Advertisement

Conservation Genetics

, Volume 12, Issue 1, pp 257–268 | Cite as

Genetic consequences of trumpeter swan (Cygnus buccinator) reintroductions

  • Findley A. RanslerEmail author
  • Thomas W. Quinn
  • Sara J. Oyler-McCance
Research Article

Abstract

Relocation programs are often initiated to restore threatened species to previously occupied portions of their range. A primary challenge of restoration efforts is to translocate individuals in a way that prevents loss of genetic diversity and decreases differentiation relative to source populations—a challenge that becomes increasingly difficult when remnant populations of the species are already genetically depauperate. Trumpeter swans were previously extirpated in the entire eastern half of their range. Physical translocations of birds over the last 70 years have restored the species to portions of its historical range. Despite the long history of management, there has been little monitoring of the genetic outcomes of these restoration attempts. We assessed the consequences of this reintroduction program by comparing patterns of genetic variation at 17 microsatellite loci across four restoration flocks (three wild-released, one captive) and their source populations. We found that a wild-released population established from a single source displayed a trend toward reduced genetic diversity relative to and significant genetic differentiation from its source population, though small founder population effects may also explain this pattern. Wild-released flocks restored from multiple populations maintained source levels of genetic variation and lacked significant differentiation from at least one of their sources. Further, the flock originating from a single source revealed significantly lower levels of genetic variation than those established from multiple sources. The distribution of genetic variation in the captive flock was similar to its source. While the case of trumpeter swans provides evidence that restorations from multiple versus single source populations may better preserve natural levels of genetic diversity, more studies are needed to understand the general applicability of this management strategy.

Keywords

Translocation Reintroduction Trumpeter swan Microsatellite Conservation genetics Genetic diversity 

Abbreviations

PP

Pacific Population

RMP

Rocky Mountain Population

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the volunteers and staff from many state and federal agencies who helped collect both natural and reintroduced trumpeter swan samples with special thanks to W. Long, from the Wildlife Wetlands Society, and the late J. Johnson, from the Kellogg Bird Sanctuary. We thank J. St. John, J. Cornely, J. Dubovsky, P. Llambias, G. Ransler, P. Stevens, and the Harrison lab at Cornell for thoughtful comments on the manuscript. J. St. John also provided invaluable lab expertise. A. Coulon and R. Vallender gave helpful advice with some of the analysis programs. Funding for this project was provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Migratory Bird Program and the U.S. Geological Survey through its Science Support Program. Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

