Genetic diversity, relatedness and inbreeding of ranched and fragmented Cape buffalo populations in southern Africa.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
10
01
2020
accepted:
13
07
2020
entrez:
16
8
2020
pubmed:
17
8
2020
medline:
7
10
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Wildlife ranching, although not considered a conventional conservation system, provides a sustainable model for wildlife utilization and could be a source of valuable genetic material. However, increased fragmentation and intensive management may threaten the evolutionary potential and conservation value of species. Disease-free Cape buffalo (Syncerus caffer caffer) in southern Africa exist in populations with a variety of histories and management practices. We compared the genetic diversity of buffalo in national parks to private ranches and found that, except for Addo Elephant National Park, genetic diversity was high and statistically equivalent. We found that relatedness and inbreeding levels were not substantially different between ranched populations and those in national parks, indicating that breeding practices likely did not yet influence genetic diversity of buffalo on private ranches in this study. High genetic differentiation between South African protected areas highlighted their fragmented nature. Structure analysis revealed private ranches comprised three gene pools, with origins from Addo Elephant National Park, Kruger National Park and a third, unsampled gene pool. Based on these results, we recommend the Addo population be supplemented with disease-free Graspan and Mokala buffalo (of Kruger origin). We highlight the need for more research to characterize the genetic diversity and composition of ranched wildlife species, in conjunction with wildlife ranchers and conservation authorities, in order to evaluate the implications for management and conservation of these species across different systems.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32797056
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0236717
pii: PONE-D-20-00888
pmc: PMC7428177
doi:
Banques de données
Dryad
['10.5061/dryad.1c2d3']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0236717Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Glob Chang Biol. 2015 Jun;21(6):2169-78
pubmed: 25504910
Mol Ecol Resour. 2017 Nov;17(6):e225-e233
pubmed: 28503747
Mol Ecol. 2008 Sep;17(18):4015-26
pubmed: 19238703
Conserv Biol. 2011 Jun;25(3):465-75
pubmed: 21486369
Mol Ecol. 2000 Dec;9(12):2017-25
pubmed: 11123614
Mol Ecol. 2007 Mar;16(5):1099-106
pubmed: 17305863
Evol Appl. 2018 Nov 27;12(7):1318-1328
pubmed: 31417617
BMC Evol Biol. 2014 Nov 01;14:203
pubmed: 25367154
Anim Genet. 2013 Dec;44(6):758-62
pubmed: 23859468
Genet Res. 2007 Jun;89(3):135-53
pubmed: 17894908
Ecol Lett. 2015 Jan;18(1):37-47
pubmed: 25363522
Mol Ecol Resour. 2011 Jan;11(1):141-5
pubmed: 21429111
Sci Adv. 2015 Jun 19;1(5):e1400253
pubmed: 26601195
Biotechniques. 2001 Dec;31(6):1320-4
pubmed: 11768661
Mol Ecol Resour. 2014 Jan;14(1):209-14
pubmed: 23992227
PLoS One. 2013 Dec 18;8(12):e81761
pubmed: 24367493
Mol Ecol Resour. 2012 Sep;12(5):873-84
pubmed: 22639868
J Hered. 2017 Jul 1;108(5):496-504
pubmed: 28863451
BMC Genet. 2010 Oct 15;11:94
pubmed: 20950446
Bioinformatics. 2008 Jun 1;24(11):1403-5
pubmed: 18397895
Mol Ecol. 2002 Nov;11(11):2445-9
pubmed: 12406254
Genetics. 2000 Jun;155(2):945-59
pubmed: 10835412
Evolution. 1984 Nov;38(6):1358-1370
pubmed: 28563791