Literature DB >> 17877715

The genealogy and genetic viability of reintroduced Yellowstone grey wolves.

Bridgett M Vonholdt1, Daniel R Stahler, Douglas W Smith, Dent A Earl, John P Pollinger, Robert K Wayne.   

Abstract

The recovery of the grey wolf in Yellowstone National Park is an outstanding example of a successful reintroduction. A general question concerning reintroduction is the degree to which genetic variation has been preserved and the specific behavioural mechanisms that enhance the preservation of genetic diversity and reduce inbreeding. We have analysed 200 Yellowstone wolves, including all 31 founders, for variation in 26 microsatellite loci over the 10-year reintroduction period (1995-2004). The population maintained high levels of variation (1995 H(0) = 0.69; 2004 H(0) = 0.73) with low levels of inbreeding (1995 F(IS) = -0.063; 2004 F(IS) = -0.051) and throughout, the population expanded rapidly (N(1995) = 21; N(2004) = 169). Pedigree-based effective population size ratios did not vary appreciably over the duration of population expansion (1995 N(e)/N(g) = 0.29; 2000 N(e)/N(g) = 0.26; 2004 N(e)/N(g) = 0.33). We estimated kinship and found only two of 30 natural breeding pairs showed evidence of being related (average r = -0.026, SE = 0.03). We reconstructed the genealogy of 200 wolves based on genetic and field data and discovered that they avoid inbreeding through a wide variety of behavioural mechanisms including absolute avoidance of breeding with related pack members, male-biased dispersal to packs where they breed with nonrelatives, and female-biased subordinate breeding. We documented a greater diversity of such population assembly patterns in Yellowstone than previously observed in any other natural wolf population. Inbreeding avoidance is nearly absolute despite the high probability of within-pack inbreeding opportunities and extensive interpack kinship ties between adjacent packs. Simulations showed that the Yellowstone population has levels of genetic variation similar to that of a population managed for high variation and low inbreeding, and greater than that expected for random breeding within packs or across the entire breeding pool. Although short-term losses in variation seem minimal, future projections of the population at carrying capacity suggest significant inbreeding depression will occur without connectivity and migratory exchange with other populations.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17877715     DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2007.03468.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mol Ecol        ISSN: 0962-1083            Impact factor:   6.185


  51 in total

Review 1.  Computer simulations: tools for population and evolutionary genetics.

Authors:  Sean Hoban; Giorgio Bertorelle; Oscar E Gaggiotti
Journal:  Nat Rev Genet       Date:  2012-01-10       Impact factor: 53.242

2.  Landscape resistance to dispersal: simulating long-term effects of human disturbance on a small and isolated wolf population in southwestern Manitoba, Canada.

Authors:  Astrid V Stronen; Nathan H Schumaker; Graham J Forbes; Paul C Paquet; Ryan K Brook
Journal:  Environ Monit Assess       Date:  2011-12-07       Impact factor: 2.513

3.  Genetics and wolf conservation in the American West: lessons and challenges.

Authors:  R Wayne; P Hedrick
Journal:  Heredity (Edinb)       Date:  2010-12-01       Impact factor: 3.821

Review 4.  Evolutionary genomics of dog domestication.

Authors:  Robert K Wayne; Bridgett M vonHoldt
Journal:  Mamm Genome       Date:  2012-01-22       Impact factor: 2.957

5.  Linkage disequilibrium and demographic history of wild and domestic canids.

Authors:  Melissa M Gray; Julie M Granka; Carlos D Bustamante; Nathan B Sutter; Adam R Boyko; Lan Zhu; Elaine A Ostrander; Robert K Wayne
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2009-02-02       Impact factor: 4.562

6.  A genome-wide perspective on the evolutionary history of enigmatic wolf-like canids.

Authors:  Bridgett M vonHoldt; John P Pollinger; Dent A Earl; James C Knowles; Adam R Boyko; Heidi Parker; Eli Geffen; Malgorzata Pilot; Wlodzimierz Jedrzejewski; Bogumila Jedrzejewska; Vadim Sidorovich; Claudia Greco; Ettore Randi; Marco Musiani; Roland Kays; Carlos D Bustamante; Elaine A Ostrander; John Novembre; Robert K Wayne
Journal:  Genome Res       Date:  2011-05-12       Impact factor: 9.043

7.  Harvest and group effects on pup survival in a cooperative breeder.

Authors:  David E Ausband; Michael S Mitchell; Carisa R Stansbury; Jennifer L Stenglein; Lisette P Waits
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2017-05-31       Impact factor: 5.349

8.  Heterozygosity of the Yellowstone wolves.

Authors:  Ivana Jankovic; Bridgett M vonHoldt; Noah A Rosenberg
Journal:  Mol Ecol       Date:  2010-07-28       Impact factor: 6.185

9.  Specialization for aggression in sexually dimorphic skeletal morphology in grey wolves (Canis lupus).

Authors:  Jeremy S Morris; Ellissa K Brandt
Journal:  J Anat       Date:  2014-05-09       Impact factor: 2.610

10.  Choosy Wolves? Heterozygote Advantage But No Evidence of MHC-Based Disassortative Mating.

Authors:  Marco Galaverni; Romolo Caniglia; Pietro Milanesi; Silvana Lapalombella; Elena Fabbri; Ettore Randi
Journal:  J Hered       Date:  2015-11-25       Impact factor: 2.645

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.