Literature DB >> 21805300

Does genetic introgression improve female reproductive performance? A test on the endangered Florida panther.

Jeffrey A Hostetler1, David P Onorato, Benjamin M Bolker, Warren E Johnson, Stephen J O'Brien, Deborah Jansen, Madan K Oli.   

Abstract

Genetic introgression has been suggested as a management tool for mitigating detrimental effects of inbreeding depression, but the role of introgression in species conservation has been controversial, partly because population-level impacts of genetic introgressions are not well understood. Concerns about potential inbreeding depression in the endangered Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi) led to the release of eight female Texas pumas (P. c. stanleyana) into the Florida panther population in 1995. We used long-term reproductive data (1995-2008) collected from 61 female Florida panthers to estimate and model reproduction probability (probability of producing a litter) and litter size, and to investigate the influence of intentional genetic introgression on these parameters. Overall, 6-month probability of reproduction (±1SE) was 0.232 ± 0.021 and average litter size was 2.60 ± 0.09. Although F(1) admixed females had a lower reproduction probability than females with other ancestries, this was most likely because kittens born to F(1) females survive better; consequently, these females are unavailable for breeding until kittens are independent. There was no evidence for the effect of ancestry on litter size or of heterozygosity on probability of reproduction or litter size. In contrast, earlier studies have shown that genetic introgression positively affected Florida panther survival. Our results, along with those of earlier studies, clearly suggest that genetic introgression can have differential effects on components of fitness and highlight the importance of examining multiple demographic parameters when evaluating the effects of management actions.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21805300     DOI: 10.1007/s00442-011-2083-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Oecologia        ISSN: 0029-8549            Impact factor:   3.225


  20 in total

Review 1.  Genetics and the fitness of hybrids.

Authors:  J M Burke; M L Arnold
Journal:  Annu Rev Genet       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 16.830

2.  Causes of mortality of free-ranging Florida panthers.

Authors:  Sharon K Taylor; Claus D Buergelt; Melody E Roelke-Parker; Bruce L Homer; Dave S Rotstein
Journal:  J Wildl Dis       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 1.535

3.  Genomic ancestry of the American puma (Puma concolor).

Authors:  M Culver; W E Johnson; J Pecon-Slattery; S J O'Brien
Journal:  J Hered       Date:  2000 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.645

4.  Alternative Hypotheses of Hybrid Vigor.

Authors:  J F Crow
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  1948-09       Impact factor: 4.562

5.  Sink populations in carnivore management: cougar demography and immigration in a hunted population.

Authors:  Hugh S Robinson; Robert B Wielgus; Hilary S Cooley; Skye W Cooley
Journal:  Ecol Appl       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 4.657

6.  Are natural hybrids fit or unfit relative to their parents?

Authors:  M L Arnold; S A Hodges
Journal:  Trends Ecol Evol       Date:  1995-02       Impact factor: 17.712

7.  Genetic Introgression and the Survival of Florida Panther Kittens.

Authors:  Jeffrey A Hostetler; David P Onorato; James D Nichols; Warren E Johnson; Melody E Roelke; Stephen J O'Brien; Deborah Jansen; Madan K Oli
Journal:  Biol Conserv       Date:  2010-11-01       Impact factor: 5.990

8.  Intentional genetic introgression influences survival of adults and subadults in a small, inbred felid population.

Authors:  John F Benson; Jeffrey A Hostetler; David P Onorato; Warren E Johnson; Melody E Roelke; Stephen J O'Brien; Deborah Jansen; Madan K Oli
Journal:  J Anim Ecol       Date:  2011-02-21       Impact factor: 5.091

9.  Age at maturity in wild baboons: genetic, environmental and demographic influences.

Authors:  M J E Charpentier; J Tung; J Altmann; S C Alberts
Journal:  Mol Ecol       Date:  2008-03-10       Impact factor: 6.185

10.  Why not the best? How science failed the Florida panther.

Authors:  Liza Gross
Journal:  PLoS Biol       Date:  2005-08-23       Impact factor: 8.029

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.