Conservation genetics of the Mary River turtle (Elusor macrurus) in natural and captive populations
Many thousands of Mary River turtle eggs were harvested for the pet trade in the 1960s and 1970s before it was recognized as a new species in a unique genus. Pet turtles and their descendants still survive in captive collections. Elusor macrurus is now an endangered species after suffering dramatic...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Aquatic conservation 2018-02, Vol.28 (1), p.115-123 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 123 |
---|---|
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 115 |
container_title | Aquatic conservation |
container_volume | 28 |
creator | Schmidt, Daniel J. Espinoza, Thomas Connell, Marilyn Hughes, Jane M. |
description | Many thousands of Mary River turtle eggs were harvested for the pet trade in the 1960s and 1970s before it was recognized as a new species in a unique genus. Pet turtles and their descendants still survive in captive collections. Elusor macrurus is now an endangered species after suffering dramatic population declines along the single Australian river that constitutes its entire range.
A conservation genetic assessment was conducted to evaluate population subdivision within the remaining wild population of the Mary River turtle; to compare diversity of the wild population with a captive sample derived from the pet trade; and to establish a baseline estimate of effective population size (Ne) to assist with future monitoring and recovery.
Microsatellite analysis indicated panmixia throughout most of the Mary River catchment with the exception of one downstream tributary –Tinana Creek (pop. Specific FST = 0.154). Subdivision between Tinana Creek and Mary River is a feature common to multiple co‐distributed freshwater taxa including the threatened Australian lungfish and Mary River cod. Microsatellite diversity of the wild adult population was low (average HS = 0.554) and not significantly different from that of a sample of captive turtles from the pet trade – indicating genetic diversity may be well represented in captive stocks. Mitochondrial DNA diversity was extremely limited, with only two haplotypes found in the wild and a single shared haplotype in captive turtles.
Estimates of Ne applicable to the entire species in the wild were ~136 and ~158 using two independent methods. A reasonable management objective should be retention of Ne levels >100 during recovery of the species. Additional recommendations include that Mary River turtles be listed as Critically Endangered, and that a recovery plan be developed that considers ‘headstarting’ – using captive bred stocks to supplement the wild population. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1002/aqc.2851 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2002097268</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2002097268</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2931-4f9d46f061449e423d6be78eeddd74a8f4cf4f37275ac7e29406998bb1f9469e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kE1LAzEQhoMoWKvgTwh4qYetSTabbI6l1A9QRNFzSLMT3bLdbJPdSv-9aevV0wzMM-8wD0LXlEwpIezObOyUlQU9QSNKlMqILIrTfV-wTAqan6OLGFeEECWoGCE7922EsDV97Vv8BS30tY3YO9x_A34xYYff6y0E3A-hbwBPFs0QfcBrY8MQhniL6xa3Jk1Ng01bYWu6Pi3gzndDc0iNl-jMmSbC1V8do8_7xcf8MXt-fXiaz54zy1ROM-5UxYUjgnKugLO8EkuQJUBVVZKb0nHruMslk4WxEpjiRChVLpfUKS4U5GN0c8ztgt8MEHu98kNo00nNkhqiJBNloiZHygYfYwCnu1Cv06OaEr1XqJNCvVeY0OyI_tQN7P7l9OxtfuB_Aaq1csQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2002097268</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Conservation genetics of the Mary River turtle (Elusor macrurus) in natural and captive populations</title><source>Wiley Blackwell Single Titles</source><creator>Schmidt, Daniel J. ; Espinoza, Thomas ; Connell, Marilyn ; Hughes, Jane M.</creator><creatorcontrib>Schmidt, Daniel J. ; Espinoza, Thomas ; Connell, Marilyn ; Hughes, Jane M.</creatorcontrib><description>Many thousands of Mary River turtle eggs were harvested for the pet trade in the 1960s and 1970s before it was recognized as a new species in a unique genus. Pet turtles and their descendants still survive in captive collections. Elusor macrurus is now an endangered species after suffering dramatic population declines along the single Australian river that constitutes its entire range.
A conservation genetic assessment was conducted to evaluate population subdivision within the remaining wild population of the Mary River turtle; to compare diversity of the wild population with a captive sample derived from the pet trade; and to establish a baseline estimate of effective population size (Ne) to assist with future monitoring and recovery.
Microsatellite analysis indicated panmixia throughout most of the Mary River catchment with the exception of one downstream tributary –Tinana Creek (pop. Specific FST = 0.154). Subdivision between Tinana Creek and Mary River is a feature common to multiple co‐distributed freshwater taxa including the threatened Australian lungfish and Mary River cod. Microsatellite diversity of the wild adult population was low (average HS = 0.554) and not significantly different from that of a sample of captive turtles from the pet trade – indicating genetic diversity may be well represented in captive stocks. Mitochondrial DNA diversity was extremely limited, with only two haplotypes found in the wild and a single shared haplotype in captive turtles.
Estimates of Ne applicable to the entire species in the wild were ~136 and ~158 using two independent methods. A reasonable management objective should be retention of Ne levels >100 during recovery of the species. Additional recommendations include that Mary River turtles be listed as Critically Endangered, and that a recovery plan be developed that considers ‘headstarting’ – using captive bred stocks to supplement the wild population.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1052-7613</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1099-0755</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/aqc.2851</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</publisher><subject>Catchment area ; Coastal inlets ; Collections ; Conservation ; Conservation genetics ; Deoxyribonucleic acid ; DNA ; Eggs ; Elusor macrurus ; Endangered & extinct species ; Endangered species ; Freshwater ; Freshwater fishes ; Genetic diversity ; Genetic variation ; Genetics ; Haplotypes ; impoundment ; Inland water environment ; Microsatellites ; Mitochondrial DNA ; New species ; Population ; Population decline ; Population number ; Rare species ; Recovery ; reptiles ; Reptiles & amphibians ; river ; River catchments ; Rivers ; salinity ; Stocks ; Taxa ; Threatened species ; Trade ; Turtles ; Wildlife conservation</subject><ispartof>Aquatic conservation, 2018-02, Vol.28 (1), p.115-123</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2931-4f9d46f061449e423d6be78eeddd74a8f4cf4f37275ac7e29406998bb1f9469e3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2931-4f9d46f061449e423d6be78eeddd74a8f4cf4f37275ac7e29406998bb1f9469e3</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-5638-497X</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Faqc.2851$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Faqc.2851$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27903,27904,45553,45554</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Schmidt, Daniel J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Espinoza, Thomas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Connell, Marilyn</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hughes, Jane M.</creatorcontrib><title>Conservation genetics of the Mary River turtle (Elusor macrurus) in natural and captive populations</title><title>Aquatic conservation</title><description>Many thousands of Mary River turtle eggs were harvested for the pet trade in the 1960s and 1970s before it was recognized as a new species in a unique genus. Pet turtles and their descendants still survive in captive collections. Elusor macrurus is now an endangered species after suffering dramatic population declines along the single Australian river that constitutes its entire range.
A conservation genetic assessment was conducted to evaluate population subdivision within the remaining wild population of the Mary River turtle; to compare diversity of the wild population with a captive sample derived from the pet trade; and to establish a baseline estimate of effective population size (Ne) to assist with future monitoring and recovery.
Microsatellite analysis indicated panmixia throughout most of the Mary River catchment with the exception of one downstream tributary –Tinana Creek (pop. Specific FST = 0.154). Subdivision between Tinana Creek and Mary River is a feature common to multiple co‐distributed freshwater taxa including the threatened Australian lungfish and Mary River cod. Microsatellite diversity of the wild adult population was low (average HS = 0.554) and not significantly different from that of a sample of captive turtles from the pet trade – indicating genetic diversity may be well represented in captive stocks. Mitochondrial DNA diversity was extremely limited, with only two haplotypes found in the wild and a single shared haplotype in captive turtles.
