stable or in decline. In the translocation experiment, we observed instances of both significant hybrid vigor and hybrid breakdown, both occurring at a frequency of 9%. In the habitat corridor experiments, populations with moderate to high dispersal (1–4% per generation) did not develop significant hybrid vigor or hybrid breakdown. However, of the populations experiencing low dispersal (0.25% per generation) for 34 generations, 6% displayed significant hybrid vigor and 6% displayed significant hybrid breakdown. These results suggest that in first generation hybrids there may be limited opportunity to utilize hybrid vigor as a tool to increase the short-term viability of populations because there is an equal likelihood of encountering hybrid breakdown that may drive the population into further decline. However, our results apply only to populations of moderate size (N = 50; N e = 14.3) in the absence of deliberate consanguineous mating. Lastly, we observed that net productivity was positively correlated with dispersal rate, suggesting that initial F1 declines in fitness may be temporary and that it is preferable to maintain high levels of selectable variation via induced dispersal to assist the long-term survival of vulnerable populations.

Keywords

Hybrid vigor Hybrid breakdown Inbreeding depression Drosophila melanogaster Conservation Management Genetic drift 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge L. Tsai, E. Ho and J. Chao for fly culture assistance; O. E. Gaggiotti, A. R. Templeton, J. L. Wang and M. Mariette for comments on the manuscript and the Ramaciotti Centre for Gene Function Analysis for DNA fragment size analysis. This research was supported by Australian Research Council Grant DP0559363 to WBS and RAN.

Supplementary material

10592_2009_9984_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (333 kb)
(PDF 334 kb)

