Conservation Genetics

, Volume 12, Issue 2, pp 401–412

Inbreeding, heterozygosity and fitness in a reintroduced population of endangered African wild dogs (Lycaon pictus)

  • Penny A. Spiering
  • Micaela Szykman Gunther
  • Michael J. Somers
  • David E. Wildt
  • Michele Walters
  • Amy S. Wilson
  • Jesús E. Maldonado
Research Article

Abstract

It is crucial to understand the genetic health and implications of inbreeding in wildlife populations, especially of vulnerable species. Using extensive demographic and genetic data, we investigated the relationships among pedigree inbreeding coefficients, metrics of molecular heterozygosity and fitness for a large population of endangered African wild dogs (Lycaon pictus) in South Africa. Molecular metrics based on 19 microsatellite loci were significantly, but modestly correlated to inbreeding coefficients in this population. Inbred wild dogs with inbreeding coefficients of ≥0.25 and subordinate individuals had shorter lifespans than outbred and dominant contemporaries, suggesting some deleterious effects of inbreeding. However, this trend was confounded by pack-specific effects as many inbred individuals originated from a single large pack. Despite wild dogs being endangered and existing in small populations, findings within our sample population indicated that molecular metrics were not robust predictors in models of fitness based on breeding pack formation, dominance, reproductive success or lifespan of individuals. Nonetheless, our approach has generated a vital database for future comparative studies to examine these relationships over longer periods of time. Such detailed assessments are essential given knowledge that wild canids can be highly vulnerable to inbreeding effects over a few short generations.