Estimates of Ne applicable to the entire species in the wild were ~136 and ~158 using two independent methods. A reasonable management objective should be retention of Ne levels >100 during recovery of the species. Additional recommendations include that Mary River turtles be listed as Critically Endangered, and that a recovery plan be developed that considers ‘headstarting’ – using captive bred stocks to supplement the wild population.</description><subject>Catchment area</subject><subject>Coastal inlets</subject><subject>Collections</subject><subject>Conservation</subject><subject>Conservation genetics</subject><subject>Deoxyribonucleic acid</subject><subject>DNA</subject><subject>Eggs</subject><subject>Elusor macrurus</subject><subject>Endangered & extinct species</subject><subject>Endangered species</subject><subject>Freshwater</subject><subject>Freshwater fishes</subject><subject>Genetic diversity</subject><subject>Genetic variation</subject><subject>Genetics</subject><subject>Haplotypes</subject><subject>impoundment</subject><subject>Inland water environment</subject><subject>Microsatellites</subject><subject>Mitochondrial DNA</subject><subject>New species</subject><subject>Population</subject><subject>Population decline</subject><subject>Population number</subject><subject>Rare species</subject><subject>Recovery</subject><subject>reptiles</subject><subject>Reptiles & amphibians</subject><subject>river</subject><subject>River catchments</subject><subject>Rivers</subject><subject>salinity</subject><subject>Stocks</subject><subject>Taxa</subject><subject>Threatened species</subject><subject>Trade</subject><subject>Turtles</subject><subject>Wildlife conservation</subject><issn>1052-7613</issn><issn>1099-0755</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1kE1LAzEQhoMoWKvgTwh4qYetSTabbI6l1A9QRNFzSLMT3bLdbJPdSv-9aevV0wzMM-8wD0LXlEwpIezObOyUlQU9QSNKlMqILIrTfV-wTAqan6OLGFeEECWoGCE7922EsDV97Vv8BS30tY3YO9x_A34xYYff6y0E3A-hbwBPFs0QfcBrY8MQhniL6xa3Jk1Ng01bYWu6Pi3gzndDc0iNl-jMmSbC1V8do8_7xcf8MXt-fXiaz54zy1ROM-5UxYUjgnKugLO8EkuQJUBVVZKb0nHruMslk4WxEpjiRChVLpfUKS4U5GN0c8ztgt8MEHu98kNo00nNkhqiJBNloiZHygYfYwCnu1Cv06OaEr1XqJNCvVeY0OyI_tQN7P7l9OxtfuB_Aaq1csQ</recordid><startdate>201802</startdate><enddate>201802</enddate><creator>Schmidt, Daniel J.</creator><creator>Espinoza, Thomas</creator><creator>Connell, Marilyn</creator><creator>Hughes, Jane M.</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QH</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>7TN</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7UA</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>H95</scope><scope>H99</scope><scope>L.F</scope><scope>L.G</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>P64</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5638-497X</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>201802</creationdate><title>Conservation genetics of the Mary River turtle (Elusor macrurus) in natural and captive populations</title><author>Schmidt, Daniel J. ; Espinoza, Thomas ; Connell, Marilyn ; Hughes, Jane M.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c2931-4f9d46f061449e423d6be78eeddd74a8f4cf4f37275ac7e29406998bb1f9469e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Catchment area</topic><topic>Coastal inlets</topic><topic>Collections</topic><topic>Conservation</topic><topic>Conservation genetics</topic><topic>Deoxyribonucleic acid</topic><topic>DNA</topic><topic>Eggs</topic><topic>Elusor macrurus</topic><topic>Endangered & extinct species</topic><topic>Endangered species</topic><topic>Freshwater</topic><topic>Freshwater fishes</topic><topic>Genetic diversity</topic><topic>Genetic variation</topic><topic>Genetics</topic><topic>Haplotypes</topic><topic>impoundment</topic><topic>Inland water environment</topic><topic>Microsatellites</topic><topic>Mitochondrial DNA</topic><topic>New species</topic><topic>Population</topic><topic>Population decline</topic><topic>Population number</topic><topic>Rare species</topic><topic>Recovery</topic><topic>reptiles</topic><topic>Reptiles & amphibians</topic><topic>river</topic><topic>River catchments</topic><topic>Rivers</topic><topic>salinity</topic><topic>Stocks</topic><topic>Taxa</topic><topic>Threatened species</topic><topic>Trade</topic><topic>Turtles</topic><topic>Wildlife conservation</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Schmidt, Daniel J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Espinoza, Thomas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Connell, Marilyn</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hughes, Jane M.