Literature DB >> 25411380

Assortative mating among animals of captive and wild origin following experimental conservation releases.

Brendan Slade1, Marissa L Parrott2, Aleisha Paproth3, Michael J L Magrath2, Graeme R Gillespie1, Tim S Jessop4.   

Abstract

Captive breeding is a high profile management tool used for conserving threatened species. However, the inevitable consequence of generations in captivity is broad scale and often-rapid phenotypic divergence between captive and wild individuals, through environmental differences and genetic processes. Although poorly understood, mate choice preference is one of the changes that may occur in captivity that could have important implications for the reintroduction success of captive-bred animals. We bred wild-caught house mice for three generations to examine mating patterns and reproductive outcomes when these animals were simultaneously released into multiple outdoor enclosures with wild conspecifics. At release, there were significant differences in phenotypic (e.g. body mass) and genetic measures (e.g. Gst and F) between captive-bred and wild adult mice. Furthermore, 83% of offspring produced post-release were of same source parentage, inferring pronounced assortative mating. Our findings suggest that captive breeding may affect mating preferences, with potentially adverse implications for the success of threatened species reintroduction programmes.
© 2014 The Author(s) Published by the Royal Society. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  captive breeding; mate choice; reintroduction; reproductive success population recovery

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25411380      PMCID: PMC4261860          DOI: 10.1098/rsbl.2014.0656

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biol Lett        ISSN: 1744-9561            Impact factor:   3.703


  15 in total

1.  Genetic similarity and quality interact in mate choice decisions by female mice.

Authors:  S Craig Roberts; L Morris Gosling
Journal:  Nat Genet       Date:  2003-08-24       Impact factor: 38.330

2.  Choosing mates: good genes versus genes that are a good fit.

Authors:  Herman L Mays; Geoffrey E Hill
Journal:  Trends Ecol Evol       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 17.712

3.  Revising how the computer program CERVUS accommodates genotyping error increases success in paternity assignment.

Authors:  Steven T Kalinowski; Mark L Taper; Tristan C Marshall
Journal:  Mol Ecol       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 6.185

4.  Transgenerational epigenetic imprints on mate preference.

Authors:  David Crews; Andrea C Gore; Timothy S Hsu; Nygerma L Dangleben; Michael Spinetta; Timothy Schallert; Matthew D Anway; Michael K Skinner
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2007-03-26       Impact factor: 11.205

5.  Genetic effects of captive breeding cause a rapid, cumulative fitness decline in the wild.

Authors:  Hitoshi Araki; Becky Cooper; Michael S Blouin
Journal:  Science       Date:  2007-10-05       Impact factor: 47.728

Review 6.  Ecology, sexual selection and speciation.

Authors:  Martine E Maan; Ole Seehausen
Journal:  Ecol Lett       Date:  2011-03-06       Impact factor: 9.492

7.  Assortative mating in animals.

Authors:  Yuexin Jiang; Daniel I Bolnick; Mark Kirkpatrick
Journal:  Am Nat       Date:  2013-05-01       Impact factor: 3.926

8.  Evolutionary rescue in a changing world.

Authors:  Stephanie M Carlson; Curry J Cunningham; Peter A H Westley
Journal:  Trends Ecol Evol       Date:  2014-07-15       Impact factor: 17.712

9.  Strong premating divergence in a unimodal hybrid zone between two subspecies of the house mouse.

Authors:  G Smadja; J Catalan; C Ganem
Journal:  J Evol Biol       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 2.411

10.  GenAlEx 6.5: genetic analysis in Excel. Population genetic software for teaching and research--an update.

Authors:  Rod Peakall; Peter E Smouse
Journal:  Bioinformatics       Date:  2012-07-20       Impact factor: 6.937

View more
  7 in total

1.  Comparative ecophysiology of a critically endangered (CR) ectotherm: Implications for conservation management.

Authors:  Andrea F T Currylow; Angelo Mandimbihasina; Paul Gibbons; Ernest Bekarany; Craig B Stanford; Edward E Louis; Daniel E Crocker
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-08-16       Impact factor: 3.240

2.  Neglecting the call of the wild: Captive frogs like the sound of their own voice.

Authors:  Luiza Figueiredo Passos; Gerardo Garcia; Robert John Young
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-07-21       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  The role of genetic diversity in the evolution and maintenance of environmentally-cued, male alternative reproductive tactics.

Authors:  K A Stewart; R Draaijer; M R Kolasa; I M Smallegange
Journal:  BMC Evol Biol       Date:  2019-02-18       Impact factor: 3.260

4.  Interspecific Hybridization between the Two Sympatric Termite Reticulitermes Species under Laboratory Conditions.

Authors:  Jia Wu; Huan Xu; Ali Hassan; Qiuying Huang
Journal:  Insects       Date:  2019-12-23       Impact factor: 2.769

Review 5.  Understanding how environmental factors influence reproductive aspects of wild myomorphic and hystricomorphic rodents.

Authors:  Maiko Roberto Tavares Dantas; João Batista Freire Souza-Junior; Thibério de Souza Castelo; Arthur Emannuel de Araújo Lago; Alexandre Rodrigues Silva
Journal:  Anim Reprod       Date:  2021-03-30       Impact factor: 1.807

6.  Widespread positive but weak assortative mating by diet within stickleback populations.

Authors:  Travis Ingram; Yuexin Jiang; Racine Rangel; Daniel I Bolnick
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2015-07-22       Impact factor: 2.912

7.  Effect of captivity on morphology: negligible changes in external morphology mask significant changes in internal morphology.

Authors:  Stephanie K Courtney Jones; Adam J Munn; Phillip G Byrne
Journal:  R Soc Open Sci       Date:  2018-05-09       Impact factor: 2.963

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.