Keywords

Endangered Heterozygosity-fitness correlation Inbreeding Lifespan Lycaon pictus 

References

  1. Acevedo-Whitehouse K, Gulland F, Greig D, Amos W (2003) Inbreeding: disease susceptibility in California sea lions. Nature 422:35PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexander KA, Appel MJG (1994) African wild dogs (Lycaon pictus) endangered by a canine distemper virus epizootic among domestic dogs near the Masai Mara National Reserve, Kenya. J Wildl Dis 30:481–485PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Amos W, Wilmer JW, Fullard K et al (2001) The influence of parental relatedness on reproductive success. Proc R Soc Lond B 268:2021–2027CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aparicio JM, Ortego J, Cordero PJ (2007) Can a simple algebraic analysis predict markers-genome heterozygosity correlations? J Hered 98:93–96PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Asa C, Miller P, Agnew M et al (2007) Relationship of inbreeding with sperm quality and reproductive success in Mexican gray wolves. Anim Conserv 10:326–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Balloux F, Amos W, Coulson T (2004) Does heterozygosity estimate inbreeding in real populations? Mol Ecol 13:3021–3031PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bensch S, Andren H, Hansson B et al (2006) Selection for heterozygosity gives hope to a wild population of inbred wolves. PLoS One 1:e72PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bolker BM, Brooks ME, Clark CJ, Geange SW, Poulsen JR, Stevens MHH, White JS (2008) Generalized linear mixed models: a practical guide for ecology and evolution. Trends Ecol Evol 24:127–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Buettner UK, Davies-Mostert HT, du Toit JT, Mills MGL (2007) Factors affecting juvenile survival in African wild dogs (Lycaon pictus) in Kruger National Park, South Africa. J Zool (Lond) 272:10–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretical approach, 2nd edn. Springer-Verlag, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Charpentier MJE, Williams CV, Drea CM (2008) Inbreeding depression in ring-tailed lemurs (Lemur catta): genetic diversity predicts parasitism, immunocompetence and survivorship. Conserv Genet 9:1605–1615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cleaveland S, Appel MJG, Chalmers WSK, Chillingworth C, Kaare M, Dye C (2000) Serological and demographic evidence for domestic dogs as a source of canine distemper virus infection for Serengeti wildlife. Vet Microbiol 72:217–227PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Coltman D, Slate J (2003) Microsatellite measures of inbreeding: a meta-analysis. Evolution 57:971–983PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Coltman DW, Pilkington JG, Smith JA, Pemberton JM (1999) Parasite-mediated selection against inbred Soay sheep in a free-living, island population. Evolution 53:1259–1267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cornuet JM, Luikart G (1996) Description and power analysis of two tests for detecting recent population bottlenecks from allele frequency data. Genetics 144:2001–2014PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Coulson T, Pemberton JM, Albon S et al (1998) Microsatellites reveal heterosis in red deer. Proc R Soc Lond B 265:489–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Coulson T, Albon S, Slate J, Pemberton JM (1999) Microsatellite loci reveal sex-dependent responses to inbreeding and outbreeding in red deer calves. Evolution 53:1951–1960CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Courchamp F, Grenfell B, Clutton-Brock T (1999) Population dynamics of obligate cooperators. Proc R Soc Lond B 266:557–563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Creel S, Creel NM (2002) The African wild dog: behavior, ecology and conservation. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  20. DaSilva A, Luikart G, Yoccoz NG, Cohas A, Allaine D (2006) Genetic diversity-fitness correlation revealed by microsatellite analyses in European marmots (Marmota marmota). Conserv Genet 7:371–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Davies-Mostert HT, Mills MGL, Macdonald DW (2009) A critical assessment of South Africa’s managed metapopulation recovery strategy for African wild dogs. In: Somers MJ, Hayward MW (eds) Reintroduction of top-order predators. Wiley-Blackwell, LondonGoogle Scholar
  22. Fitzpatrick JL, Evans JP (2009) Reduced heterozygosity impairs sperm quality in endangered mammals. Biol Lett 25:320–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Frankham R (2009) Genetic considerations in reintroduction programmes for large terrestrial predators. In: Somers MJ, Hayward MW (eds) Reintroduction of top-order predators. Wiley-Blackwell, LondonGoogle Scholar
  24. Frankham R, Ballou JD, Briscoe DA (2002) Introduction to conservation genetics. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  25. Fredrickson RJ, Siminski P, Woolf M, Hedrick P (2007) Genetic rescue and inbreeding depression in Mexican wolves. Proc R Soc Lond B 274:2365–2371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gascoyne SC, Laurenson MK, Lelo S, Borner M (1993) Rabies in African wild dogs (Lycaon pictus) in the Serengeti region, Tanzania. J Wildl Dis 29:396–402PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Girman JG, Mills MGL, Geffen E, Wayne RK (1997) A molecular genetic analysis of social structure, dispersal and interpack relationships of the African wild dog (Lycaon pictus). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 40:187–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Girman DJ, Vila C, Geffen E et al (2001) Patterns of population subdivisión, gene flow and genetic variability in the African wild dog (Lycaon pictus). Mol Ecol 10:1703–1723PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Grafen A (1982) How not to measure inclusive fitness. Nature 298:425–426PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Grueber CE, Wallis GP, Jamieson IG (2008) Heterozygosity-fitness correlations and their relevance to studies on inbreeding depression in threatened species. Mol Ecol 17:3978–3984PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gusset M, Slotow R, Somers MJ (2006) Divided we fail: the importance of social integration for the re-introduction of endangered African wild dogs (Lycaon pictus). J Zool (Lond) 270:502–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hansson B, Westerberg L (2008) Heterozygosity-fitness correlations within inbreeding classes: local or genome-wide effects? Conserv Genet 9:73–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hedrick P, Fredrickson R (2008) Captive breeding and the reintroduction of Mexican and red wolves. Mol Ecol 17:344–350PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hedrick P, Fredricskon R, Ellegren H (2001) Evaluation of mean d2, a microsatellite measure of inbreeding and outbreeding, in wolves with a known pedigree. Evolution 55:1256–1260PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Jensen H, Bremset EM, Ringsby TH, Saether BE (2007) Multilocus heterozygosity and inbreeding depression in an insular house sparrow metapopulation. Mol Ecol 16:4066–4078PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kalinowski S, Hedrick PW (1999) Detecting inbreeding depression is difficult in captive endangered species. Anim Conserv 2:131–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Keller LF (1998) Inbreeding and its fitness effects in an insular population of song sparrows (Melospiza melodia). Evolution 52:240–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Keller LF, Waller DM (2002) Inbreeding effects in wild populations. Trends Ecol Evol 17:230–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Laikre L, Ryman N (1991) Inbreeding depression in a captive wolf (Canis lupus) population. Conserv Biol 5:33–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Liberg O, Andren H, Pedersen HC et al (2005) Severe inbreeding depression in a wild wolf population. Biol Lett 1:17–20PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lindsey P, du Toit JT, Mills MGL (2004) The distribution and population status of African wild dogs (Lycaon pictus) outside protected areas in South Africa. S Afr J Wildl Res 34:143–161Google Scholar
  42. Marsden CD, Mable BK, Woodroffe R et al (2009) Highly endangered African wild dogs (Lycaon pictus) lack variation at the major histocompatibility complex. J Hered. doi: 10.1093/jhered/esp031
  43. McNutt JW (1996) Sex-biased dispersal in African wild dogs, Lycaon pictus. Anim Behav 52:1067–1077CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. McNutt JW, Silk JB (2008) Pup production, sex ratios, and survivorship in African wild dogs, Lycaon pictus. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 62:1061–1067CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Mills MGL, Ellis S, Woodroffe R et al (1998) Population and habitat viability assessment for the African wild dog (Lycaon pictus) in Southern Africa. Conservation Breeding Specialist Group. IUCN/Species Survival Commission, Apple ValleyGoogle Scholar
  46. O’Brien SJ, Evermann JF (1988) Interactive influence of infectious disease and genetic diversity in natural populations. Trends Ecol Evol 3:254–259PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. O’Grady J, Reed DH, Brook BW, Frankham R (2008) Extinction risk scales better to generations than to years. Anim Conserv 11:442–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Raikkonen J, Bignert A, Mortensen P, Fernholm B (2006) Congenital defects in a highly inbred wild wolf population (Canis lupus). Mamm Biol 71:65–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Ralls K, Brugger K, Ballou J (1979) Inbreeding and juvenile mortality in small populations of ungulates. Science 206:1101–1103PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Slate J, David P, Dodds KG et al (2004) Understanding the relationship between the inbreeding coefficient and multilocus heterozygosity: theoretical expectations and empirical data. Heredity 93:255–265PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Somers M, Maddock A (1999) Painted dogs of Zululand. Afr Wildl 53:24–26Google Scholar
  52. Somers MJ, Graf JA, Szykman M, Slotow R, Gusset M (2008) Dynamics of a small re-introduced population of endangered wild dogs over 25 years: Allee effects and the implications of sociality for conservation. Oecologia 158:239–247PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Spiering PA, Szykman Gunther M, Wildt DE, Somers MJ, Maldonado JE (2009) Sampling error in non-invasive genetic analyses of an endangered social carnivore. Conserv Genet 10:2005–2007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Spiering PA, Somers MJ, Maldonado JE, Wildt DE, Szykman Gunther M (2010) Reproductive sharing and proximate factors mediating cooperative breeding in the African wild dog (Lycaon pictus). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 64:583–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Szulkin M, Bierne N, David P (2010) Heterozygosity-fitness correlations: a time for reappraisal. Evolution 64:1202–1217PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Valdes AM, Slatkin M, Freimer NB (1993) Allele frequencies at microsatellite loci: the stepwise mutation model revisited. Genetics 133:737–749PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Woodroffe R, Ginsberg JR, Macdonald DW (1997) The African wild dog-status survey and conservation action plan. IUCN, GlandGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Penny A. Spiering
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Micaela Szykman Gunther
    • 2
    • 4
  • Michael J. Somers
    • 3
    • 5
  • David E. Wildt
    • 2
  • Michele Walters
    • 3
    • 6
    • 7
  • Amy S. Wilson
    • 1
  • Jesús E. Maldonado
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for Conservation and Evolutionary GeneticsSmithsonian Conservation Biology Institute, National Zoological ParkWashingtonUSA
  2. 2.Center for Species SurvivalSmithsonian Conservation Biology Institute, National Zoological ParkFront RoyalUSA
  3. 3.Centre for Wildlife ManagementUniversity of PretoriaPretoriaSouth Africa
  4. 4.Department of WildlifeHumboldt State UniversityArcataUSA
  5. 5.Centre for Invasion BiologyUniversity of PretoriaPretoriaSouth Africa
  6. 6.Biosystematics Research & Biodiversity Collections DivisionSouth African National Biodiversity InstitutePretoriaSouth Africa
  7. 7.Council for Scientific and Industrial ResearchNatural Resources and the EnvironmentPretoriaSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations