| Literature DB >> 27876804 |
J M Pemberton1, P E Ellis1, J G Pilkington1, C Bérénos1.
Abstract
Experimental studies often find that inbreeding depression is more severe in harsh environments, but the few studies of in situ wild populations available to date rarely find strong support for this effect. We investigated evidence for inbreeding depression by environment interactions in nine traits in the individually monitored Soay sheep population of St Kilda, using genomic inbreeding coefficients based on 37 037 single-nucleotide polymorphism loci, and population density as an axis of environmental variation. All traits showed variation with population density and all traits showed some evidence for depression because of either an individual's own inbreeding or maternal inbreeding. However, only six traits showed evidence for an interaction in the expected direction, and only two interactions were statistically significant. We identify three possible reasons why wild population studies may generally fail to find strong support for interactions between inbreeding depression and environmental variation compared with experimental studies. First, for species with biparental inbreeding only, the amount of observed inbreeding in natural populations is generally low compared with that used in experimental studies. Second, it is possible that experimental studies sometimes actually impose higher levels of stress than organisms experience in the wild. Third, some purging of the deleterious recessive alleles that underpin interaction effects may occur in the wild.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27876804 PMCID: PMC5176111 DOI: 10.1038/hdy.2016.100
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Heredity (Edinb) ISSN: 0018-067X Impact factor: 3.821
Figure 1The correlation between pedigree inbreeding coefficients (Fped) and genomic inbreeding (FGRM) for 3765 genotyped sheep that have at least two parents and one maternal grandparent known (y=0.899x−0.005, r2=0.42).
Published studies testing for an interaction between inbreeding depression and environmental variation in free-living populations
| Soay sheep, | Microsatellite heterozygosity | 8/899=6.1% of individuals with all 4 grandparents known have | Individual adults | Fecal egg count | 398 | Y | Year | Year | ID more severe in high density years | ( |
| Cactus finch, | Social pedigree | 3.3% Of individuals with all 4 grandparents known have | Individual | Survival from banding to age 1 year | 120 | Y | Annual rainfall | Annual rainfall | ID only apparent when rainfall low | ( |
| Individual | Adult annual survival | Y | Annual rainfall, density of | Annual rainfall × density of | ID more severe when rainfall low and | |||||
| Individual | Adult annual probability of breeding | Y | Annual rainfall, density of | None | NA | |||||
| Medium ground finch, | Social pedigree | 0.8% Of individuals with all 4 grandparents known have | Individual | Survival from banding to age 1 year | 364 | N | Annual rainfall, density of | None | NA | ( |
| Individual | Adult annual survival | N | Annual rainfall, density of | None | NA | |||||
| Individual | Adult annual probability of breeding | Y | Annual rainfall, density of | None | NA | |||||
| Collared flycatcher, | Social pedigree | 16/2107=0.8% clutches with sufficient pedigree to detect | Clutch | Clutch size | 2088 | N | Average body condition in year of birth | None | NA | ( |
| Clutch | Hatching success | 2066 | Y | Average body condition in year of birth | None | NA | ||||
| Clutch | Fledging success | 2065 | N | Average body condition in year of birth | None | NA | ||||
| Clutch | Fledgling tarsus length | 1971 | Y | Average body condition in year of birth | None | NA | ||||
| Clutch | Fledgling body condition | 1966 | N | Average body condition in year of birth | None | NA | ||||
| Clutch | Juvenile survival | 1760 | Y | Average body condition in year of birth | None | NA | ||||
| Clutch | Recruitment per nest | 1764 | Y | Average body condition in year of birth | None | NA | ||||
| Seychelles warbler, | Microsatellite heterozygosity | 5% Of 119 offspring estimated to be due to matings between first-order relatives | Female parent | Offspring survival | 119 | N | Breeding season | Breeding season | In a low-survival breeding season, offspring survival was correlated with maternal heterozygosity, but not in other seasons. | ( |
| Song sparrow, | Social pedigree | <10% Of birds in male mating success analysis had | Adult male | Male mating success | 680 Obs on 262 males | Y | Number of males, males per female | None | NA | ( |
| Male social parent | Offspring survival from 12 to 24 days | 650 Obs on 179 males | Y | Rainfall in 2-day, 3-day and 4-day rainiest interval | None | NA | ||||
| Female parent | Laying date | 371 Obs on 166 females | Y | Average daily temperature measured across six different pre-laying time intervals | None (second best model showed an interaction with temperature) | NA (second best model suggests reduced difference between inbred and outbred females under cool temperatures) | ||||
| Female parent | Hatching success | 640 Obs on 155 females | Y | Average daily rainfall across four time intervals during incubation | Average daily rainfall in all the intervals studied | Increased ID in rainy conditions. | ||||
| Great tit | Social pedigree | 58/4523=1.3% of broods with both parents and one grandparent known have | Breeding events (=clutches) | Number of offspring recruited | Around 4500 clutches | Y | Population density, local oak density, female age, male age, local population density, distance from forest edge, caterpillar lag, yearly fledging mass, winter beech mast, yearly recruitment quality (all grouped into above and below average) | Yearly fledging mass | Increased ID in years of low fledging mass | ( |
| Stewart island robin, | Social pedigree | 29/182=15.9% of broods have | Brood, female parent, male parent | Hatching success | 182 Broods | N | Min temperature during nesting period, rainfall during nesting period, | None | NA | ( |
| Brood, female parent, male parent | Fledging success | N | Min temperature during nesting period, rainfall during nesting period, habitat type. | None | NA | |||||
| Brood, female parent, male parent | Recruitment success | N | Min temperature during nesting period, rainfall during nesting period, habitat typez | None | NA | |||||
| Red deer, | Genetic pedigree | 36/1848=2% Of individuals with both parents and at least one grandparent known inbred at Fped ⩾0.125 | Calf and mother | Birth date | 2515 Calves from 602 mothers | Offspring F: N, maternal F: N | Year of birth | None | NA | ( |
| Birth weight | 1664 Calves from 487 mothers | Offspring F: Y, maternal F: N | Year of birth | None | NA | |||||
| First year survival | 1593 Calves from 463 mothers | Offspring F: Y, maternal F: N | Year of birth | None | NA | |||||
| First winter survival | 1400 Calves from 443 mothers | Offspring F: Y, maternal F: N | Year of birth | None | NA | |||||
| Meerkats | Genetic pedigree | 71/1583=4.4% of pups had | Pup | Emergence mass | 422 | Y | Number of lactators Number of helpers | Number of lactators | ⩽4 Lactators increased emergence mass, but ⩾5 lactators depressed that of inbred pups | ( |
| Hindfoot length | 219 | Y | Number of lactators Number of helpers Season Rainfall | None | NA | |||||
| Growth until independence | 523 | Y | Number of lactators Number of helpers Rainfall | Number of lactators | More lactators were associated with slower growth of inbreds. |
Abbreviations: ID, inbreeding depression; N, no; NA, not available; Obs, observations; Y, yes.
In the Galapagos, rainfall is positively associated with food production.
On Mandarte Island, rainfall during the breeding season is associated with breeding failure.
On Stewart Island, rainfall during the breeding season probably depresses brood survival.
Figure 2Temporal dynamics of the population size of sheep resident in Village Bay between 1989 and 2012.
List of fixed and random effects fitted in the models in addition to the effects of inbreeding and density
| Birth weight | x | x | x | Days (factor) | x | x | x | x | |||||
| Hindleg | x | x | x | Days | x | x | x | x | |||||
| Weight | x | x | x | Days | x | x | x | x | |||||
| First winter survival | x | x | x | x | x | x | |||||||
| Annual survival | x | x | x | x | |||||||||
| Annual breeding success | x | x | x | x | x | ||||||||
Abbreviation: ID, inbreeding depression.
Parameter estimates showing the effects of inbreeding, maternal inbreeding, population density and the interaction between inbreeding and population density
| P | P | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Birth weight | 2810 | Inbreeding | −0.13 (0.234) | 0.579 | −1.666 (0.887) | 0.597 |
| 697 | Maternal inbreeding | −0.865 (0.419) | 1.469 (1.24) | |||
| Density | −0.001 (0) | −0.001 (0) | ||||
| Density:inbreeding | 0.003 (0.002) | 0.071 | ||||
| Density:maternal inbreeding | −0.005 (0.002) | |||||
| 4-Month hindleg | 1665 | Inbreeding | −14.616 (6.39) | −15.922 (24.861) | ||
| 582 | Maternal inbreeding | −13.988 (9.411) | 0.138 | 42.509 (31.402) | 0.136 | |
| Density | −0.032 (0.003) | −0.033 (0.003) | ||||
| Density:inbreeding | 0.003 (0.051) | 0.947 | ||||
| Density:maternal inbreeding | −0.122 (0.064) | 0.059 | ||||
| 4-Month weight | 1661 | Inbreeding | −3.881 (1.453) | −6.794 (5.666) | ||
| 582 | Maternal inbreeding | −4.541 (2.339) | 0.053 | 7.994 (7.299) | 0.05 | |
| Density | −0.008 (0.001) | −0.009 (0.001) | ||||
| Density:inbreeding | 0.006 (0.012) | 0.586 | ||||
| Density:maternal inbreeding | −0.027 (0.015) | 0.069 | ||||
| Female first winter survival | 1219 | Inbreeding | −6.535 (−13.138, 0.717) | 0.066 | 24.112 (−7.898, 60.656) | 0.153 |
| 531 | Maternal inbreeding | 2.385 (−6.207, 11.396) | 0.595 | −9.781 (−50.485, 30.445) | 0.626 | |
| Density | −0.0142 (−0.0208, −0.0075) | −0.0144 (−0.0214, −0.008) | ||||
| Density:inbreeding | −0.064 (−0.136, 0.003) | 0.06 | ||||
| Density:maternal inbreeding | 0.024 (−0.053, 0.103) | 0.549 | ||||
| Adult female annual survival | 640 (3229) | Inbreeding | −11.284 (−17.221, −5.071) | 27.889 (−6.84, 63.545) | 0.115 | |
| 371 | Maternal inbreeding | −2.363 (−10.13, 4.628) | 0.515 | −1.904 (−9.046, 5.685) | 0.609 | |
| Density | −0.0088 (−0.0142, −0.004) | −0.0092 (−0.0148, −0.0041) | ||||
| Density:inbreeding | −0.068 (−0.131, −0.009) | |||||
| Female annual breeding success | 640 (3229) | Inbreeding | −1.915 (−3.573, −0.221) | −3.191 (−10.274, 4.56) | 0.396 | |
| 371 | Maternal inbreeding | −1.002 (−2.826, 0.689) | 0.261 | −0.987 (−2.763, 0.779) | 0.279 | |
| Density | −5e−04 (−0.001, 1e−04) | 0.074 | −5e−04 (−0.001, 1e−04) | 0.098 | ||
| Density:inbreeding | 0.003 (−0.012, 0.017) | 0.73 | ||||
| Male first winter survival | 1035 | Inbreeding | −11.37 (−18.878, −2.655) | −26.53 (−68.359, 18.52) | 0.24 | |
| 507 | Maternal inbreeding | −7.681 (−17.709, 1.954) | 0.121 | 21.771 (−24.959, 67.008) | 0.369 | |
| Density | −0.0211 (−0.0325, −0.0113) | −0.0217 (−0.0325, −0.0105) | ||||
| Density:inbreeding | 0.03 (−0.054, 0.112) | 0.492 | ||||
| Density:maternal inbreeding | −0.06 (−0.158, 0.028) | 0.202 | ||||
| Adult male annual survival | 446 (1251) | Inbreeding | −11.088 (−19.592, −2.965) | −8.427 (−59.569, 41.515) | 0.748 | |
| 295 | Maternal inbreeding | 4.223 (−5.628, 13.636) | 0.398 | 4.198 (−5.607, 14.134) | 0.389 | |
| Density | −0.0138 (−0.0236, −0.0046)) | −0.0139 (−0.0232, −0.0045) | ||||
| Density:inbreeding | −0.005 (−0.089, 0.084) | 0.924 | ||||
| Male annual breeding success | 446 (1251) | Inbreeding | −8.753 (−14.812, −2.725) | −10.635 (−29.217, 5.978) | 0.23 | |
| 295 | Maternal inbreeding | 2.752 (−4.501, 9.211) | 0.424 | 2.765 (−4.313, 9.555) | 0.427 | |
| Density | −0.0024 (−0.0042, −5e−04) | −0.0024 (−0.0043, −6e−04) | ||||
| Density:inbreeding | 0.004 (−0.031, 0.036) | 0.839 | ||||
Abbreviation: ID × E, inbreeding depression by environment interaction.
Density is for 1 October before birth for the juvenile body size traits and for 1 October before winter and parturition for the fitness components. Parameter estimates show s.e. for juvenile body size traits and 95% credibility intervals for fitness components. Note that slope estimates for density are for each additional sheep in the population which varied between 211 and 672 across the study years. Statistically significant P values are shown in bold.
Numbers give the number of unique individuals and the number of observations is shown in parentheses.
Figure 3The effect of inbreeding (FGRM) on juvenile weight (a and b) and three fitness components in females (c) and males (d). Row (a) shows the effects of maternal inbreeding depression and all other rows show the effects of inbreeding depression expressed through the focal individual. Symbols representing the raw data are colour coded based on population density by dividing the population densities into three sets of equal size, and the fitted lines represent predicted values for the midpoints of each group (low: 311, medium: 481, high: 611). Note that the only formally significant interactions were in birth weight (interaction between maternal inbreeding and density, P=0.045; see Table 3) and in adult female annual survival (interaction between inbreeding and density, P=0.02; see Table 3) and neither would survive Bonferroni correction. A full color version of this figure is available at the Heredity journal online.