Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
In situ and ex situ conservation genetics of the endangered Amur tiger
P. Henry *, T. Sugimoto, D. Miquelle , A. Caccone ‡ & M. Russello *
*
‡
The Amur Tiger: Background• Panthera tigris altaica
• Population decline to 30 individuals in the 1940’s
• Critically endangered (IUCN red list)
• In situ conservation strategies
• Captive breeding program
The Amur Tiger: Background• Panthera tigris altaica
• Population decline to 30 individuals in the 1940’s
• Critically endangered (IUCN red list)
• In situ conservation strategies
• Captive breeding program
The Amur Tiger: Background• Panthera tigris altaica
• Population decline to 30 individuals in the 1940’s
• Critically endangered (IUCN red list)
• In situ conservation strategies
• Captive breeding program
The Amur Tiger: Background• Panthera tigris altaica
• Population decline to 30 individuals in the 1940’s
• Critically endangered (IUCN red list)
• In situ conservation strategies
• Captive breeding program
The Amur Tiger: Background• Panthera tigris altaica
• Population decline to 30 individuals in the 1940’s
• Critically endangered (IUCN red list)
• In situ conservation strategies
• Captive breeding program
Historic distribution
Previously found in:
• Eastern China (Manchuria)
• The Korean Peninsula
• Russian Far East (RFE)
Present distribution•Now mainly found in:
- RFE
- Small areas of China & North Korea
• Estimated 490 individuals left in the wild
Samples• Wild samples: 112 scat samples collected throughout current range representing 95 individuals
• Captive samples:
12 individuals from captive population (North American Zoos)
Samples• Wild samples: 112 scat samples collected throughout current range representing 95 individual
• Captive samples:
12 individuals from captive population (North American Zoos)
Molecular data collection
• 8 nuclear microsatellite loci
• Mitochondrial DNA control region sequences
Molecular data collection
• 8 nuclear microsatellite loci
• Mitochondrial DNA control region sequences
Objectives
• Investigate population genetic structure and demography of in situ population
• Assess the genetic representation of the in situ population in captivity
Objectives
• Investigate population genetic structure and demography of in situ population
• Assess the genetic representation of the in situ population in captivity
Population genetic structure• Two hypothesized subpopulations separated by a development corridor
• All test of differentiation were not significant (FST=0.0491, RST=0.0272)
Sikhote Alin SW Primorye
Population genetic structure• Two hypothesized subpopulations separated by a development corridor
• All test of differentiation were not significant (FST=0.0491, RST=0.0272)
Sikhote Alin SW Primorye
• There is no evidence for recent bottleneck on three commonly used tests for bottleneck. (Luikart et al. 1998 + Garza & Williamson 2001)
• Tests for population expansion indicate significant expansion. (Reich et al. 1999)
• Estimates of effective population vary from 22 to 57 individuals with a mean estimate of 35 individuals (Tallmon et al. 2008)
Demography in the wild
• There is no evidence for recent bottleneck on three commonly used tests for bottleneck. (Luikart et al. 1998 + Garza & Williamson 2001)
• Tests for population expansion indicate significant expansion. (Reich et al. 1999)
• Estimates of effective population vary from 22 to 57 individuals with a mean estimate of 35 individuals (Tallmon et al. 2008)
Demography in the wild
• There is no evidence for recent bottleneck on three commonly used tests for bottleneck. (Luikart et al. 1998 + Garza & Williamson 2001)
• Tests for population expansion indicate significant expansion. (Reich et al. 1999)
• Estimates of effective population vary from 22 to 57 individuals with a mean estimate of 35 individuals (Tallmon et al. 2008)
Demography in the wild
• Genetic diversity not significantly different
• No significant differentiation (FST= 0.0496, RST= 0.0235)
• 3 private alleles detected ex situ
Genetic representation ex situ
• Genetic diversity not significantly different
• No significant differentiation (FST= 0.0496, RST= 0.0235)
• 3 private alleles detected ex situ
Genetic representation ex situ
Axe 1 (10.51%)
• Genetic diversity not significantly different
• No significant differentiation (FST= 0.0496, RST= 0.0235)
• 3 private alleles detected ex situ
Genetic representation ex situ
• Population structure and demography in situ:
- The development corridor does not represent a barrier to gene flow between the Sikhote Alin and SW Primorye
- Population expansion may be responsible for the lack of genetic signature of a bottleneck
- Effective population size is 10 X smaller than the census
Significance of results
• Population structure and demography in situ:
- The development corridor does not represent a barrier to gene flow between the Sikhote Alin and SW Primorye
- Population expansion may be responsible for the lack of genetic signature of a bottleneck
- Effective population size is 10 X smaller than the census
Significance of results
• Population structure and demography in situ:
- The development corridor does not represent a barrier to gene flow between the Sikhote Alin and SW Primorye
- Population expansion may be responsible for the lack of genetic signature of a bottleneck
- Effective population size is 10 X smaller than the census
Significance of results
• Genetic representation ex situ
- Ex situ sample is representative of the genetic variation found in situ
- Some genetic resources (3 alleles) found ex situ were absent in situ
Significance of results
• Genetic representation ex situ
- Ex situ sample is representative of the genetic variation found in situ
- Some genetic resources (3 alleles) found ex situ were absent in situ
Significance of results
• The captive breeding program was successful in maintaining a representative sample of the wild population
• Conservation measures in situ will need to be continued to ensure the survival of the species as it may be vulnerable to continued human-mediated stresses as well as environmental stochasticity
Concluding remarks
• The captive breeding program was successful in maintaining a representative sample of the wild population
• Conservation measures in situ will need to be continued to ensure the survival of the species as it may be vulnerable to continued human-mediated stresses as well as environmental stochasticity
Concluding remarks
• Students:Rebecca Catapano-Friedman (YALE)Lisa Young (YALE)
• Helpful discussions:Anders Gonçalves da Silva (UBC | O)Jérôme Goudet (UNIL)
• Photo credit:Elvis PayneTobi BritishAshley Darby
• Collaborators: A. A. Astafiev (Sihkote-Alin Zapovednik)Y. M. Dunishenko, E. N. Smirnov, G. Alkina, V. G. Abramov, D. G. Pikuno(Amur Tiger Monitoring program)John Goodrich (WCS)Kathy Traylor-Holzer (CBSG)
Acknowledgements• Funding:WCS Species Survival Fund Conservation Award (MR)American Philosophical Society (MR)Christensen Fund (DM)
Thank you for your attention!