References

  1. Ackermann M, Bijlsma R, James AC, Partridge L, Zwaan BJ, Stearns SC (2001) Effects of assay conditions in life history experiments with Drosophila melanogaster. J Evol Biol 14:199–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Backus VL, Bryant EH, Hughes CR, Meffert LM (1995) Effect of migration or inbreeding followed by selection on low-founder-number populations: implications for captive breeding programs. Conserv Biol 9:1216–1224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ball SJ, Adams M, Possingham HP, Keller MA (2000) The genetic contribution of single male immigrants to small, inbred populations: a laboratory study using Drosophila melanogaster. Heredity 84:677–684CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Beier P, Noss RF (1998) Do habitat corridors provide connectivity? Conserv Biol 12:1241–1252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Birchler JA, Auger DL, Riddle NC (2003) In search of the molecular basis of heterosis. Plant Cell 15:2236–2239CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Boussy IA, Kidwell MG (1987) The P-M hybrid dysgenesis cline in eastern Australian Drosophila melanogaster: discrete P, Q and M regions are nearly contiguous. Genetics 115:737–745PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Bryant EH, Backus VL, Clark ME, Reed DH (1999) Experimental tests of captive breeding for endangered species. Conserv Biol 13:1487–1496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Crow JF (1948) Alternative hypotheses of hybrid vigor. Genetics 33:477–487Google Scholar
  9. Devlin B, Roeder K, Wasserman L (2003) False discovery or missed discovery? Heredity 91:537–538CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Dickerson GE (1969) Experimental approaches in utilizing breed resources. Anim Breed Abstr 37:191–202Google Scholar
  11. Edmands S (1999) Heterosis and outbreeding depression in interpopulation crosses spanning a wide range of divergence. Evolution 53:1757–1768CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Edmands S (2006) Between a rock and a hard place: evaluating the relative risks of inbreeding and outbreeding for conservation and management. Mol Ecol 16:463–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ehiobu NG, Goddard ME (1990a) Heterosis in crosses between geographically separated populations of Drosophila melanogaster. Theor Appl Genet 80:569–575Google Scholar
  14. Ehiobu NG, Goddard ME (1990b) Heterosis in F2 generations of Drosophila melanogaster. Aust J Zool 37:609–616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. England PR, Briscoe DA, Frankham R (1996) Microsatellite polymorphisms in a wild population of Drosophila melanogaster. Genet Res 67:285–290CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Falconer DS, Mackay TFC (1996) Introduction to quantitative genetics. Longman Group Ltd, EssexGoogle Scholar
  17. Ferreira AGA, Amos W (2006) Inbreeding depression and multiple regions showing heterozygote advantage in Drosophila melanogaster exposed to stress. Mol Ecol 15:3885–3893CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Fischer M, Matthies D (1997) Mating structure and inbreeding and outbreeding depression in the rare plant Gentianella germanica (Gentianaceae). Am J Bot 84:1685–1692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fishman L, Willis J (2001) Evidence for Dobshansky-Muller incompatibilities contributing to the sterility of hybrids between Mimulus guttatus and M. nasutus. Evolution 55:1932–1942PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Frankel OH (1983) The place of management in conservation. In: Schonewald-Cox CM, Chambers SM, MacBryde B, Thomas L (eds) Genetics and conservation: a reference for managing wild animal and plant populations. Benjamin/Cummings, California, pp 1–14Google Scholar
  21. Gandon S, Capowiez Y, Dubois Y, Michalakis Y, Olivieri I (1996) Local adaptation and gene-for-gene coevolution in a metapopulation model. Proc R Soc Lond B 263:1003–1009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gilligan DM, Briscoe DA, Frankham R (2005) Comparative losses of quantitative and molecular genetic variation in finite populations of Drosophila melanogaster. Genet Res Cam 85:47–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gunn M (2003) The use of microsatellites as a surrogate for quantitative trait variation. Ph.D. Thesis, University of New South Wales, SydneyGoogle Scholar
  24. Henle K, Lindenmayer DB, Margules CR, Saunders DA, Wissel C (2004) Species survival in fragmented landscapes: where are we now? Biodivers Conserv 13:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hess GR (1994) Conservation corridors and contagious disease: a cautionary note. Conserv Biol 8:256–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Holleley CE (2007) Economical high-throughput DNA extraction procedure in 96-well format for Drosophila tissue. Dros Inf Serv 90:137–138Google Scholar
  27. Holleley CE (2009) Testing hypotheses in molecular ecology: genetic exchange and hybrid performance. Ph.D. Thesis, University of New South Wales, SydneyGoogle Scholar
  28. Holleley CE, Sherwin WB (2007) Two robust multiplex PCR reactions for high-throughput microsatellite genotyping in Drosophila melanogaster. Dros Inf Serv 90:140–144Google Scholar
