Genetic Future for Florida Panthers

W. E. Johnson et al. (“Genetic restoration of the Florida panther,” Reports, 24 September, p. [1641][1]) document genetic changes in the Florida panther population after the 1995 introduction of eight Texas puma females. This translocation has been a great success; the population size has increased more than threefold, and several detrimental traits have substantially decreased in frequency. However, there are compelling reasons to continue the close genetic management and monitoring of the population in the future. ![Figure][2] CREDIT: U.S. NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, EVERGLADES NATIONAL PARK/WIKIMEDIA COMMONS First, only five of the eight female Texas pumas had offspring. The distribution of offspring from these five females was unequal—one female contributed nearly half of the offspring—and the total ancestry from these five females was very high. Specifically, the authors stated that “[t]he estimated relative genetic contribution[s] of the [Texas] females to the descendant population” are 0.20, 0.10, 0.06, 0.04, and 0.01, for a total of 41%. Ordinarily, 50% percent of the ancestry is from each sex; a contribution of 41% is equivalent to saying that about 80% of the female ancestry is from the five Texas females, nearly the maximum possible. In other words, the Texas females may have been too successful and management should evaluate whether to actively preserve the original Florida panther ancestry. Second, the success may be threatened by inbreeding and low effective population size in the current and future generations. For example, a male offspring of a Texas female and a Florida panther male mated with three of his daughters and produced seven offspring with inbreeding coefficients of 0.25. The effective population size estimate was based only on the number of breeding males and breeding females. If the variance in contributions in males is equal to that found in Yellowstone pumas ([ 1 ][3]), which resulted in the effective number of males being only 18.5% of the observed number of males, and the variance in females reflects the contributions above, the overall effective size in 2007 is probably only between 10 and 15 animals, rather than the 32.1 estimated. Overall, swamping of the Florida panther ancestry, inbreeding, and low effective population size may endanger the gains made from translocation for genetic restoration ([ 2 ][4]). 1. [↵][5] 1. M. Culver 2. et al ., Anim. Conserv. 11, 1045 (2008). [OpenUrl][6] 2. [↵][7] 1. P. W. Hedrick, 2. R. Fredrickson , Conserv. Genet. 11, 615 (2010). [OpenUrl][8][CrossRef][9][Web of Science][10] [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.1192891 [2]: pending:yes [3]: #ref-1 [4]: #ref-2 [5]: #xref-ref-1-1 "View reference 1 in text" [6]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DAnim.%2BConserv.%26rft.volume%253D11%26rft.spage%253D1045%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [7]: #xref-ref-2-1 "View reference 2 in text" [8]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DConserv.%2BGenet.%26rft.volume%253D11%26rft.spage%253D615%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1007%252Fs10592-009-9999-5%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [9]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s10592-009-9999-5&link_type=DOI [10]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000275455700023&link_type=ISI