Literature DB >> 26240320

Three types of rescue can avert extinction in a changing environment.

Ruth A Hufbauer1, Marianna Szűcs2, Emily Kasyon2, Courtney Youngberg2, Michael J Koontz3, Christopher Richards4, Ty Tuff5, Brett A Melbourne5.   

Abstract

Setting aside high-quality large areas of habitat to protect threatened populations is becoming increasingly difficult as humans fragment and degrade the environment. Biologists and managers therefore must determine the best way to shepherd small populations through the dual challenges of reductions in both the number of individuals and genetic variability. By bringing in additional individuals, threatened populations can be increased in size (demographic rescue) or provided with variation to facilitate adaptation and reduce inbreeding (genetic rescue). The relative strengths of demographic and genetic rescue for reducing extinction and increasing growth of threatened populations are untested, and which type of rescue is effective may vary with population size. Using the flour beetle (Tribolium castaneum) in a microcosm experiment, we disentangled the genetic and demographic components of rescue, and compared them with adaptation from standing genetic variation (evolutionary rescue in the strictest sense) using 244 experimental populations founded at either a smaller (50 individuals) or larger (150 individuals) size. Both types of rescue reduced extinction, and those effects were additive. Over the course of six generations, genetic rescue increased population sizes and intrinsic fitness substantially. Both large and small populations showed evidence of being able to adapt from standing genetic variation. Our results support the practice of genetic rescue in facilitating adaptation and reducing inbreeding depression, and suggest that demographic rescue alone may suffice in larger populations even if only moderately inbred individuals are available for addition.

Entities:  

Keywords:  adaptation; evolutionary rescue; extinction; genetic rescue; migration

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26240320      PMCID: PMC4547288          DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1504732112

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A        ISSN: 0027-8424            Impact factor:   11.205


  31 in total

1.  Intraspecific competition favours niche width expansion in Drosophila melanogaster.

Authors:  D I Bolnick
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2001-03-22       Impact factor: 49.962

2.  Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data.

Authors:  J K Pritchard; M Stephens; P Donnelly
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2000-06       Impact factor: 4.562

3.  Genetic and demographic parameters determining population persistence after a discrete change in the environment.

Authors:  E G Boulding; T Hay
Journal:  Heredity (Edinb)       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 3.821

4.  Evolutionary rescue can prevent extinction following environmental change.

Authors:  Graham Bell; Andrew Gonzalez
Journal:  Ecol Lett       Date:  2009-07-30       Impact factor: 9.492

5.  Highly variable spread rates in replicated biological invasions: fundamental limits to predictability.

Authors:  Brett A Melbourne; Alan Hastings
Journal:  Science       Date:  2009-09-18       Impact factor: 47.728

6.  Source population characteristics affect heterosis following genetic rescue of fragmented plant populations.

Authors:  M Pickup; D L Field; D M Rowell; A G Young
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2013-01-07       Impact factor: 5.349

7.  Inbreeding Depression and Genetic Rescue in a Plant Metapopulation.

Authors:  Christopher M Richards
Journal:  Am Nat       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 3.926

8.  Genome-wide analysis of a long-term evolution experiment with Drosophila.

Authors:  Molly K Burke; Joseph P Dunham; Parvin Shahrestani; Kevin R Thornton; Michael R Rose; Anthony D Long
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2010-09-15       Impact factor: 49.962

9.  Genetic rescue in interconnected populations of small and large size of the self-incompatible Ranunculus reptans.

Authors:  Y Willi; M Fischer
Journal:  Heredity (Edinb)       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 3.821

10.  Eco-evolutionary dynamics in response to selection on life-history.

Authors:  Tom C Cameron; Daniel O'Sullivan; Alan Reynolds; Stuart B Piertney; Tim G Benton
Journal:  Ecol Lett       Date:  2013-04-08       Impact factor: 9.492

View more
  30 in total

1.  Reply to Wootton and Pfister: The search for general context should include synthesis with laboratory model systems.

Authors:  Ruth A Hufbauer; Marianna Szűcs; Emily Kasyon; Courtney Youngberg; Michael J Koontz; Christopher Richards; Ty Tuff; Brett A Melbourne
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2015-10-19       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  Processes affecting extinction risk in the laboratory and in nature.

Authors:  J Timothy Wootton; Catherine A Pfister
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2015-10-19       Impact factor: 11.205

3.  Rapid adaptive evolution in novel environments acts as an architect of population range expansion.

Authors:  M Szűcs; M L Vahsen; B A Melbourne; C Hoover; C Weiss-Lehman; R A Hufbauer
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2017-11-28       Impact factor: 11.205

4.  News Feature: Probing the limits of "evolutionary rescue".

Authors:  Amy McDermott
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2019-06-18       Impact factor: 11.205

5.  Asymmetric competition impacts evolutionary rescue in a changing environment.

Authors:  Courtney L Van Den Elzen; Elizabeth J Kleynhans; Sarah P Otto
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2017-06-28       Impact factor: 5.349

6.  Genetic rescue in an inbred Arctic fox (Vulpes lagopus) population.

Authors:  Malin Hasselgren; Anders Angerbjörn; Nina E Eide; Rasmus Erlandsson; Øystein Flagstad; Arild Landa; Johan Wallén; Karin Norén
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2018-03-28       Impact factor: 5.349

7.  Evolution of plasticity prevents postinvasion extinction of a native forb.

Authors:  Petr Dostál
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2022-08-01       Impact factor: 12.779

8.  Effects of genetic distance on heterosis in a Drosophila melanogaster model system.

Authors:  Charlotte Jensen; Michael Ørsted; Torsten Nygaard Kristensen
Journal:  Genetica       Date:  2018-05-14       Impact factor: 1.082

Review 9.  Tribolium beetles as a model system in evolution and ecology.

Authors:  Michael D Pointer; Matthew J G Gage; Lewis G Spurgin
Journal:  Heredity (Edinb)       Date:  2021-03-25       Impact factor: 3.821

10.  Evolutionary Rescue as a Mechanism Allowing a Clonal Grass to Adapt to Novel Climates.

Authors:  Zuzana Münzbergová; Vigdis Vandvik; Věroslava Hadincová
Journal:  Front Plant Sci       Date:  2021-05-17       Impact factor: 5.753

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.