Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
G2-Roles of inbreeding depression & purging (Lebirg & Firmin,2008)…
G2-Roles of inbreeding depression & purging (Lebirg & Firmin,2008)
Introduction
Aim of the study
Increase knowledge on the effect of purging on the viability of vertebrate populations in complex environments.
Terminologies
Inbreeding
the increasing probability of relatedness among mating individuals (panmictic inbreeding or nonrandom mating)
-
-
-
Genetic load
the relative difference between the average fitness of a population’s members and the fitness of the fittest genotype.
-
-
-
Dominance
effects of a recessive allele on the phenotype are only partially masked by the effects of the dominant allele.
-
-
-
Objectives
To briefly review several issues that could affect how small populations, resulting from captive breeding and wildlife releases, respond to purging.
To present some results from an experiment assessing whether past bottlenecks reduce the susceptibility of fish populations to additional close inbreeding.
-
-
-
Environment and Purging
Environmental variation can play another role in assessing the efficiency of purging by giving the appearance of purging when little loss of deleterious recessives may have happened.
Effectiveness of purging
Alleles that become fixed in one environment during purging might have deleterious effects in other environments.
-
The decrease in relative fitness of homozygotes of deleterious alleles by environmental factors will ensure purging to be more effective.
Result and discussion
-
-
Effects of inbreeding were not reduced in populations
that had experienced multiple bottlenecks, indicating that
purging had not reduced inbreeding depression
History of serial
bottlenecks affects population recovery and the ability of founders to
establish populations
Which means, single past bottlenecks
have little effect on population size or reproductive success of population founders but multiple severe bottlenecks had a large effect on population viability
Gambusia populations founded with siblings grew more slowly than populations founded with non siblings, where the effects of founder relatedness on population growth and extinction were much smaller than the effect of past bottlenecks
-
Considered all populations or only those with successful reproduction, populations experiencing 4 previous
bottlenecks is smaller than populations that
experienced fewer bottlenecks
No significant difference in population size between
populations experiencing zero or one previous bottlenecks
The purging hypothesis predict: the difference between the growth of populations founded by siblings and nonsiblings should decrease with the number of past bottlenecks, but no evidence of an interaction between history of bottlenecks and relatedness of founding individuals
Methods
One advantage of using Gambusia in investigations of population recovery is that studies can be conducted in large (2-m dia.), outdoor mesocosms.
12 populations were used which included 6 (do not experience bottleneck) and another 6 (experience bottleneck)
1 female and 2 siblings, 1 male and 2 female (nonsibs), 4 female and 1 male (siblings) and 1 pair of siblings
1 female and 2 siblings, 1 male and 2 female (nonsibs), 4 female and 1 male (siblings) and 1 pair of siblings
only 2 out of 12 original lineage were available to use the others had gone extinct, either failing to reproduce or producing too few offspring to establish populations in subsequent years
The six populations in both the control and single bottleneck treatments were each represented by two mesocosms, one of which was founded by siblings
Each of the two lineages in the serial bottleneck treatment was represented in 12 mesocosms (half founded by siblings).
. Size is a reasonable surrogate for growth because all replicates were established at the same time and with the same number of founders.
purging had an effect on inbreeding depression, a significant interaction between bottleneck history and founder relatedness on population growth.
Pools that contained only a pair of fish at the end of the experiment held no additional fish when surveyed 6 months later.
-
-