Back to all available

Persistent genetic connectivity in caribou may buffer against inbreeding effects

animal-behavior
conservation-biology
zoology
natural-resource-management
population-biology

Abstract

The Mulchatna Caribou Herd (MCH) in southwest Alaska has undergone significant demographic fluctuations, with a 94% decline over the past three decades, reducing the population from an estimated 200,000 to 13,000 individuals. This decline, coupled with radio-telemetry studies, reveals female fidelity to one of two spatially distinct calving grounds within the MCH range (designated east and west), an attribute typically used to define individual herds in Alaska. To assess the genetic consequences of the population decline, we analyzed genotyping-by-sequencing data from 121 adult female caribou. We found no strong genetic differentiation between east and west subgroups, suggesting that the herd currently functions as a single genetic population despite observed spatial structuring. In addition, we found no significant levels of inbreeding, likely due to the previously large population size. Overall, our results support the idea that the movement of caribou is best characterized by a metapopulation structure where connectivity between migratory and nonmigratory groups occurs over a large geographic range.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].