Cited by 217Genetic diversity and population structureGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestockEvolution and Genetic Dynamics

An investigation of inbreeding depression and purging in captive pedigreed populations

Open access
Boakes, E H, Wang, J, Amos, W·2007·Heredity

Abstract

We use regression models to investigate the effects of inbreeding in 119 zoo populations, encompassing 88 species of mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians. Meta-analyses show that inbreeding depression for neonatal survival was significant across the 119 populations although the severity of inbreeding depression appears to vary among taxa. However, few predictors of a population's response to inbreeding are found reliable. The models are most likely to detect inbreeding depression in large populations, that is, in populations in which their statistical power is maximised. Purging was found to be significant in 14 populations and a significant trend of purging was found across populations. The change in inbreeding depression due to purging averaged across the 119 populations is <1%, however, suggesting that the fitness benefits of purging are rarely appreciable. The study re-emphasises the necessity to avoid inbreeding in captive breeding programmes and shows that purging cannot be relied upon to remove deleterious alleles from zoo populations.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/sj.hdy.6800923

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Reduced fitness levels and shortened lifespans are documented in selectively bred tiger populations.

    “Reduced fitness levels and shortened lifespans are also documented in such selectively bred populations [77,78].”

    From Tiger colour morphs in zoos raise conservation and welfare concerns (2026) · cites this paper as [77]

    In “Ancestral inbreeding effects” (page unavailable), the authors report that inbreeding had a positive, not negative, effect on neonatal survival in the Sumatran tiger population. The study measured survival to 7 or 30 days, not lifespan, so it does not document shortened tiger lifespans. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The selective pressure to produce colour morphs often results in inbreeding depression, a reduction in biological fitness caused by mating of closely related individuals.

    “The selective pressure to produce colour morphs often results in inbreeding depression, which refers to a reduction in biological fitness caused by the mating of closely related individuals [77].”

    From Tiger colour morphs in zoos raise conservation and welfare concerns (2026) · cites this paper as [77]

    The Introduction (page not provided) defines inbreeding depression as reduced fitness in offspring of matings between close relatives. The paper does not connect selective breeding for colour morphs to inbreeding depression, so that causal part of the sentence is unsupported. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Adamec V, Cassell BG, Smith EP, Pearson RE (2006). Effects of inbreeding in the dam on dystocia and stillbirths in US Holsteins. J Dairy Sci 89: 307-314.
  2. Ashworth D, Parkin DT (1992). Captive breeding: can genetic fingerprinting help? In: Moore HDM, Holt WV, Mace GM (eds). Biotechnology and the Conservation of Genetic Diversity. Columbia University Press: New York. pp 135-149.
  3. Crnokrak P, Barrett SCH (2002). Purging the genetic load: a review of the experimental evidence. Evolution 56: 2347-2358.
  4. Frankham R, Ballou JD, Briscoe DA (2002). Introduction to Conservation Genetics. University Press: Cambridge.
  5. Lacy RC, Petric A, Warneke M (1993). Inbreeding and out- breeding in captive populations of wild animal species. In: Thornhill NW (ed). The Natural History of Inbreeding and Outbreeding. University of Chicago Press: London. pp 352-374.
  6. Mosteller F, Bush RR (1954). Selected quantitative techniques. In: Lindzey G (ed). Handbook of Social Psychology. Addison- Wesley: Cambridge, MA.
  7. Venables WN, Ripley BD (1999). Modern Applied Statistics with S-Plus, 3rd edn. Springer: New York.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Boakes, E. H., Wang, J., & Amos, W.
Affiliations
  • Zoological Society of London (GB)
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
Corresponding author
Boakes, E H
Venue
Heredity
Published
2006-12-20
Volume
98
Issue
3
Pages
172-182
ISSN
  • 0018-067X (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2540
OpenAlex
W2010618800
Cited by
217
References
68
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 39 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 30 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 11
FWCI
3.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Heredity (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic diversity and population structure
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Evolution and Genetic Dynamics
Keywords
inbreeding depression, purging, captive breeding, zoo populations, neonatal survival, deleterious alleles, pedigree management, conservation genetics, mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians
MeSH terms
Amphibians, Animals, Animals, Newborn, Animals, Zoo, Birds, Female, Inbreeding, Male, Mammals, Models, Genetic, Pedigree, Regression Analysis, Reptiles, Genetic Variation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review