Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The impact of assumptions about founder relationships on the effectiveness of captive breeding strategies

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Conservation Genetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Many breeding programs managed by zoos and aquariums employ strategies that minimize mean kinship as a way of retaining genetic diversity (MK strategies). MK strategies depend on accurate and complete pedigrees, but population founders are generally assumed to be unrelated and not inbred. This assumption was historically necessitated by the unavailability of data on founder relationships, but with DNA techniques it is sometimes now possible to estimate those relationships. We used computer simulations to investigate the impact of founder assumptions on the effectiveness of MK strategies. Individuals with known pedigrees were managed in groups of 10, 30, and 100 founders at two different rates of reproduction and two different degrees of founder relationship. The impact of assuming founders were unrelated was quantified by calculating the differences in gene diversity and inbreeding that were observed between simulations that used known relationships and simulations that assumed founders were unrelated. Results indicated that utilizing known relationships retained 0–2% more gene diversity over ten generations than assuming founders were unrelated, with specific results dependent on the conditions of a given scenario. Similar results were observed for inbreeding, with long-term levels of inbreeding being 0–2% lower when relationships were known. There were higher benefits to knowing founder relationships as reproductive rate increased, as well as when full-siblings were included in small groups of founders. Overall, however, long-term benefits gained from knowing founder relationships were generally small. Therefore, MK strategies probably often produce near optimal results when standard founder assumptions are made.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allendorf F (1986) Genetic drift and the loss of alleles versus heterozygosity. Zoo Biol 5:181–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ballou J (1983) Calculating inbreeding coefficients from pedigrees. In: Schonewald-Cox CM, Chambers SM, MacBryde B, Thomas WL (eds) Genetics and conservation: a reference for managing wild animal and plant populations. The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company Inc., Menlo Park

    Google Scholar 

  • Ballou JD, Lacy RC (1995) Identifying genetically important individuals for management of genetic diversity in pedigreed populations. In: Ballou JD, Gilpin M, Foose TJ (eds) Population management for survival and recovery. Columbia Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Blouin MS, Parsons M, Lacille V, Lotz S (1996) Use of microsatellite loci to classify individuals by relatedness. Mol Ecol 5:393–401

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Brock MK, White BN (1992) Application of DNA fingerprinting to the recovery program of the endangered Puerto Rican parrot. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 89:11121–11125

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ely JJ, Dye B, Frels WI et al (2005) Subspecies composition and founder contribution of the captive U.S. chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) population. Am J Primatol 67:223–241

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Falconer DS (1981) Introduction to quantitative genetics, 2nd edn. Longman Inc., New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Fernandez J, Toro MA (1999) The use of mathematical programming to control inbreeding in selection schemes. J Anim Breed Genet 116:447–466

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foose TJ, Ballou JD (1988) Population management: theory and practice. Int Zoo Yearb 27:26–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gautschi B, Jacob G, Negro JJ et al (2003) Analysis of relatedness and determination of the source of founders in the captive bearded vulture, Gypaetus barbatus, population. Conserv Genet 4:479–490

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Geyer CJ, Ryder OA, Chemnick LG, Thompson EA (1993) Analysis of relatedness in the California condors, from DNA fingerprints. Mol Biol Evol 10:571–589

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Glaubitz JC, Rhodes EO Jr, DeWoody JA (2003) Prospects for inferring pairwise relationships with single nucleotide polymorphisms. Mol Ecol 12:1039–1047

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Haig SM, Ballou JD, Casna NJ (1994) Identification of kin structure among Guam rail founders: a comparison of pedigrees and DNA profiles. Mol Ecol 3:109–119

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Haig SM, Ballou JD, Casna NJ (1995) Genetic identification of kin in Micronesian kingfishers. J Hered 86:423–431

    Google Scholar 

  • Hedrick PW, Miller P (1992) Conservation genetics: theory and management of captive populations. In: Sandlund OT, Hindar K, Brown AHD (eds) Conservation of biodiversity for sustainable development. Scandinavian University Press, Oslo

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones KL, Glenn TC, Lacy RC et al (2002) Refining the whooping crane studbook by incorporating microsatellite DNA and leg-banding analyses. Conserv Biol 16:789–799

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lacy RC (1994) Managing genetic diversity in captive populations of animals. In: Bowles ML, Whelan CJ (eds) Restoration and recovery of endangered plants and animals. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Lacy RC (1995) Clarification of genetic terms and their use in the management of captive populations. Zoo Biol 14:565–578

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lynch M (1988) Estimation of relatedness by DNA fingerprinting. Mol Biol Evol 5:584–599

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lynch M, Ritland K (1999) Estimation of pairwise relatedness with molecular markers. Genetics 152:1753–1766

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Montgomery ME, Ballou JD, Nurthen RK et al (1997) Minimizing kinship in captive breeding programs. Zoo Biol 16:377–389

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nei M (1973) Analysis of gene diversity in subdivided populations. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 70:3321–3323

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Piper WH, Rabenold PP (1992) Use of fragment-sharing estimates from DNA fingerprinting to determine relatedness in a tropical wren. Mol Ecol 1:69–78

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ramirez O, Altet L, Ensenat C et al (2006) Genetic assessment of the Iberian wolf Canis lupus signatus captive breeding program. Conserv Genet 7:861–878

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russello A, Amato G (2004) Ex situ population management in the absence of pedigree information. Mol Ecol 13:2829–2840

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Toro M, Silio L, Rodriganez J et al (1999) Optimal use of genetic markers in conservation programmes. Genet Sel Evol 31:255–261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willis K (1993) Use of animals with unknown ancestries in scientifically managed breeding programs. Zoo Biol 12:161–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willis K, Wiese RJ (1993) Effect of new founders on retention of gene diversity in captive populations: a formalization of the nucleus population concept. Zoo Biol 12:535–548

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright S (1969) Evolution and the genetics of populations, Vol. II: the theory of gene frequencies. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Jean Dubach, Jason Watters, and the members of the Small Population Management Advisory Group for the Association of Zoos and Aquariums for their input into the development of this project. We would also like to thank Jessica Whitham for her helpful comments on earlier versions of this manuscript. This project was funded by the Institute of Museum and Library Services.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Conservation Science, Chicago Zoological Society, 3300 Golf Road, Brookfield, IL, 60513-1060, USA

    Jamie A. Rudnick & Robert C. Lacy

Authors
  1. Jamie A. Rudnick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Robert C. Lacy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jamie A. Rudnick.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rudnick, J.A., Lacy, R.C. The impact of assumptions about founder relationships on the effectiveness of captive breeding strategies. Conserv Genet 9, 1439–1450 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10592-007-9472-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10592-007-9472-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation