Conservation Genetics

, Volume 19, Issue 4, pp 789–802 | Cite as

Maintenance of genetic variation in quantitative traits of a woodland rodent during generations of captive breeding

  • Robert C. Lacy
  • Aurelio F. Malo
  • Glen Alaks
Research Article


Breeding programs to conserve diversity are predicated on the assumption that genetic variation in adaptively important traits will be lost in parallel to the loss of variation at neutral loci. To test this assumption, we monitored quantitative traits across 18 generations of Peromyscus leucopus mice propagated with protocols that mirror breeding programs for threatened species. Ears, hind feet, and tails became shorter, but changes were reversible by outcrossing and therefore were due to accumulated inbreeding. Heritability of ear length decreased, because of an increase in phenotypic variance rather than the expected decrease in additive genetic variance. Additive genetic variance in hind foot length increased. This trait initially had low heritability but large dominance or common environmental variance contributing to resemblance among full-sibs. The increase in the additive component indicates that there was conversion of interaction variances to additive variance. For no trait did additive genetic variation decrease significantly across generations. These findings indicate that the restructuring of genetic variance that occurs with genetic drift and novel selection in captivity can prevent or delay the loss of phenotypic and heritable variation, providing variation on which selection can act to adapt populations to captivity and perhaps later to readapt to more natural habitats after release. Therefore, the importance of minimizing loss of gene diversity from conservation breeding programs for threatened wildlife species might lie in preventing immediate reduction in individual fitness due to inbreeding and protecting allelic diversity for long-term evolutionary change, more so than in protecting variation in quantitative traits for rapid re-adaptation to wild environments.


Adaptation to captivity Morphology Heritability Genetic variance Inbreeding Conservation Conversion of genetic variation Peromyscus leucopus 



Allison Walsh was an essential contributor to this project, assisting with study design and lab management, and providing animal care and data collection, until her tragic death in the middle of the study. Funding was provided by the Chicago Zoological Society, the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, and the Institute of Museum and Library Services. AFM was supported by a MEC/Fulbright fellowship (FU2005-0893).


