Bibliographic Details
| Title: |
Modelling Genetic Benefits and Financial Costs of Integrating Biobanking into the Captive Management of Koalas. |
| Authors: |
Howell, Lachlan G., Johnston, Stephen D., O'Brien, Justine K., Frankham, Richard, Rodger, John C., Ryan, Shelby A., Beranek, Chad T., Clulow, John, Hudson, Donald S., Witt, Ryan R. |
| Source: |
Animals (2076-2615); Apr2022, Vol. 12 Issue 8, pN.PAG-N.PAG, 18p |
| Subject Terms: |
GENETIC models, KOALA, COST effectiveness, INBREEDING, ANIMAL populations, WILDLIFE conservation, BIOLOGICAL extinction, ESTRUS |
| Abstract: |
Keywords: assisted reproductive technologies; artificial reproductive technologies; biobanking; captive breeding; genetic diversity; genome resource banking; heterozygosity; inbreeding; wildlife hospitals EN assisted reproductive technologies artificial reproductive technologies biobanking captive breeding genetic diversity genome resource banking heterozygosity inbreeding wildlife hospitals N.PAG N.PAG 18 04/26/22 20220415 NES 220415 1. In parallel with the development of improved koala sperm cryopreservation technology, it is comforting to note koala spermatozoa also have the capacity of survival for up to 40 days in a chilled (4 °C) state; given the estrous cycle of the koala is approximately 33 days, such physiology lends itself for the immediate application of artificial insemination with chilled semen in wild koalas. However, without legislative support to protect koala habitat, investment in any conservation action to support koala recovery, including our proposed additions to the koala conservation toolbox, cannot function effectively for their intended purpose - to guarantee koala survival in the wild. Based on the significantly increased costs for long-term conventional captive programs aimed at ambitious and optimal genetic diversity retention modelled in the present study (Table 1 and Table 2) and previous studies [[3], [18]], it is unlikely that conservation practitioners will be able to: (1) provide long-term captive insurance in perpetuity against mass mortality or rapid, unforeseen declines of wild koala populations due to stochastic events (e.g., bushfire, climate change [[32], [35]]); (2) continue to bolster wild koala populations and match the current rate of I in situ i decline of these populations and their unique genetic material; and (3) cost-effectively hold viable colony sizes long enough to meet globally accepted genetic diversity targets (e.g., 90% heterozygosity retention for 100 years [[3], [18]]). [Extracted from the article] |
|
Copyright of Animals (2076-2615) is the property of MDPI and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) |
| Database: |
Complementary Index |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests. |
Login for full access.
|
