Testing the effectiveness of genetic monitoring using genetic non‐invasive sampling
Abstract Effective conservation requires accurate data on population genetic diversity, inbreeding, and genetic structure. Increasingly, scientists are adopting genetic non‐invasive sampling (gNIS) as a cost‐effective population‐wide genetic monitoring approach. gNIS has, however, known limitations...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2022-01-01
|
| Series: | Ecology and Evolution |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.8459 |
| _version_ | 1797924602280673280 |
|---|---|
| author | Anthony James Schultz Kasha Strickland Romane H. Cristescu Jonathan Hanger Deidre deVilliers Céline H. Frère |
| author_facet | Anthony James Schultz Kasha Strickland Romane H. Cristescu Jonathan Hanger Deidre deVilliers Céline H. Frère |
| author_sort | Anthony James Schultz |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Effective conservation requires accurate data on population genetic diversity, inbreeding, and genetic structure. Increasingly, scientists are adopting genetic non‐invasive sampling (gNIS) as a cost‐effective population‐wide genetic monitoring approach. gNIS has, however, known limitations which may impact the accuracy of downstream genetic analyses. Here, using high‐quality single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) data from blood/tissue sampling of a free‐ranging koala population (n = 430), we investigated how the reduced SNP panel size and call rate typical of genetic non‐invasive samples (derived from experimental and field trials) impacts the accuracy of genetic measures, and also the effect of sampling intensity on these measures. We found that gNIS at small sample sizes (14% of population) can provide accurate population diversity measures, but slightly underestimated population inbreeding coefficients. Accurate measures of internal relatedness required at least 33% of the population to be sampled. Accurate geographic and genetic spatial autocorrelation analysis requires between 28% and 51% of the population to be sampled. We show that gNIS at low sample sizes can provide a powerful tool to aid conservation decision‐making and provide recommendations for researchers looking to apply these techniques to free‐ranging systems. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-10T15:03:32Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-d10cc7dfe6f843258cf5834624651d24 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2045-7758 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-10T15:03:32Z |
| publishDate | 2022-01-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Ecology and Evolution |
| spelling | doaj.art-d10cc7dfe6f843258cf5834624651d242023-02-15T09:06:07ZengWileyEcology and Evolution2045-77582022-01-01121n/an/a10.1002/ece3.8459Testing the effectiveness of genetic monitoring using genetic non‐invasive samplingAnthony James Schultz0Kasha Strickland1Romane H. Cristescu2Jonathan Hanger3Deidre deVilliers4Céline H. Frère5Global Change Ecology Research Group University of the Sunshine Coast Sippy Downs Qld AustraliaGlobal Change Ecology Research Group University of the Sunshine Coast Sippy Downs Qld AustraliaGlobal Change Ecology Research Group University of the Sunshine Coast Sippy Downs Qld AustraliaEndeavour Veterinary Ecology Pty Ltd Toorbul Qld AustraliaEndeavour Veterinary Ecology Pty Ltd Toorbul Qld AustraliaGlobal Change Ecology Research Group University of the Sunshine Coast Sippy Downs Qld AustraliaAbstract Effective conservation requires accurate data on population genetic diversity, inbreeding, and genetic structure. Increasingly, scientists are adopting genetic non‐invasive sampling (gNIS) as a cost‐effective population‐wide genetic monitoring approach. gNIS has, however, known limitations which may impact the accuracy of downstream genetic analyses. Here, using high‐quality single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) data from blood/tissue sampling of a free‐ranging koala population (n = 430), we investigated how the reduced SNP panel size and call rate typical of genetic non‐invasive samples (derived from experimental and field trials) impacts the accuracy of genetic measures, and also the effect of sampling intensity on these measures. We found that gNIS at small sample sizes (14% of population) can provide accurate population diversity measures, but slightly underestimated population inbreeding coefficients. Accurate measures of internal relatedness required at least 33% of the population to be sampled. Accurate geographic and genetic spatial autocorrelation analysis requires between 28% and 51% of the population to be sampled. We show that gNIS at low sample sizes can provide a powerful tool to aid conservation decision‐making and provide recommendations for researchers looking to apply these techniques to free‐ranging systems.https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.8459degradationkoalamonitoringnon‐invasivepopulation geneticssimulation |
| spellingShingle | Anthony James Schultz Kasha Strickland Romane H. Cristescu Jonathan Hanger Deidre deVilliers Céline H. Frère Testing the effectiveness of genetic monitoring using genetic non‐invasive sampling Ecology and Evolution degradation koala monitoring non‐invasive population genetics simulation |
| title | Testing the effectiveness of genetic monitoring using genetic non‐invasive sampling |
| title_full | Testing the effectiveness of genetic monitoring using genetic non‐invasive sampling |
| title_fullStr | Testing the effectiveness of genetic monitoring using genetic non‐invasive sampling |
| title_full_unstemmed | Testing the effectiveness of genetic monitoring using genetic non‐invasive sampling |
| title_short | Testing the effectiveness of genetic monitoring using genetic non‐invasive sampling |
| title_sort | testing the effectiveness of genetic monitoring using genetic non invasive sampling |
| topic | degradation koala monitoring non‐invasive population genetics simulation |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.8459 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT anthonyjamesschultz testingtheeffectivenessofgeneticmonitoringusinggeneticnoninvasivesampling AT kashastrickland testingtheeffectivenessofgeneticmonitoringusinggeneticnoninvasivesampling AT romanehcristescu testingtheeffectivenessofgeneticmonitoringusinggeneticnoninvasivesampling AT jonathanhanger testingtheeffectivenessofgeneticmonitoringusinggeneticnoninvasivesampling AT deidredevilliers testingtheeffectivenessofgeneticmonitoringusinggeneticnoninvasivesampling AT celinehfrere testingtheeffectivenessofgeneticmonitoringusinggeneticnoninvasivesampling |