Genetic adaptation to captivity in species conservation programs
- PMID: 18173504
- DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2007.03399.x
Genetic adaptation to captivity in species conservation programs
Abstract
As wild environments are often inhospitable, many species have to be captive-bred to save them from extinction. In captivity, species adapt genetically to the captive environment and these genetic adaptations are overwhelmingly deleterious when populations are returned to wild environments. I review empirical evidence on (i) the genetic basis of adaptive changes in captivity, (ii) factors affecting the extent of genetic adaptation to captivity, and (iii) means for minimizing its deleterious impacts. Genetic adaptation to captivity is primarily due to rare alleles that in the wild were deleterious and partially recessive. The extent of adaptation to captivity depends upon selection intensity, genetic diversity, effective population size and number of generation in captivity, as predicted by quantitative genetic theory. Minimizing generations in captivity provides a highly effective means for minimizing genetic adaptation to captivity, but is not a practical option for most animal species. Population fragmentation and crossing replicate captive populations provide practical means for minimizing the deleterious effects of genetic adaptation to captivity upon populations reintroduced into the wild. Surprisingly, equalization of family sizes reduces the rate of genetic adaptation, but not the deleterious impacts upon reintroduced populations. Genetic adaptation to captivity is expected to have major effects on reintroduction success for species that have spent many generations in captivity. This issue deserves a much higher priority than it is currently receiving.
Similar articles
-
Stress and adaptation in conservation genetics.J Evol Biol. 2005 Jul;18(4):750-5. doi: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2005.00885.x. J Evol Biol. 2005. PMID: 16033545 Review.
-
Estimates of natural selection in a salmon population in captive and natural environments.Conserv Biol. 2008 Jun;22(3):783-94. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.00965.x. Conserv Biol. 2008. PMID: 18577092
-
The guppy as a conservation model: implications of parasitism and inbreeding for reintroduction success.Conserv Biol. 2007 Dec;21(6):1573-83. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00809.x. Conserv Biol. 2007. PMID: 18173481
-
Captive breeding, reintroduction, and the conservation of amphibians.Conserv Biol. 2008 Aug;22(4):852-61. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.00967.x. Epub 2008 Jul 9. Conserv Biol. 2008. PMID: 18616746
-
Applied reproductive technologies and genetic resource banking for amphibian conservation.Reprod Fertil Dev. 2009;21(6):719-37. doi: 10.1071/RD09038. Reprod Fertil Dev. 2009. PMID: 19567216 Review.
Cited by
-
Population correlates of rapid captive-induced maladaptation in a wild fish.Evol Appl. 2018 Jun 19;12(7):1305-1317. doi: 10.1111/eva.12649. eCollection 2019 Aug. Evol Appl. 2018. PMID: 31417616 Free PMC article.
-
Farm Animals Are Long Away from Natural Behavior: Open Questions and Operative Consequences on Animal Welfare.Animals (Basel). 2021 Mar 6;11(3):724. doi: 10.3390/ani11030724. Animals (Basel). 2021. PMID: 33800925 Free PMC article.
-
Changes in Allele Frequencies When Different Genomic Coancestry Matrices Are Used for Maintaining Genetic Diversity.Genes (Basel). 2021 Apr 29;12(5):673. doi: 10.3390/genes12050673. Genes (Basel). 2021. PMID: 33947136 Free PMC article.
-
Genomewide association analyses of fitness traits in captive-reared Chinook salmon: Applications in evaluating conservation strategies.Evol Appl. 2018 Mar 5;11(6):853-868. doi: 10.1111/eva.12599. eCollection 2018 Jul. Evol Appl. 2018. PMID: 29928295 Free PMC article.
-
Nature versus nurture? Consequences of short captivity in early stages.Ecol Evol. 2017 Dec 1;8(1):521-529. doi: 10.1002/ece3.3555. eCollection 2018 Jan. Ecol Evol. 2017. PMID: 29321890 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Molecular Biology Databases
Research Materials