  1. Allendorf FW, Luikart G, Aitken SN (2013) Conservation and the genetics of populations, 2nd edn. Wiley, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  2. 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 & recovery. analytical methods and strategies in small population conservation. Columbia University Press, New York, pp 76–111Google Scholar
  3. Ballou JD, Lees C, Faust LJ et al (2010) Demographic and genetic management of captive populations. In: Kleiman DG, Thompson KV, Baer CK (eds) Wild mammals in captivity: principles and techniques for zoo management, 2nd edn. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 219–252Google Scholar
  4. Bruford MW (2015) Additional population viability analysis of the scandinavian wolf population. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  5. Bryant EH, Meffert LM (1993) The effect of serial founder-flush cycles on quantitative genetic variation in the housefly. Heredity 70:122–129. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bryant EH, Meffert LM (1996) Nonadditive genetic structuring of morphometric variation in relation to a population bottleneck. Heredity 77:168–176. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bryant EH, McCommas SA, Combs LM (1986) The effect of an experimental bottleneck upon quantitative genetic variation in the housefly. Genetics 114:1191–1211PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Carroll SP, Watters JV (2008) Managing phenotypic variability with genetic and environmental heterogeneity: adaptation as a first principle of conservation practice. In: Carroll SP, Fox CW (eds) Conservation biology: evolution in action. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 181–198Google Scholar
  9. Cheverud JM, Vaughn TT, Pletscher LS et al (1999) Epistasis and the evolution of additive genetic variance in populations that pass through a bottleneck. Evolution 53:1009–1018. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Crnokrak P, Roff DA (1995) Dominance variance: associations with selection and fitness. Heredity 75:530–540. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Falconer DS, Mackay TFC (1996) Introduction to quantitative genetics, 4th Edn. Longman, HarlowGoogle Scholar
  12. Fernández J, Toro MA, Caballero A (2004) Managing individuals’ contributions to maximize the allelic diversity maintained in small, conserved populations. Conserv Biol 18:1358–1367. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Frankham R, Ballou JD, Briscoe DA (2010) Introduction to conservation genetics, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Frankham R, Ballou JD, Ralls K et al (2017) Genetic management of fragmented animal and plant populations. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Goodnight CJ (1988) Epistasis and the effect of founder events on the additive genetic variance. Evolution 42:441–454. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Hedrick PW (2012) What is the evidence for heterozygote selective advantage? Trends Ecol Evol 27:698–704. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Hill WG (1982) Predictions of response to artificial selection from new mutations. Genet Res 40:255–278CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Ivy JA, Lacy RC (2012) A comparison of strategies for selecting breeding pairs to maximize genetic diversity retention in managed populations. J Hered 103:186–196. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Kempthorne O, Tandon OB (1953) The estimation of heritability by regression of offspring on parent. Biometrics 9:90–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lacy RC (2009) Stopping evolution: Genetic management of captive populations. In: Amato G, DeSalle R, Ryder OA, Rosenbaum HC (Eds) Conservation genetics in the age of genomics. Columbia University Press, New York, pp 58–81Google Scholar
  21. Lacy RC, Ballou JD, Pollak JP (2012) PMx: Software package for demographic and genetic analysis and management of pedigreed populations. Methods Ecol Evol 3:433–437. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lacy RC, Alaks G, Walsh A (2013) Evolution of Peromyscus leucopus mice in response to a captive environment. PLoS ONE 8(8):e72452. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. Long S, Dorsey C, Boyle P (2011) Status of Association of Zoos and Aquariums cooperatively managed populations. WAZA Magazine 12:15–18Google Scholar
  24. Lopez-Fanjul C, Villaverde A (1989) Inbreeding increases genetic variance for viability in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution 43:1800–1804. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Lynch M, Walsh B (1998) Genetic analysis of quantitative traits. Sinauer Associates, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  26. Malo AF, Martinez-Pastor F, Alaks G, Dubach J, Lacy RC (2010) Effects of genetic captive-breeding protocols on sperm quality and fertility in the white-footed mouse. Biol Reprod 83:540–548. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Malo AF, Martinez-Pastor F, Garcia-Gonzalez F et al. (2017) A father effect explains sex-ratio bias in a small mammal. Proc R Soc B 20171159.
  28. O’Grady JJ, Brook BW, Reed DH et al (2006) Realistic levels of inbreeding depression strongly affect extinction risk in wild populations. Biol Conserv 133:42–51. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Powell SB, Newman HA, McDonald TA, Bugenhagen P, Lewis MH (2000) Development of spontaneous stereotyped behavior in deer mice: effects of early and late exposure to a more complex environment. Dev Psychobiol 37:100–108CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Reed DH, Frankham R (2001) How closely correlated are molecular and quantitative measures of genetic variation? A meta-analysis. Evolution 55:1095–1103. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Roff DA, Mousseau TA (1987) Quantitative genetics and fitness: lessons from Drosophila. Heredity 58:103–118. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Saccheri IJ, Nichols RA, Brakefield PM (2001) Effects of bottlenecks on quantitative genetic variation in the butterfly Bicyclus anynana. Genet Res 77:167–181. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Simmons MJ, Crow JF (1977) Mutations affecting fitness in Drosophila populations. Annu Rev Genet 11:49–78. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Sonesson AK, Meuwissen THE (2001) Minimization of rate of inbreeding for small populations with overlapping generations. Genet Res 77:285–292. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Taft HR, Roff DA (2012) Do bottlenecks increase additive genetic variance? Conserv Genet 13:333–342. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Van Heerwaarden B, Willi Y, Kristensen TN, Hoffmann AA (2008) Population bottlenecks increase additive genetic variance but do not break a selection limit in rain forest Drosophila. Genetics 179:2135–2146. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. Willis JH, Orr HA (1993) Increased heritable variation following population bottlenecks: The role of dominance. Evolution 47:949–957. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Willoughby JR, Fernandez NB, Lamb MC et al (2015) The impacts of inbreeding, drift, and selection on genetic diversity in captive breeding populations. Mol Ecol 24:98–110. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Willoughby JR, Ivy JA, Lacy RC, Doyle J, DeWoody JA (2017) Inbreeding and selection shape genomic diversity in captive populations: implications for the conservation of endangered species. PLoS ONE 12(4):e0175996. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. Wright S (1969) Evolution and the genetics of populations. vol. II. The theory of gene frequencies. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  41. Wright S (1977) Evolution and the genetics of populations. Experimental results and evolutionary deductions, Vol 3. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  42. Würbel H (2006) The motivational basis of caged rodents’ stereotypies. In: Mason G, Rushen J (eds) Stereotypic animal behavior. Fundamentals and applications to welfare. CAB International, Oxfordshire, pp 86–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Chicago Zoological SocietyBrookfieldUSA
  2. 2.Department of Life SciencesUniversidad de AlcaláAlcalá de HenaresSpain
  3. 3.Department of ZoologyUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations