Conservation Genetics

, Volume 1, Issue 1, pp 3–15 | Cite as

Genetic variation and population structure in desert bighorn sheep: implications for conservation

  • Gustavo A. Gutiérrez-Espeleta
  • Steven T. Kalinowski
  • Walter M. Boyce
  • Philip W. HedrickEmail author


Bighorn sheep populations experienced a drastic reduction in both distribution and abundance until the advent of modern wildlife management, where improving viability of extant populations and translocating animals into historical habitat range have been the most important management policies. The fact that subspecies relationships among bighorn are ambiguous,together with the importance of selecting appropriate source stock and the expense of translocation projects, makes an understanding of subspecies relationships and genetic variation, within and between populations, important for the management and conservation of this species. In this study, genetic variation in 279 bighorn sheep from 13 study sites in Arizona, California, New Mexico and Alberta, Canada were examined by analyzing ten microsatellite loci to determine interpopulation differentiation and relationships between closely related taxa. All populations contained a substantial amount of genetic variation. Genetic differences between populations were large and roughly proportional to geographic distance. The significance of this to desert subspecies relationships and management is discussed.

bighorn sheep genetic distance microsatellites subspecies 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ashley MV, Dow BD (1994) The use of microsatellite analysis in population biology: background, methods, and potential applications. In: Molecular Ecology and Evolution: Approaches and Application (eds. Scherwater B, Strait B, Wagner GP, Desalle R), pp. 185–201. Birkhauser Verlag, Basel.Google Scholar
  2. Berger J (1990) Persistence of different sized populations: an empirical assessment of rapid extinctions in bighorn sheep. Cons. Biol., 4, 91–98.Google Scholar
  3. Bleich VC, Wehausen JD, Ramey RR, Rechel JL (1995) Metapopulation theory and mountain sheep: implications for conservation. In: Metapopulations and Wildlife Conservation Management (ed. McCullough D), pp. 353–373. Island Press, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  4. Boyce WM, Hedrick PW, Muggli-Cockett NE, Kalinowski S, Penedo MCT, Ramey RR (1997) Genetic variation of major histocompatibility complex and microsatellite loci: a comparison in bighorn sheep. Genetics, 145, 421–433.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown D (1993) Early history in the desert bighorn sheep in Arizona. In: Desert Bighorn Sheep (ed. Lee RM), pp. 1–9. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona.Google Scholar
  6. Buchanan FC, Littlejohn RP, Galloway SM, Crawford AM (1993) Microsatellite and associated repetitive elements in the sheep genome. Mammal. Genome, 4, 58–264.Google Scholar
  7. Buechner HK (1960) The bighorn sheep of the United States: its past, present and future. Wildlife Monogr., 4, 1–174.Google Scholar
  8. Cowan IM (1940) The distribution and variation in the native sheep of North America. Amer. Midl. Natur., 24, 505–580.Google Scholar
  9. Crawford AM, Montgomery GW, Pierson CA, Brown T, Dodds KG, Sunden SLF, Henry HM, Ede AJ, Swarbrick PA, Berryman T, Penty JM, Hill DF (1994) Sheep linkage mapping: nineteen linkage groups derived from the analysis of paternal half-sib families. Genetics, 137, 573–579.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. DeForge JR, Jenner CW, Plechner AP, Sudmeier GW (1979) Decline of bighorn sheep (Ovis Canadensis), the genetic implications. Desert Bighorn Coun. Trans., 23, 63–65.Google Scholar
  11. Environmental System Research Institute (ESRI) (1998) ARCVIEW 3.0a. Redlands, CA.Google Scholar
  12. Feldman MW, Bergman A, Pollock DD, Goldstein DB (1997) Microsatellite genetic distances with range constraints: analytic 15 description and problems of estimation. Genetics, 145, 207–216.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Felsenstein J (1993) PHYLIP- (phylogeny inference package), version 3.5c. University of Washington, Seattle.Google Scholar
  14. Forbes SH, Hogg JT, Buchanan FC, Crawford AM, Allendorf FW (1995) Microsatellite evolution in congeneric mammals: domestic and bighorn sheep. Molec. Biol. Evol., 12, 1106–1113.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Forbes SH, Hogg JT (1999) Assessing population structure at high levels of differentiation: microsatellite comparisons of bighorn sheep and large carnivores. Anim. Cons., 2, 223–233.Google Scholar
  16. Hedrick PW, Miller PS (1992) Conservation genetics: techniques and fundamentals. Ecol. Applic., 2, 30–46.Google Scholar
  17. Hedrick PW (1999) Perspective: highly variable loci and their interpretation in evolution and conservation. Evolution, 53, 313–318.Google Scholar
  18. Jarne P, Lagoda PJL (1996) Microsatellites, from molecules to populations and back. Trends Ecol. Evol., 11, 424–429.Google Scholar
  19. Jesup DA, Ramey RR (1995) Genetic variation of bighorn sheep as measured by blood protein electrophoresis. Desert Bighorn Coun. Trans. 39, 17–25.Google Scholar
  20. Lee RM (1998) The Desert Bighorn Sheep in The Wild Sheep Journal. Foundation for North American Wild Sheep. Cody, Wyoming, pp. 51–56.Google Scholar
  21. Mantel N (1967) The detection of disease clustering and a generalized regression approach. Cancer Res., 27, 209–220.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Monson G (1990) Distribution and abundance. In: The Desert Bighorn Sheep: Its Life History, Ecology and Management (eds. Monson G, Sumner L), pp. 40–51. Univ. Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona.Google Scholar
  23. Nauta MJ, Weissing FJ (1996) Constraints on allele size at microsatellite loci: implications for genetic differentiation. Genetics, 143, 1021–1032.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Nei M (1977) F-statistics and analysis of gene diversity in subdivided population. Annals Hum. Genet., 41, 225–233.Google Scholar
  25. Nei M (1987) Molecular Evolutionary Genetics. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  26. Ota T (1993) DISPAN: Genetic Distance and Phylogenetic Analysis. Institute of molecular evolutionary genetics. Pennsylvania State University.Google Scholar
  27. Ramey RR (1995) Mitochondrial DNA variation, population structure, and evolution of mountains sheep in the southwestern United States and Mexico. Mol. Ecol. 4, 429–439.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Raymond M, Rousset F (1995) GENEPOP 1.02: population genetics software for exact tests and ecumenicism. J. Hered., 86, 248–249.Google Scholar
  29. Rice WR (1989) Analyzing tables of statistical tests. Evolution, 43, 223–225.Google Scholar
  30. Rubin ES, Boyce WM, Jorgensen MC, Torres SG, Hayes CL, O'Brien CS, Jessup DA (1998) The distribution and abundance of bighorn sheep in the Peninsular Ranges, California. Wildlife Soc. Bull., 26, 539–551.Google Scholar
  31. Sambrook J, Fritsch FE, Maniatis T (1989) Molecular Cloning: A Laboratory Manual. Cold Spring Harbor Press, New York.Google Scholar
  32. Sausman KA (1984) Survival of captive-born Ovis Canadensis in North American zoos. Zoo Biol., 3, 111–121.Google Scholar
  33. Schwartz OA, Bleich VC, Holl SA (1986) Genetics and the conservation of mountain sheep Ovis canadensis nelsoni. Biol. Cons., 37, 179–190.Google Scholar
  34. Slatkin M (1995) A measure of population subdivision based on microsatellite allele frequencies. Genetics, 139, 457–462.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Smith TB, Wayne RK (eds.) (1996) Molecular Genetic Approaches in Conservation. Oxford Univ. Press, New York.Google Scholar
  36. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1995) Biometry, 3rd Ed., W. H. Freeman, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  37. Steffen P, Eggen A, Dietz AB, Womack JE, Stranzinger G, Fries R (1993) Isolation and mapping of polymorphic microsatellites in cattle. Anim. Genet., 24, 121–124.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Wehausen JD, Ramey RR (1993) A morphometric reevaluation of the peninsular bighorn subspecies. Desert Bighorn Coun. Trans., 37, 1–10.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gustavo A. Gutiérrez-Espeleta
    • 1
  • Steven T. Kalinowski
    • 1
  • Walter M. Boyce
    • 2
  • Philip W. Hedrick
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of BiologyArizona State UniversityTempeUSA;
  2. 2.Department of Veterinary Pathology, Microbiology, and ImmunologyUniversity of CaliforniaDavisUSA
  3. 3.Department of BiologyArizona State UniversityTempeUSA

Personalised recommendations