References

  1. Alison RM (1975) Some previously unpublished historical records of trumpeter swans in Ontario. Can Field Nat 89:311–313Google Scholar
  2. Banko WE (1960) The trumpeter swan: its history, habits, and populations in the United States. North American fauna. No. 63, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  3. Bellrose FC (1976) Ducks, geese, and swans of North America. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, USAGoogle Scholar
  4. Binks RM, Kennington WJ, Johnson MS (2007) Rapid evolutionary responses in a translocated population of intertidal snail (Bembicium vittatum) utilise variation from different source populations. Conserv Genet 8:1421–1429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Charlesworth D, Charlesworth B (1987) Inbreeding depression and its evolutionary consequences. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 18:237–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Comeau-Kingfisher S, Koerner T (2005) Management plan for the High Plains trumpeter swan flock. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Lacreek National Wildlife Refuge, Martin, SD. Unpublished reportGoogle Scholar
  7. Comeau-Kingfisher S, Vrtiska M (2007) Fall Trumpeter Swan Survey of the High Plains flock. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Lacreek National Wildlife Refuge, Martin, SD. Unpublished reportGoogle Scholar
  8. Engelhardt KAM, Kadlec JA, Roy VL, Powell JA (2000) Evaluation of translocation criteria: case study with trumpeter swans. Biol Conserv 94:173–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Evanno G, Regnaut S, Goudet J (2005) Detecting the number of clusters of individuals using the software STRUCTURE: a simulation study. Mol Ecol 4:2611–2620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Excoffier L, Laval LG, Schneider S (2005) ARLEQUIN ver 3.0: an integrated software package for population genetic data analysis. Evol Bioinform Online 1:47–50PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Falush D, Stephens M, Pritchard JK (2003) Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data: linked loci and correlated allele frequencies. Genetics 164:1567–1587PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Fischer J, Lindenmayer DB (2000) An assessment of the published results of animal relocations. Biol Conserv 96:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Frankham R (1996) Relationship of genetic variation to population size in wildlife. Conserv Biol 10:1500–1508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Frankham R, Ballou JD, Briscoe DA (2002) Introduction to conservation genetics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  15. Gillette LN, Linck MH (2004) Population status and management options for the Interior Population of trumpeter swans. In: Weaver DE, Linck MH, Shea RE (eds) North American swans: bulletin of the Trumpeter Swan Society, vol 32. pp 139–144Google Scholar
  16. Goudet J (1995) F-STAT version 1–2: a computer program to calculate F-statistics. J Hered 86:485–486Google Scholar
  17. Griffith B, Scott MJ, Carpenter JW, Reed C (1989) Translocation as a species conservation tool: status and strategy. Science 245:477–480CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. John J, Ransler F, Quinn TW, Oyler-McCance SJ (2006) Characterization of microsatellite loci isolated in trumpeter swan (Cygnus buccinator). Mol Ecol Notes 6:1038–1085CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Johnson JWC (2000) Interior Population of trumpeter swans: status, trends, management and research priorities. N Am Swans 29:24–31Google Scholar
  20. Kingfisher S, Vrtiska M (2005) Fall Trumpeter Swan Survey of the High Plains flock. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Lacreek National Wildlife Refuge, Martin, SD. Unpublished reportGoogle Scholar
  21. Lande R (1988) Genetics and demography in biological conservation. Science 241:1455–1460CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Latch EK, Rhodes OE Jr (2005) The effects of gene flow and population isolation on the genetic structure of reintroduced wild turkey populations: are genetic signatures of source populations retained? Conserv Genet 6:981–991CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Long W (2009) Trumpeter swan restoration. Cooperative Conservation America. http://www.cooperativeconservationamerica.org/viewproject.asp?pid=149. Accessed 23 June 2009
  24. Lynch M, Conery J, Burger R (1995) Mutation accumulation and the extinction of small populations. Am Nat 146:489–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Marsolais JV, White BN (1997) Genetic considerations for the reintroduction of trumpeter swans to Ontario. N Am Swans 26:18–22Google Scholar
  26. Matteson S, Craven S, Compton D (1995) The trumpeter swan. University of Wisconsin Cooperative Extension, Madison, USAGoogle Scholar
  27. Maudet C, Miller C, Bassano B, Breitenmoser-Würsten C, Gauthier D, Obexer-Ruff G, Michallet J, Taberlet P, Luikart G (2002) Microsatellite DNA and recent statistical methods in wildlife conservation management: applications in Alpine ibex [(Capra ibex (ibex)]. Mol Ecol 11:421–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Meng A, Carter RC, Parkin DT (1990) The variability of DNA fingerprints in three species of swan. Heredity 64:73–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mock KM, Latch EK, Rhodes OE Jr (2004) Assessing losses of genetic diversity due to translocations: long-term case histories in Merriam’s turkey (Meleagris gallopavo merriami). Conserv Genet 5:631–645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Monnie JB (1966) Reintroduction of the trumpeter swan to its former Prairie breeding range. J Wildl Manag 30:691–696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Moritz C (1994) Defining “Evolutionary Significant Units” for conservation. Trends Ecol Evol 9:373–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Moritz C (1999) Conservation units and translocations: strategies for conserving evolutionary processes. Hereditas 130:217–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Moser TJ (2006) The 2005 North American Trumpeter Swan Survey. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Denver, COGoogle Scholar
  34. Nei M (1987) Molecular evolutionary genetics. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. Nei M, Maruyama T, Chakraborty R (1975) The bottleneck effect and genetic variability in populations. Evolution 29:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Oyler-McCance SJ, John J, Taylor SE, Apa AD, Quinn TW (2005) Population genetics of Gunnison sage-grouse: implications for management. J Wildl Manag 69:630–637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Oyler-McCance SJ, Ransler FA, Berkman LK, Quinn TW (2006) A comparison of trumpeter swan populations using nuclear and mitochondrial genetic markers. Final report submitted to: US Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, COGoogle Scholar
  38. Oyler-McCance SJ, Ransler FA, Berkman LK, Quinn TW (2007) A range wide population genetic study of trumpeter swan. Conserv Genet 8:1339–1353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pelizza CA, Britten HB (2002) Isozyme analysis reveals genetic differences between three trumpeter swan populations. Waterbirds 25:355–359Google Scholar
  40. Pritchard JK, Stephens M, Donnelly P (2000) Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data. Genetics 155:945–959 (version 2.1)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Pritchard JK, Wen X, Falush D (2009) Documentation for STRUCTURE software: version 2.3. http://pritch.bsd.uchicago.edu/structure.html. Accessed 29 Jan 2010
  42. Raymond M, Rousset F (1995) GENEPOP population genetics software for exact tests and ecumenicism. J Hered 86:248–249Google Scholar
  43. Rice WR (1989) Analyzing tables of statistical tests. Evolution 43:223–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sigg DP (2006) Reduced genetic diversity and significant genetic differentiation after translocation: comparison of the remnant and translocated populations of bridled nail tail wallabies (Onychogalea fraenata). Conserv Genet 7:577–589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Stockwell CA, Mulvey M, Vinyard GL (1996) Translocations and the preservation of allelic diversity. Conserv Biol 10:1133–1141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2006) Trumpeter swan survey of the Rocky Mountain population—Winter 2006. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Migratory Birds and State Programs, Lakewood, USAGoogle Scholar
  47. Weir BS, Cockerham CC (1984) Estimating F-statistics for the analysis of population structure. Evolution 38:1358–1370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Williams CL, Serfass TL, Cogan R, Rhodes OE Jr (2002) Microsatellite variation in the reintroduced Pennsylvania elk herd. Mol Ecol 11:1299–1310CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Zeng Y, Jiang A, Li C (2007) Genetic variability in relocated Père’s deer (Elaphus davidianus) populations—implications to reintroduction program. Conserv Genet 8:1051–1059CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. (outside the USA) 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Findley A. Ransler
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Thomas W. Quinn
    • 1
  • Sara J. Oyler-McCance
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Biological Sciences, Rocky Mountain Center for Conservation Genetics and SystematicsUniversity of DenverDenverUSA
  2. 2.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyCornell UniversityIthacaUSA
  3. 3.U.S. Geological Survey, Fort Collins Science CenterFort CollinsUSA

Personalised recommendations