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Aqualine</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Oceanic Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Water Resources Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 1: Biological Sciences & Living Resources</collection><collection>ASFA: Marine Biotechnology Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Marine Biotechnology Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Aquatic conservation</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Schmidt, Daniel J.</au><au>Espinoza, Thomas</au><au>Connell, Marilyn</au><au>Hughes, Jane M.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Conservation genetics of the Mary River turtle (Elusor macrurus) in natural and captive populations</atitle><jtitle>Aquatic conservation</jtitle><date>2018-02</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>28</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>115</spage><epage>123</epage><pages>115-123</pages><issn>1052-7613</issn><eissn>1099-0755</eissn><abstract>Many thousands of Mary River turtle eggs were harvested for the pet trade in the 1960s and 1970s before it was recognized as a new species in a unique genus. Pet turtles and their descendants still survive in captive collections. Elusor macrurus is now an endangered species after suffering dramatic population declines along the single Australian river that constitutes its entire range.
A conservation genetic assessment was conducted to evaluate population subdivision within the remaining wild population of the Mary River turtle; to compare diversity of the wild population with a captive sample derived from the pet trade; and to establish a baseline estimate of effective population size (Ne) to assist with future monitoring and recovery.
Microsatellite analysis indicated panmixia throughout most of the Mary River catchment with the exception of one downstream tributary –Tinana Creek (pop. Specific FST = 0.154). Subdivision between Tinana Creek and Mary River is a feature common to multiple co‐distributed freshwater taxa including the threatened Australian lungfish and Mary River cod. Microsatellite diversity of the wild adult population was low (average HS = 0.554) and not significantly different from that of a sample of captive turtles from the pet trade – indicating genetic diversity may be well represented in captive stocks. Mitochondrial DNA diversity was extremely limited, with only two haplotypes found in the wild and a single shared haplotype in captive turtles.
Estimates of Ne applicable to the entire species in the wild were ~136 and ~158 using two independent methods. A reasonable management objective should be retention of Ne levels >100 during recovery of the species. Additional recommendations include that Mary River turtles be listed as Critically Endangered, and that a recovery plan be developed that considers ‘headstarting’ – using captive bred stocks to supplement the wild population.</abstract><cop>Oxford</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</pub><doi>10.1002/aqc.2851</doi><tpages>9</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5638-497X</orcidid></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1052-7613 |
ispartof | Aquatic conservation, 2018-02, Vol.28 (1), p.115-123 |
issn | 1052-7613 1099-0755 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2002097268 |
source | Wiley Blackwell Single Titles |
subjects | Catchment area Coastal inlets Collections Conservation Conservation genetics Deoxyribonucleic acid DNA Eggs Elusor macrurus Endangered & extinct species Endangered species Freshwater Freshwater fishes Genetic diversity Genetic variation Genetics Haplotypes impoundment Inland water environment Microsatellites Mitochondrial DNA New species Population Population decline Population number Rare species Recovery reptiles Reptiles & amphibians river River catchments Rivers salinity Stocks Taxa Threatened species Trade Turtles Wildlife conservation |
title | Conservation genetics of the Mary River turtle (Elusor macrurus) in natural and captive populations |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-22T16%3A52%3A41IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Conservation%20genetics%20of%20the%20Mary%20River%20turtle%20(Elusor%20macrurus)%20in%20natural%20and%20captive%20populations&rft.jtitle=Aquatic%20conservation&rft.au=Schmidt,%20Daniel%20J.&rft.date=2018-02&rft.volume=28&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=115&rft.epage=123&rft.pages=115-123&rft.issn=1052-7613&rft.eissn=1099-0755&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/aqc.2851&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2002097268%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2002097268&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |