Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Effects of intense versus diffuse population bottlenecks on microsatellite genetic diversity and evolutionary potential

  • Published:
Conservation Genetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Population bottlenecks occur frequently inthreatened species and result in loss ofgenetic diversity and evolutionary potential.These may range in severity between shortintense bottlenecks, and more diffusebottlenecks over many generations. However,there is little information on the impacts ofdifferent types of bottlenecks and disagreementas to their likely impacts. To resolve thisissue, we subjected replicate Drosophilapopulations to intense bottlenecks, consistingof one pair over a single generation, versusdiffuse bottlenecks consisting of an effectivesize of 100 over 57 generations. The intenseand diffuse bottlenecks were designed to induceidentical losses of heterozygosity. However,computer simulations showed that theprobability of retaining alleles is lower inthe intense than the diffuse bottlenecktreatment. The effects of these bottlenecks ongenetic diversity at nine microsatellite lociin Drosophila were evaluated. Bottleneckssubstantially reduced allelic diversity,heterozygosity and proportion of locipolymorphic, changed allele frequencydistributions and resulted in large differencesamong replicate populations. Allelic diversity,scaled by heterozygosity, was lower in theintense than the diffuse treatments. Short-termevolutionary potential, measured as the abilityof bottlenecked populations to cope withincreasing concentrations of NaCl, did notdiffer between the intense and diffusebottlenecked populations. The effects ofbottlenecks on short-term evolutionarypotential relate to loss of heterozygosity,rather than allelic diversity.

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

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Ardern SL, Lambert DM (1997) Is the black robin in genetic peril? Mol. Ecol., 6, 21–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brook BW, Lim L, Harden R, Frankham R (1997) How secure is the Lord Howe Island woodhen? A population viability analysis using VORTEX. Pacific Conserv. Biol., 3, 125–133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruford MW, Wayne RK (1993) Microsatellites and their application to population genetic studies. Curr. Opin. Genet. Develop., 3, 939–943.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cornuet J-M, Luikart G (1996) Description and evaluation of two tests for detecting recent bottlenecks. Genetics, 144, 2001–2014.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Daszak P, Cunningham AA, Hyatt AD (2000) Emerging infectious diseases of wildlife–threats to biodiversity and human health. Science, 287, 443–449.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denniston C (1978) Small population size and genetic diversity implications for endangered species. In: Endangered Birds: Management Techniques for Preserving Threatened Species (ed. Temple SA), pp. 281–290. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison.

    Google Scholar 

  • England PR (1998) Conservation Genetics of Population Bottlenecks. PhD thesis, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.

  • England PR, Briscoe DA, Frankham R (1996) Microsatellite polymorphisms in a wild population of Drosophila melanogaster. Genet. Res. Camb., 67, 285–290.

    Google Scholar 

  • England PR, Osler GHR (2001) GENELOSS: A computer program for simulating the effects of population bottlenecks on genetic diversity. Molec. Ecol. Notes, 1, 111–113.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Frankham R, Ballou JD, Briscoe DA (2002) Introduction to Conservation Genetics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frankham R, Lees K, Montgomery ME, England PR, Lowe E, Briscoe DA (1999) Do population size bottlenecks reduce evolutionary potential? Anim. Conserv., 2, 255–260.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frankham R, Loebel DA (1992) Modeling problems in conservation genetics using captive Drosophila populations: Rapid genetic adaptation to captivity. Zoo Biol., 11, 333–342.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frankham R, Yoo BH, Sheldon BL (1988) Reproductive fitness and artificial selection in animal breeding: Culling on fitness prevents a decline in reproductive fitness in lines of Drosophila melanogaster selected for increased inebriation time. Theor. Appl. Genet., 76, 909–914.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franklin IR (1980) Evolutionary change in small populations. In: Conservation Biology: An Evolutionary-Ecological Perspective (eds. Soulé ME, Wilcox BA), pp. 135–150. Sinauer, Sunderland, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuerst PA, Maruyama T (1986) Considerations on the conservation of alleles and of genic heterozygosity in small managed populations. Zoo Biol., 5, 171–179.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein D, Clark AG (1995) Microsatellite variation in North American populations of Drosophila melanogaster. Nucleic Acids Res., 23, 3882–3886.

    Google Scholar 

  • Groombridge JJ, Jones CG, Bruford MW, Nichols RA (2000) ‘Ghost’ alleles of the Mauritius kestrel. Nature, 403, 616.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoelzel AR, Halley J, O'Brien SJ, Campagna C, Arnbom T, Le Boef B, Ralls K, Dover GA (1993) Elephant seal genetic variation and the use of simulation models to investigate historical population genetics. J. Hered., 84, 443–449.

    Google Scholar 

  • Houlden BA, England PR, Taylor, AC, Greville WD, Sherwin WB (1996). Low genetic variability of the koala Phascolarctos cinereus in south-eastern Australia following a severe population bottleneck. Molec. Ecol., 5, 269–281.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes L (2000) Biological consequences of global warming: is the signal already apparent? Trends. Ecol. Evol., 15, 56–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • James JW (1971) The founder effect and response to artificial selection. Genet. Res. Camb., 16, 241–250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kettlewell HBD (1973) The Evolution of Melanism. Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Luikart G, Allendorf FW, Cornuet J-M, Sherwin WB (1998) Distortion of allele frequency distributions provides a test for recent population bottlenecks. J. Hered., 89, 238–247.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maruyama T, Fuerst PA (1985a) Population bottlenecks and nonequilibrium models in population genetics. II. Number of alleles in a small population that was formed bymeans of a recent bottleneck. Genetics, 111, 675–689.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maruyama T, Fuerst PA (1985b) Population bottlenecks and nonequilibrium models in population genetics. III. Genic homozygosity in populations which experience periodic bottlenecks. Genetics, 111, 691–703.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKenzie JA, Batterham P (1994) The genetic, molecular and phenotypic consequences of selection for insecticide resistance. Trends Ecol. Evol., 9, 166–169.

    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 

  • Montgomery ME, Woodworth LM, Nurthen RK, Gilligan DM, Briscoe DA, Frankham R (2000) Relationship between population size and loss of genetic diversity: Comparison of experimental results with theoretical predictions. Conserv. Genet., 1, 33–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nei M, Maruyama T, Chakraborty R (1975) The bottleneck effect and genetic variability in populations. Evolution, 29, 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newman D, Pilson D (1997) Increased probability of extinction due to decreased genetic effective population size: Experimental populations of Clarkia pulchella. Evolution, 512, 354–362.

    Google Scholar 

  • O'Brien SJ (1994) Genetic and phylogenetic analyses of endangered species. Annu. Rev. Genet., 28, 467–489.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raymond M, Rousset F (1995) GENEPOP (version 1.2): A population genetics software for exact tests and ecumenicism. J. Hered., 86, 248–249.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robertson A (1960) A theory of limits in artificial selection. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B., 153, 234–249.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saccheri I, Kuussaari M, Kankare M, Vikman P, Fortelius W, Hanski I (1998) Inbreeding and extinction in a butterfly metapopulation. Nature, 392, 491–494.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schug MD, Mackay TFC, Aquadro CF (1997) Low mutation rates of microsatellite loci in Drosophila melanogaster. Nature Genetics, 15, 99–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schug MD, Wetterstrand KA, Guadettee MS, Lim RH, Hutter CM, Aquadro CF (1998) The distribution and frequency of microsatellite loci in Drosophila melanogaster. Mol. Ecol., 7, 57–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor AC, Sherwin WB, Wayne RK (1994) Genetic variation of microsatellite loci in a bottlenecked species: The northern hairynosed wombat Lasiorhinus krefftii. Mol. Ecol., 3, 277–290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watterson GA (1984). Allele frequencies after a bottleneck. Theor. Pop. Biol., 26, 387–407.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westemeier RL, Brawn JD, Simpson SA, Esker TL, Jansen RW, Walk JW, Kershner EL, Bouzat JL, Paige KN (1998) Tracking the long-term decline and recovery of an isolated population. Science 282, 1695–1698.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodworth LM, Montgomery ME, Briscoe DA, Frankham R (2002) Rapid genetic deterioration in captivity: Causes and consequences. Conservation Genetics, 3, 277–288.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. Phillip R. England

    Present address: Laboratoire d'Ecologie Alpine, Université Joseph Fourier, BP53, 38041, Grenoble cedex 9, France; E-mail

Authors and Affiliations

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

    Phillip R. England, Graham H.R. Osler, Lynn M. Woodworth, Margaret E. Montgomery, David A. Briscoe & Richard Frankham

Authors
  1. Phillip R. England
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Graham H.R. Osler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lynn M. Woodworth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Margaret E. Montgomery
    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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

England, P.R., Osler, G.H., Woodworth, L.M. et al. Effects of intense versus diffuse population bottlenecks on microsatellite genetic diversity and evolutionary potential. Conservation Genetics 4, 595–604 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025639811865

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025639811865

Search

Navigation