Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Relationships between population size and loss of genetic diversity: comparisons of experimental results with theoretical predictions

  • Published:
Conservation Genetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Preservation of genetic diversity is of fundamental concern toconservation biology, as genetic diversity is required for evolutionarychange. Predictions of neutral theory are used to guide conservationactions, especially genetic management of captive populations ofendangered species. Loss of heterozygosity is predicted to be inverselyrelated to effective population size. However, there is controversy asto whether allozymes behave as predicted by this theory. Loss of geneticdiversity for seven allozyme loci, chromosome II inversions andmorphological mutations was investigated in 23 Drosophilamelanogaster populations, maintained at effective population sizesof 25 (8 replicates), 50 (6), 100 (4), 250 (3) and 500 (2) for 50generations. Allozyme genetic diversity (heterozygosity, percentpolymorphism and allelic diversity), inversions and morphologicalmutations were all lost at greater rates in smaller than largerpopulations. Conservation concerns about loss of genetic diversity insmall populations are clearly warranted. Across our populations, loss ofallozyme heterozygosity over generations 0–24, 0–49 and25–49 did not differ from the predictions of neutral theory. Thetrend in deviations was always in the direction expected withassociative overdominance. Our results support the use of neutral theoryto guide conservation actions, such as the genetic management ofendangered species in captivity.

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.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ayala FJ, Campbell CA (1974) Frequency-dependent selection. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst., 5, 115–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ballou JD, Foose TJ (1996) Demographic and genetic management of captive populations. In: Wild Animals in Captivity: Principles and Techniques (eds. Kleiman DG, Allen ME, Thompson KV, Lumpkin S), pp. 263–283. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ballou J, Lacy RC (1995) Identifying genetically important individuals for management of genetic diversity in pedigreed populations. In: Population Management for Survival and Recovery: Analytical Methods and Strategies in Small Population Conservation (eds. Ballou J, Gilpin M, Foose T), pp. 76–111. Columbia University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Begun DJ, Aquadro CF (1992) Levels of naturally occurring DNA polymorphism correlate with recombination rates in D. melanogaster. Nature 356, 519–520.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Borlase SC, Loebel DA, Frankham R, Nurthen RK, Briscoe DA, Daggard GE (1993) Modeling problems in conservation genetics using captive Drosophila populations: consequences of equalization of family sizes. Conserv. Biol., 7, 122–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Briscoe DA, Malpica JM, Robertson A, Smith GJ, Frankham R, Banks RG, and Barker JSF (1992) Rapid loss of genetic variation in large captive populations of Drosophila flies: Implications for the genetic management of captive populations. Conserv. Biol., 6, 416–425.

    Google Scholar 

  • Briton J, Nurthen RK, Briscoe DA, Frankham R (1994) Modelling problems in conservation genetics using captive Drosophila populations: Consequences of harems. Biol. Conserv., 69, 267–275.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brookfield JFY, Sharp PM (1994) Neutralism and selectionism face up to DNA data. Trend. Genet., 10, 109–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown A, Young A, Burdon J, Cristidis L, Clarke G, Coates D, Sherwin W (1997) Genetic Indicators for State of the Environment Reporting. Australia: State of the Environment Technical Paper Series (Environmental Indicators). Department of Environment, Sport and Territories, Canberra, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crow JF, Kimura M (1970) An Introduction to Population Genetics Theory. Harper & Row, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cruden D (1949) The computation of inbreeding coefficients in closed populations. J. Hered., 40, 248–251.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobzhansky T, Pavlovsky O (1957) An experimental study of the interaction between genetic drift and natural selection. Evolution, 11, 311–319.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobzhansky T, Ayala FJ, Stebbins GL, and Valentine JW (1977) Evolution. W.H. Freeman, San Francisco.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellstrand NC, Elam DR (1993) Population genetic consequences of small population size: Implications for plant conservation. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst., 24, 217–242.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eriksson K, Halkka O, Lokki J, Saura A (1976) Enzyme polymorphism in feral, outbred and inbred rats (Rattus norvegicus). Heredity, 37, 341–349.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Falconer DS, Mackay TFC (1996) Introduction to Quantitative Genetics, 4th edn. Longman, Harlow, England.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitch WM, Atchley WR (1985) Evolution in inbred strains of mice appears rapid. Science, 228, 1169–1175.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Frankel OH, Soulé ME (1981) Conservation and Evolution. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frankham R (1995a) Conservation genetics. Annu. Rev. Genet., 29, 305–327.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Frankham R (1995b) Effective population size / adult population size ratios in wildlife: a review. Genet. Res., 66, 95–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frankham R (1996) Relationship of genetic variation to populations size in wildlife. Conserv. Biol., 10, 1500–1508.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frankham R (2000) Modeling problems in conservation genetics using laboratory animals. In: Quantitative Methods in Conservation Biology (eds. Ferson S, Burgman M), pp. 259–273. Springer-Verlag, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frankham R, Manning H, Margan SH, David A. Briscoe DA (2000) Does equalisation of family sizes reduce genetic adaptation to captivity? Animal Conservation (in press).

  • Franklin IR (1980) Evolutionary change in small populations. In: Conservation Biology: An Evolutionary Ecological Perspective (eds. Soulé, ME, Wilcox BA), pp. 135–149. Sinauer, Sunderland, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gillespie JH (1991) The Causes of Molecular Evolution. Oxford University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hey J (1999) The neutralist, the fly and the selectionist. Trends Ecol. Evol., 14, 35–38.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmann AA, Parsons PA (1991) Evolutionary Genetics and Environmental Stress. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karl SA, Avise JC (1992) Balancing selection at allozyme loci in oysters: Implications from nuclear RFLPs. Science 256, 100–102.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kimura M (1983) The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kreitman M (1996) The neutral theory is dead. Long live the neutral theory. BioEssays, 18, 678–683.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kreitman M, Akashi H (1995) Molecular evidence for natural selection. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst., 26, 403–422.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latter BDH. (1998) Mutant alleles of small effect are primarily responsible for the loss of fitness with slow inbreeding in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 148, 1143–1158.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Latter BDH, Mulley JC, Reid D, Pascoe L (1995) Reduced genetic load revealed by slow inbreeding in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 139, 287–297.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Leberg PL (1992) Effects of population bottlenecks on genetic diversity as measured by allozyme electrophoresis. Evolution 46, 477–494.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewontin RC (1974) The Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change. Columbia University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindsley DL, Zimm GG (1992) The Genome of Drosophila melanogaster. Academic Press, San Diego.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNeely JA, Miller KR, Reid WV, Mittermeier RA, Werner TB (1990) Conserving the World's Biological Diversity. IUCN, World Resources Institute, Conservation International, WWFUS and the World Bank, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mina, NS, Sheldon, BL, Yoo BH, Frankham R (1991) Heterozygosity at protein loci in inbred and outbred lines of chickens. Poult. Sci., 70, 1864–1872.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nei M, Graur D (1984) Extent of protein polymorphism and the neutral mutation theory. Evol. Biol., 17, 73–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nevo E, Bieles A, Ben-Shlomo R (1984) The evolutionary significance of genetic diversity: ecological, demographic and life history correlates. In: Evolutionary Dynamics of Genetic Diversity (ed. Mani GS), pp. 13–213. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ohta T (1992) The near neutral theory of molecular evolution. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst., 23, 263–286.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ohta T (1996) The current significance and standing of neutral and near neutral theories. BioEssays, 18, 673–677.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pogson GH, Zouros E (1994) Allozyme and RFLP heterozygosities as correlates of growth rate in the scallop Placopecten magellanicus: a test of the associative overdominance hypothesis. Genetics 137, 221–231.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Raybould AF, Mogg RJ, CLarke RT (1996) The genetic structure of Beta vulgaris ssp. maritime (sea beet) populations: RFLPs and isozymes show different patterns of gene flow. Heredity, 77, 245–250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richardson BJ, Baverstock PR, Adams M (1986) Allozyme Electrophoresis: A Handbook for Animal Systematics and Population Studies. Academic Press, Sydney, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robertson A (1962) Selection for heterozygotes in small populations. Genetics, 47, 1291–1300.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rumball W, Franklin IR, Frankham R, Sheldon BL (1994) Decline in heterozygosity under full-sib and double first-cousin inbreeding in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics, 136, 1039–1049.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan BF, Joiner BL (1994) MINITAB Handbook, 3rd edn. Duxbury Press, Belmont, California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Satta Y, O'Huigin C, Takahata N, Klein J. (1994) Intensity of natural selection at the major histocompatibility complex loci. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 91, 7184–7188.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sing CF, Brewer GJ, Thirtle B (1973) Inherited biochemical variation in Drosophila melanogaster: Noise or signal? I. Singlelocus analyses. Genetics, 75, 381–404.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Soulé ME (1976) Allozyme variation, its determinants in space and time. In: Molecular Evolution (ed. Ayala FJ), pp. 60–77. Sinauer, Sunderland, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soulé ME, Gilpin M, Conway W, Foose T (1986) The millenium ark: how long a voyage, how many staterooms, how many passengers? Zoo Biol., 5, 101–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strauss SH (1986) Heterosis at allozyme loci under inbreeding and crossbreeding in Pinus attenuata. Genetics, 113, 115–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodworth LM (1996) Population Size in Captive Breeding Programs. PhD thesis, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodworth LM, Montgomery ME, Nurthen RK, Briscoe DA, Frankham R (1994) Modelling problems in conservation genetics using Drosophila: consequences of fluctuating population sizes. Mol. Ecol., 3, 393–399.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wright S (1931) Evolution in Mendelian populations. Genetics, 16, 97–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yeh FC, Scheinberg E (1972) Inbreeding as a control of biochemical polymorphism in populations of Tribolium castaneum. Can. J. Genet. Cytol., 14, 741.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Key Centre for Biodiversity and Bioresources, Department of Biological Sciences, Macquarie University, NSW, 2109, Australia

    Margaret E. Montgomery, Lynn M. Woodworth, Roderick K. Nurthen, Dean M. Gilligan & David A. Briscoe

  2. Key Centre for Biodiversity and Bioresources, Department of Biological Sciences, Macquarie University, NSW, 2109, Australia;

    Richard Frankham

Authors
  1. Margaret E. Montgomery
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lynn M. Woodworth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Roderick K. Nurthen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Dean M. Gilligan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. David A. Briscoe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Richard Frankham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richard Frankham.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Montgomery, M.E., Woodworth, L.M., Nurthen, R.K. et al. Relationships between population size and loss of genetic diversity: comparisons of experimental results with theoretical predictions. Conservation Genetics 1, 33–43 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010173401557

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010173401557

Search

Navigation