  29. Holleley CE, Hocking AD, Schubert TL, Whitehead MR (2008) Control of Penicillium roqueforti (Thom) infection in cultures of Drosophila melanogaster (Meigen) (Drosophilidae: Diptera). Aust J Entomol 47:149–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ingvarsson PK (2002) Conservation biology: lone wolf to the rescue. Nature 420:472CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Kidwell MG, Novy JB (1979) Hybrid dysgenesis in Drosophila melanogaster: sterility resulting from gonadal dysgenesis in the P-M system. Genetics 92:1127–1140PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Loebel DA, Nurthen RK, Frankham R, Briscoe DA, Craven D (1992) Modeling problems in conservation genetics using captive Drosophila populations: Consequences of equalizing founder representation. Zoo Biol 11:319–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lozovskaya ER, Scheinker VS, Evgen’ev MB (1990) A hybrid dysgenesis syndrome in Drosophila virilis. Genetics 126:619–623PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Marr AB, Keller LF, Arcese P (2002) Heterosis and outbreeding depression in descendants of natural immigrants to an inbred population of song sparrows (Melospiza melodia). Evolution 56:131–142PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Miller B, Ralls K, Reading RP, Scott JM, Estes J (1999) Biological and technical considerations of carnivore translocation: a review. Anim Conserv 2:59–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Moll RH, Lonnquist JH, Fortuna JV, Johnson EC (1965) The relationship of heterosis and genetic divergence in maize. Genetics 52:139–144PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Oettler G, Burger H, Melchinger AE (2003) Heterosis and combining ability for grain yield and other agronomic traits in winter triticale. Plant Breed 122:318–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pimm SL, Dollar L, Bass OL Jr (2006) The genetic rescue of the Florida panther. Anim Conserv 9:115–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Reed DH (2004) Extinction risk in fragmented habitats. Anim Conserv 7:181–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Reed DH (2005) Relationship between population size and fitness. Conserv Biol 19:563–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rhode JM, Cruzan MB (2005) Contributions of heterosis and epistasis to hybrid fitness. Am Nat 166:E124–E139CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Sagvik J, Uller T, Olsson M (2005) Outbreeding depression in the common frog, Rana temporaria. Conserv Genet 6:205–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schierup MH, Christiansen FB (1995) Inbreeding depression and outbreeding depression in plants. Heredity 77:461–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Seddon P, Armstrong DP, Maloney RF (2007) Developing the science of reintroduction biology. Conserv Biol 21:303–312CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Spielman D, Frankham R (1992) Modeling problems in conservation genetics using captive Drosophila populations: improvement of reproductive fitness due to immigration of one individual into small partially inbred populations. Zoo Biol 11:343–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Swindell WR, Bouzat JL (2006) Gene flow and adaptive potential in Drosophila melanogaster. Conserv Genet 7:79–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Templeton AR (1986) Coadaptation and outbreeding depression. In: Soulé ME (ed) Conservation biology: the science of scarcity and diversity. Sinauer, Sunderland, pp 105–116Google Scholar
  48. Templeton AR (2001) Disrupting evolutionary processes: the effect of habitat fragmentation on collared lizards in the Missouri Ozarks. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 98:5426–5432CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Templeton AR, Neuwald JL, Brazeal H, Robertson RJ (2007) Restoring demographic processes in translocated populations: The case of the collared lizards in the Missouri Ozarks. Israel J Ecol Evol 53:179–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tilman D, May RM, Lehman CL, Nowak MA (1994) Habitat destruction and the extinction debt. Nature 371:65–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Turcek FJ (1951) Effect of introduction on two game populations in Czechoslovakia. J Wildlife Manage 15:113–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Vila C, Sundqvist AK, Flagstad O, Seddon J, Björnerfeldt S, Kojola I, Casulli A, Sand H, Wabakken P, Ellegren H (2002) Rescue of a severely bottlenecked wolf (Canis lupis) population by a single immigrant. Proc R Soc Lond B 270:91–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wallace B (1968) Topics in population genetics. Norton and Co, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  54. Weir BS, Cockerham CC (1984) Estimating F-statistics for the analysis of population structure. Evolution 38:1358–1370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Westemeier RL, Brawn JD, Simpson S, Esker TL, Jansen RW, Walk JW, Kershner EL, Bouzat JL, Paige KN (1998) Tracking the long-term decline and recovery of an isolated population. Science 282:1695–1698CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Whitlock MC (1992) Temporal fluctuations in demographic parameters and the genetic variance among populations. Evolution 46:608–615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Whitlock MC, Ingvarsson PK, Hatfield T (2000) Local drift load and the heterosis of interconnected populations. Heredity 84:452–457CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Clare E. Holleley
    • 1
    • 5
  • Richard A. Nichols
    • 2
  • Michael R. Whitehead
    • 1
    • 3
  • Melissa R. Gunn
    • 1
    • 4
  • Jyoutsna Gupta
    • 1
  • William B. Sherwin
    • 1
  1. 1.Evolution & Ecology Research Centre and School of Biological, Earth & Environmental SciencesUniversity of New South WalesSydneyAustralia
  2. 2.School of Biological and Chemical SciencesQueen Mary University of LondonLondonUK
  3. 3.Botany and Zoology, School of Biological SciencesAustralian National UniversityCanberraAustralia
  4. 4.Food and Environment Research AgencySand Hutton, YorkUK
  5. 5.Laboratory of Genomic DiversityNational Cancer InstituteFrederickUSA

Personalised recommendations