Assortative mating among animals of captive and wild origin following experimental conservation releases

Abstract

Captive breeding is a high profile management tool used for conserving threatened species. However, the inevitable consequence of generations in captivity is broad scale and often-rapid phenotypic divergence between captive and wild individuals, through environmental differences and genetic processes. Although poorly understood, mate choice preference is one of the changes that may occur in captivity that could have important implications for the reintroduction success of captive-bred animals. We bred wild-caught house mice for three generations to examine mating patterns and reproductive outcomes when these animals were simultaneously released into multiple outdoor enclosures with wild conspecifics. At release, there were significant differences in phenotypic (e.g. body mass) and genetic measures (e.g. G st and F) between captive-bred and wild adult mice. Furthermore, 83% of offspring produced post-release were of same source parentage, inferring pronounced assortative mating. Our findings suggest that captive breeding may affect mating preferences, with potentially adverse implications for the success of threatened species reintroduction programmes.

Neglecting the call of the wild: Captive frogs like the sound of their own voice

“…This aggressive behaviour have been describe in the wild and observed in captive populations [28]. The phonotactic response observed in wild frogs corroborate with this premise, while captive frogs only showed this response to their own calls.…”

“…Species recognition is a fundamental problem for animals in social contexts [26] for a reintroduction to be successful, released individuals must survive and breed [27, 28]. Although the accuracy of phonotaxis does not necessarily reflect the accuracy of perception, movement analysis is a powerful approach to examine the auditory abilities of animals [29].…”

Widespread positive but weak assortative mating by diet within stickleback populations

“…For example, assortative mating based on origin (wild vs. captive‐reared) has the potential to hinder reintroductions of endangered species (Slade et al. ), and reduced assortativeness due to habitat modification can threaten the integrity of young species (Seehausen ). We did not find support for the hypothesized drivers of assortative mating, likely in part because there was insufficient variation in the assortativeness among populations.…”

Impacts of maternal characteristics and temperature on juvenile survival in the crocodile lizard: Implications for conservation

“…As a result, fecundity and survival rates in captivity are generally higher than those in the wild (Ricklefs, , ; Ricklefs & Scheuerlein, ). However, captive breeding often causes behavioral and physiological changes, as well as a loss of genetic variability, which may limit eventual settlement success in nature (Charlesworth & Charlesworth, ; Kati, Dufrêne, Legakis, Grill, & Lebrun, ; Slade et al, ; Snyder et al, ). Therefore, producing healthy individuals and maintaining self‐sustaining populations are essential to achieving the ultimate goal of captive breeding: reintroduction and population expansion of endangered species (Kleiman, ; Snyder et al, ).…”

“…As a result, fecundity and survival rates in captivity are generally higher than those in the wild (Ricklefs, 1998(Ricklefs, , 2000Ricklefs & Scheuerlein, 2001). However, captive breeding often causes behavioral and physiological changes, as well as a loss of genetic variability, which may limit eventual settlement success in nature (Charlesworth & Charlesworth, 1987;Kati, Dufrêne, Legakis, Grill, & Lebrun, 2004;Slade et al, 2014;Snyder et al, 1996).…”