Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T13:10:50.188Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Impact of conservation measures on demography and genetic variability of livestock breeds

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 November 2019

E. Gicquel Open the ORCID record for E. Gicquel [Opens in a new window] ,
P. Boettcher ,
B. Besbes ,
S. Furre ,
J. Fernández ,
C. Danchin-Burge ,
B. Berger ,
R. Baumung ,
J. R. J. Feijóo  and
G. Leroy
E. Gicquel*
Affiliation:
Animal Production and Health Division, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Viale delle Terme de Caracalla, 00153 Rome, Italy
P. Boettcher
Affiliation:
Animal Production and Health Division, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Viale delle Terme de Caracalla, 00153 Rome, Italy
B. Besbes
Affiliation:
Animal Production and Health Division, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Viale delle Terme de Caracalla, 00153 Rome, Italy
S. Furre
Affiliation:
Norsk Hestesenter, Starumsvegen 71, 2850 Lena, Norway
J. Fernández
Affiliation:
Instituto Nacional de Investigación y Tecnología Agraria y Alimentaria, Crta. de la Coruña, km 7,5, 28040 Madrid, Spain
C. Danchin-Burge
Affiliation:
Institut de l’Elevage, 149 rue de Bercy, 75595 Paris Cedex 12, France
B. Berger
Affiliation:
REC Raumberg-Gumpenstein, Institute of Organic Farming and Farm Animal Biodiversity, 4601 Thalheim, Austria
R. Baumung
Affiliation:
Animal Production and Health Division, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Viale delle Terme de Caracalla, 00153 Rome, Italy
J. R. J. Feijóo
Affiliation:
Federación de Razas Autóctonas de Galicia, Fontefiz,s/n.32152.Coles, Ourense, Spain
G. Leroy
Affiliation:
Animal Production and Health Division, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Viale delle Terme de Caracalla, 00153 Rome, Italy
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Conservation of animal genetic resources requires regular monitoring and interventions to maintain population size and manage genetic variability. This study uses genealogical information to evaluate the impact of conservation measures in Europe, using (i) data from the Domestic Animal Diversity Information System (DAD-IS) and (ii) a posteriori assessment of the impact of various conservation measures on the genetic variability of 17 at-risk breeds with a wide range of interventions. Analysis of data from DAD-IS showed that 68% of national breed populations reported to receive financial support showed increasing demographic trends, v. 51% for those that did not. The majority of the 17 at-risk breeds have increased their numbers of registered animals over the last 20 years, but the changes in genetic variability per breed have not always matched the trend in population size. These differences in trends observed in the different metrics might be explained by the tensions between interventions to maintain genetic variability, and development initiatives which lead to intensification of selection.

Keywords

genetic variabilityeffective population sizeendangered breedsconservationpedigree
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 14 , Issue 4 , April 2020 , pp. 670 - 680
Copyright
© Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

References

Ansell, D, Freudenberger, D, Munro, N and Gibbons, P 2016. The cost-effectiveness of agri-environment schemes for biodiversity conservation: a quantitative review. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 225, 184–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boichard, D 2002. Pedig: a Fortran package for pedigree analysis suited to large populations. Proceedings of the 7th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Population, 19–23 August 2002, Montpellier, France.Google Scholar
Caballero, A, Santiago, E and Toro, MA 1996. Systems of mating to reduce inbreeding in selected populations. Animal Science 62, 431–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cervantes, I, Goyache, F, Molina, A, Valera, M and Gutiérrez, JP 2011. Estimation of effective population size from the rate of coancestry in pedigreed populations. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 128, 56–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Danchin-Burge, C, Leroy, G, Brochard, M, Moureaux, S and Verrier, E 2012. Evolution of the genetic variability of eight French dairy cattle breeds assessed by pedigree analysis. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 129, 206–217.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Danchin-Burge, C and Palhière, I 2010. Conservation of rare or limited-numbers breeds and genetic diversity. Paper presented at the 8th World Merino Conference, 3–5 May 2010, Rambouillet, France, pp. 1–10.Google Scholar
Danchin-Burge, C, Palhière, I, François, D, Bibé, B, Leroy, G, and Verrier, E 2010. Pedigree analysis of seven small French sheep populations and implications for the management of rare breeds. Journal of Animal Science 88, 505–516.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Duruz, S, Flury, C, Matasci, G, Joerin, F, Widmer, I and Joost, S 2017. A WebGIS platform for the monitoring of Farm Animal Genetic Resources (GENMON). PLoS ONE 12 (Suppl. 4), e0176362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
European Regional Focal Point for Animal Genetic Resources 2014. Subsibreed – overview and assessment of support measures for endangered livestock breeds. Kompan, Klopcic and Martyniuk, Bonn, Germany. Retrieved on 06 July 2019 from https://www.rfp-europe.org/fileadmin/SITE_ERFP/Projects/ERFP/SUBSIBREED-BOOK_9_sept.pdfGoogle Scholar
Fischerleitner, F, Baumung, R and Berger, B 2009. The Austrian Programme and subsidies for conservation of acknowledged endangered breeds. Annual Meeting DAGENE, Zagreb, Croatia. Retrieved on 23 June 2019 from –https://www.raumberg–gumpenstein.at/cm4/de/forschung/publikationen/downloadsveranstaltungen/finish/1690-2739-monitor-interr-iiib-cadses/18404-the-austrian-programme-and-subsidies-for-conservation-of-acknowledged-endangered-breeds.htmlGoogle Scholar
Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations 2007. Global plan of action for animal genetic resources and the Interlaken declaration. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. Retrieved on 23 June 2019 from http://www.fao.org/3/a-a1404e.pdfGoogle Scholar
Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations 2013. In vivo conservation of animal genetic resources, FAO animal production and health guidelines. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. Retrieved on 23 June 2019 from http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3327e/i3327e.pdfGoogle Scholar
Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations 2015. The second report on the state of the world’s animal genetic resources for food and agriculture. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. Retrieved on 23 June 2019 from http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4787e.pdfGoogle Scholar
Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations 2018. Domestic animals diversity information system. Retrieved on 13 June 2018 from http://www.fao.org/dad-is/en/Google Scholar
Groeneveld, LF, Lenstra, JA, Eding, H, Toro, MA, Scherf, B, Pilling, D, Negrini, R, Finlay, EK, Jianlin, H, Groeneveld, E and Weigend, S 2010. GLOBALDIV Consortium, Genetic diversity in farm animals – a review. Animal Genetics 41 (suppl. 1), 6–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hall, SJG 2016. Effective population sizes in cattle, sheep, horses, pigs and goats estimated from census and herdbook data. Animal 10, 1778–1785.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hill, WG 1979. A note on effective population size with overlapping generations. Genetics 92, 317–322.Google ScholarPubMed
Lauvie, A, Audiot, A, Couix, N, Casabianca, F, Brives, H and Verrier, E 2011. Diversity of rare breed management programs: between conservation and development. Livestock Science 140, 161–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leroy, G, Carroll, E and Bruford, MW 2018. Next-generation metrics for monitoring genetic erosion within populations of conservation concern. Evolutionary Applications 11, 1066–1083. https://doi.org/10.1111/eva.12564CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leroy, G, Gicquel, E, Boettcher, P, Furre, S, Fernandez, J, Danchin-Burge, C, Alnahhas, N and Baumung, R 2019. Coancestry rate’s estimate of effective population size for genetic variability monitoring. Conservation Genetics Resources, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12686-019-01092-0, Published online by Springer 4 June 2019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leroy, G, Mary-Huard, T, Verrier, E, Danvy, S, Charvolin, E and Danchin-Burge, C 2013. Methods to estimate effective population size using pedigree data: examples in dog, sheep, cattle and horse. Genetics Selection Evolution 45, 1.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Notter, DR 1999. The importance of genetic diversity in livestock populations of the future. Journal of Animal Science 77, 61–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsen, HF 2011. Genetic variation and management of the Norwegian horse breeds. PhD, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, As, Norway.Google Scholar
Sonesson, AK and Meuwissen, TH 2000. Mating schemes for optimum contribution selection with constrained rates of inbreeding. Genetics Selection Evolution 32, 231–248.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Verrier, E, Audiot, A, Bertrand, C, Chapuis, H, Charvolin, E, Danchin-Burge, C, Danvy, S, Gourdine, JL, Gaultier, P, Guémené, D, Laloë, D, Lenoir, H, Leroy, G, Naves, M, Patin, S and Sabbagh, M 2015. Assessing the risk status of livestock breeds: a multi-indicator method applied to 178 French local breeds belonging to ten species. Animal Genetic Resources 57, 105–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wainwright, W, Ahmadi, BV, Mcvittie, A, Simm, G, and Moran, D 2019. Prioritising support for cost effective rare breed conservation using multi-criteria decision analysis. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 7, 110. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2019.00110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, J 2016. A comparison of single‐sample estimators of effective population sizes from genetic marker data. Molecular Ecology 25, 4692–4711.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Windig, JJ, Verweij, MJ and Oldenbroek, JK 2019. Reducing inbreeding rates with a breeding circle: theory and practice in Veluws Heideschaap. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 136, 51–62.Google ScholarPubMed
Woolliams, JA and Toro, MA 2007. Genetic contributions and inbreeding. In Utilisation and conservation of farm animal genetic resources (ed. Oldenbroek, JK), pp. 147–165. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Wright, S 1931. Evolution in Mendelian populations. Genetics 16, 97–159.Google ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Gicquel et al. supplementary material

Gicquel et al. supplementary material

Download Gicquel et al. supplementary material(File)
File 69.7 KB