Conservation Genetics

, 6:623 | Cite as

Conservation corridors affect the fixation of novel alleles

Article

Abstract

Corridors are a popular tool for conservation of small populations. However, two purported benefits of corridors, increasing gene flow and providing a means for the recolonization of extinct patches of habitat (population rescue), may have unappreciated impacts on the likelihood that a new allele will become incorporated (fixed) within a population. Using a simulation model, I demonstrate that connecting a stable, isolated population with a population that requires periodic rescue (due to extinction via natural or anthropogenic disturbance) can affect fixation of alleles in the stable population, largely by changing the effective population size Ne of the two-patch complex. When disturbance is rare, connecting the two patches with corridors can increase fixation of beneficial alleles and increase loss of harmful alleles. However, the opposite occurs when rates of disturbance are high: corridors can promote fixation of harmful alleles and reduce fixation of beneficial alleles. Because the impact of corridors hinges upon disturbance frequency (i.e. rate of population rescue), population growth rate, movement rates, and habitat quality, different species are likely to have different responses to corridor-mediated fixation, even if the species reside within the same ecological community. By changing fixation, corridors could thus either promote adaptation or extinction.

Keywords

conservation fixation mutation population rescue viability 

References

  1. Baker RR (1978) The Evolutional Ecology of Animal Migration. Hodder and Stoughton, LondonGoogle Scholar
  2. Blueweiss L, Fox H, Kudzma V, Nakashima D, Peters R, Sams S (1978) Relationships between body size and some life history parameters. Oecologia 37: 257–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bowne DR, Bowers MA (2004) Interpatch movements in spatially structured populations: a review. Land. Ecol. 19: 1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dobzhansky T (1970) Genetics of the Evolutionary Process. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Frankham R (1995) Conservation genetics. Ann. Rev. Genetics 29: 305–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Haddad NM, Bowne DR, Cunningham A, Danielson BJ, Levey DJ, Sargent S, Spira T (2003) Corridor use by diverse taxa. Ecology 84: 609–615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Haldane JBS (1927) A mathematical theory of natural and artificial selection. V. Selection and mutation. Proc. Cambridge Phil. Soc. 23: 838–844CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kimura M (1962) On the probability of fixation of mutant genes in a population. Genetics 47: 713–719PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Lynch M, Conery J, Bürger R. (1995) Mutation accumulation and the extinction of small populations. Am. Nat. 146: 489–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Maruyama T (1970) On the fixation probability of mutant genes in a subdivided population. Genet. Res. 15: 221–225PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Mech SG, Hallett JG (2001) Evaluating the effectiveness of corridors: a genetic approach. Cons. Biol. 15: 467–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Otto SP, Whitlock MC (1997) The probability of fixation in populations of changing size. Genetics 146: 723–733PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Pickett STA, White PS (1985) The Ecology of Natural Disturbance and Patch Dynamics. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Rosenberg DK, Noon BR, Meslow EC (1997) Biological corridors: form, function, and efficacy. Bioscience 47: 677–687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Skellam JG (1951) Random dispersal in theoretical populations. Biometrika 38:196–216PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Tewksbury JJ, Levey DJ, Haddad NM, Sargent S, Orrock JL, Weldon A, Danielson BJ, Brinkerhoff J, Damschen EI, Townsend P (2002) Corridors affect plants, animals, and their interactions in fragmented landscapes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 99: 12923–12926CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Whitlock MC (2003) Fixation probability and time in subdivided populations. Genetics 164: 767–779PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Whitlock MC, Barton NH (1997) The effective size of a metapopulation. Genetics 146: 427–441PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Interdepartmental Graduate ProgramIowa State UniversityAmes, IowaUSA
  2. 2.National Center for Ecological Analysis and SynthesisUniversity of CaliforniaSanta BarbaraUSA

Personalised recommendations