15. Modeling Problems in Conservation Genetics Using Laboratory Animals
269
results are favorable, the theory is then applied to chickens, followed by pigs,
sheep, and cattle. The operation of conservation genetics may lead to fewer
mistakes and the field will develop in a more appropriate manner if laboratory
animal studies become an integral component.
Conclusions
1. The theory that underlies many management practices and recommendations
in conservation genetics is very simplistic. Consequently, it is essential that it
be subjected to controlled replicated experimental evaluation.
2. Such evaluations are impractical in most wildlife species. Consequently, they
are best done in laboratory animals and plants.
3. It is critical that there be an interplay between theory and experimentation in
conservation genetics and conservation biology generally.
4. Studies have begun recently with laboratory animals to evaluate a range of
issues in conservation genetics.
5. It is desirable that more than one laboratory animal model be used, and/or
meta-analyses of wildlife data, to establish the generality of conclusions.
6. A selfing plant laboratory model needs to be developed. Arabidopsis is an
obvious candidate for this role.
7. A wide range of questions in conservation genetics need to be addressed in
laboratory species. Several of these are listed.
Acknowledgments. I am grateful to Annette Lindsay, Margaret Montgomery,
Paul Sunnuch, and Lynn Woodworth for comments on the manuscript. Our research is supported by Australian Research Council and Macquarie University
research grants.
Literature Cited
Allendorf FW (1986) Genetic drift and the loss of alleles versus heterozygosity. Zoo
Biology 5:181–190
Backus VL, Bryant EH, Hughes CR, Meffert LM (1995) Effect of migration on inbreeding
followed by selection on low-founder-number populations: implications for captive
breeding. Conservation Biology 9:1216–1224
Ballou J, Lacy RC (1995) Identifying genetically important individuals for management of
genetic diversity in pedigreed populations. In: Ballou J, Gilpin M, Foose T. (eds) Population management for survival and recovery: analytical methods and strategies in small
population conservation. Columbia University Press, New York, pp 76–111
Borlase SC, Loebel DA, Frankham R, Nurthen RK, Briscoe DA, Daggard GE (1993)
Modeling problems in conservation genetics using captive Drosophila populations: consequences of equalizing family sizes. Conservation Biology 7:122–131
Brakefield PM, Saccheri IJ (1994) Guidelines in conservation genetics and the use of the
population cage experiments with butterflies to investigate the effects of genetic drift and
inbreeding. In: Loeschcke V, Tomiuk J, Jain SK (eds) Conservation genetics. Birkh¨ auser,
Basel, Switzerland, pp 165–179
269
results are favorable, the theory is then applied to chickens, followed by pigs,
sheep, and cattle. The operation of conservation genetics may lead to fewer
mistakes and the field will develop in a more appropriate manner if laboratory
animal studies become an integral component.
Conclusions
1. The theory that underlies many management practices and recommendations
in conservation genetics is very simplistic. Consequently, it is essential that it
be subjected to controlled replicated experimental evaluation.
2. Such evaluations are impractical in most wildlife species. Consequently, they
are best done in laboratory animals and plants.
3. It is critical that there be an interplay between theory and experimentation in
conservation genetics and conservation biology generally.
4. Studies have begun recently with laboratory animals to evaluate a range of
issues in conservation genetics.
5. It is desirable that more than one laboratory animal model be used, and/or
meta-analyses of wildlife data, to establish the generality of conclusions.
6. A selfing plant laboratory model needs to be developed. Arabidopsis is an
obvious candidate for this role.
7. A wide range of questions in conservation genetics need to be addressed in
laboratory species. Several of these are listed.
Acknowledgments. I am grateful to Annette Lindsay, Margaret Montgomery,
Paul Sunnuch, and Lynn Woodworth for comments on the manuscript. Our research is supported by Australian Research Council and Macquarie University
research grants.
Literature Cited
Allendorf FW (1986) Genetic drift and the loss of alleles versus heterozygosity. Zoo
Biology 5:181–190
Backus VL, Bryant EH, Hughes CR, Meffert LM (1995) Effect of migration on inbreeding
followed by selection on low-founder-number populations: implications for captive
breeding. Conservation Biology 9:1216–1224
Ballou J, Lacy RC (1995) Identifying genetically important individuals for management of
genetic diversity in pedigreed populations. In: Ballou J, Gilpin M, Foose T. (eds) Population management for survival and recovery: analytical methods and strategies in small
population conservation. Columbia University Press, New York, pp 76–111
Borlase SC, Loebel DA, Frankham R, Nurthen RK, Briscoe DA, Daggard GE (1993)
Modeling problems in conservation genetics using captive Drosophila populations: consequences of equalizing family sizes. Conservation Biology 7:122–131
Brakefield PM, Saccheri IJ (1994) Guidelines in conservation genetics and the use of the
population cage experiments with butterflies to investigate the effects of genetic drift and
inbreeding. In: Loeschcke V, Tomiuk J, Jain SK (eds) Conservation genetics. Birkh¨ auser,
Basel, Switzerland, pp 165–179