Literature DB >> 18173501

Molecular ecological approaches to studying the evolutionary impact of selective harvesting in wildlife.

David W Coltman1.   

Abstract

Harvesting of wildlife populations by humans is usually targeted by sex, age or phenotypic criteria, and is therefore selective. Selective harvesting has the potential to elicit a genetic response from the target populations in several ways. First, selective harvesting may affect population demographic structure (age structure, sex ratio), which in turn may have consequences for effective population size and hence genetic diversity. Second, wildlife-harvesting regimes that use selective criteria based on phenotypic characteristics (e.g. minimum body size, horn length or antler size) have the potential to impose artificial selection on harvested populations. If there is heritable genetic variation for the target characteristic and harvesting occurs before the age of maturity, then an evolutionary response over time may ensue. Molecular ecological techniques offer ways to predict and detect genetic change in harvested populations, and therefore have great utility for effective wildlife management. Molecular markers can be used to assess the genetic structure of wildlife populations, and thereby assist in the prediction of genetic impacts by delineating evolutionarily meaningful management units. Genetic markers can be used for monitoring genetic diversity and changes in effective population size and breeding systems. Tracking evolutionary change at the phenotypic level in the wild through quantitative genetic analysis can be made possible by genetically determined pedigrees. Finally, advances in genome sequencing and bioinformatics offer the opportunity to study the molecular basis of phenotypic variation through trait mapping and candidate gene approaches. With this understanding, it could be possible to monitor the selective impacts of harvesting at a molecular level in the future. Effective wildlife management practice needs to consider more than the direct impact of harvesting on population dynamics. Programs that utilize molecular genetic tools will be better positioned to assess the long-term evolutionary impact of artificial selection on the evolutionary trajectory and viability of harvested populations.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18173501     DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2007.03414.x

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


  13 in total

1.  Genetic linkage map of a wild genome: genomic structure, recombination and sexual dimorphism in bighorn sheep.

Authors:  Jocelyn Poissant; John T Hogg; Corey S Davis; Joshua M Miller; Jillian F Maddox; David W Coltman
Journal:  BMC Genomics       Date:  2010-09-28       Impact factor: 3.969

Review 2.  Evolutionary rescue in vertebrates: evidence, applications and uncertainty.

Authors:  E Vander Wal; D Garant; M Festa-Bianchet; F Pelletier
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2013-01-19       Impact factor: 6.237

Review 3.  Determinants of genetic diversity.

Authors:  Hans Ellegren; Nicolas Galtier
Journal:  Nat Rev Genet       Date:  2016-06-06       Impact factor: 53.242

4.  Avoidance of fisheries-induced evolution: management implications for catch selectivity and limit reference points.

Authors:  Jeffrey A Hutchings
Journal:  Evol Appl       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 5.183

5.  Intense harvesting of eastern wolves facilitated hybridization with coyotes.

Authors:  Linda Y Rutledge; Bradley N White; Jeffrey R Row; Brent R Patterson
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 2.912

6.  Potential for anthropogenic disturbances to influence evolutionary change in the life history of a threatened salmonid.

Authors:  John G Williams; Richard W Zabel; Robin S Waples; Jeffrey A Hutchings; William P Connor
Journal:  Evol Appl       Date:  2008-05       Impact factor: 5.183

7.  The impact of fishing-induced mortality on the evolution of alternative life-history tactics in brook charr.

Authors:  Véronique Thériault; Erin S Dunlop; Ulf Dieckmann; Louis Bernatchez; Julian J Dodson
Journal:  Evol Appl       Date:  2008-05       Impact factor: 5.183

8.  Can compensatory culling offset undesirable evolutionary consequences of trophy hunting?

Authors:  Atle Mysterud; Richard Bischof
Journal:  J Anim Ecol       Date:  2009-10-14       Impact factor: 5.091

Review 9.  Host Genetic Diversity and Infectious Diseases. Focus on Wild Boar, Red Deer and Tuberculosis.

Authors:  Javier Pérez-González; Juan Carranza; Remigio Martínez; José Manuel Benítez-Medina
Journal:  Animals (Basel)       Date:  2021-05-31       Impact factor: 2.752

10.  Evolution of population genetic structure of the British roe deer by natural and anthropogenic processes (Capreolus capreolus).

Authors:  Karis H Baker; A Rus Hoelzel
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2012-12-06       Impact factor: 2.912

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.