4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Integrating biobanking minimises inbreeding and produces significant cost benefits for a threatened frog captive breeding programme

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Related collections

          Most cited references40

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Amphibian fungal panzootic causes catastrophic and ongoing loss of biodiversity

          Anthropogenic trade and development have broken down dispersal barriers, facilitating the spread of diseases that threaten Earth’s biodiversity. We present a global, quantitative assessment of the amphibian chytridiomycosis panzootic, one of the most impactful examples of disease spread, and demonstrate its role in the decline of at least 501 amphibian species over the past half-century, including 90 presumed extinctions. The effects of chytridiomycosis have been greatest in large-bodied, range-restricted anurans in wet climates in the Americas and Australia. Declines peaked in the 1980s, and only 12% of declined species show signs of recovery, whereas 39% are experiencing ongoing decline. There is risk of further chytridiomycosis outbreaks in new areas. The chytridiomycosis panzootic represents the greatest recorded loss of biodiversity attributable to a disease.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Genetic adaptation to captivity in species conservation programs.

            As wild environments are often inhospitable, many species have to be captive-bred to save them from extinction. In captivity, species adapt genetically to the captive environment and these genetic adaptations are overwhelmingly deleterious when populations are returned to wild environments. I review empirical evidence on (i) the genetic basis of adaptive changes in captivity, (ii) factors affecting the extent of genetic adaptation to captivity, and (iii) means for minimizing its deleterious impacts. Genetic adaptation to captivity is primarily due to rare alleles that in the wild were deleterious and partially recessive. The extent of adaptation to captivity depends upon selection intensity, genetic diversity, effective population size and number of generation in captivity, as predicted by quantitative genetic theory. Minimizing generations in captivity provides a highly effective means for minimizing genetic adaptation to captivity, but is not a practical option for most animal species. Population fragmentation and crossing replicate captive populations provide practical means for minimizing the deleterious effects of genetic adaptation to captivity upon populations reintroduced into the wild. Surprisingly, equalization of family sizes reduces the rate of genetic adaptation, but not the deleterious impacts upon reintroduced populations. Genetic adaptation to captivity is expected to have major effects on reintroduction success for species that have spent many generations in captivity. This issue deserves a much higher priority than it is currently receiving.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Book: not found

              Introduction to Conservation Genetics

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                Conservation Letters
                CONSERVATION LETTERS
                Wiley
                1755-263X
                1755-263X
                December 03 2020
                Affiliations
                [1 ]School of Environmental and Life Sciences University of Newcastle Callaghan New South Wales Australia
                [2 ]FAUNA Research Alliance Kahibah New South Wales Australia
                [3 ]Department of Biological Sciences Macquarie University Sydney New South Wales Australia
                [4 ]Australian Museum Sydney New South Wales Australia
                Article
                10.1111/conl.12776
                e72fb70d-3a91-4662-82a6-d97d24147ae3
                © 2020

                http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

                http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/tdm_license_1.1

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article