Acta Scientific Agriculture (ASAG)(ISSN: 2581-365X)

Research Article Volume 8 Issue 8

Simulation Suggests that Repeated Supplementations from the Wild into Captive Population Reduce but Cannot Eliminate Inbreeding

Vadarevu V Ganesh1,2, Vindhya Kumaran1,2, Erica LC Alejado1,2, Piyabut Kiatfuangfung1,2, Zuo Xian Seah1,2 and Maurice HT Ling1-3*

1School of Life Sciences, Management Development Institute of Singapore, Singapore
2School of Applied Sciences, Northumbria University, United Kingdom
3HOHY PTE LTD, Singapore

*Corresponding Author: Maurice HT Ling, School of Life Sciences, Management Development Institute of Singapore, Singapore.

Received: May 28, 2024; Published: July 11, 2024


Captive population can suffer from inbreeding due to founder’s effect and supplementation from the wild has been considered to increase genetic diversity and reduce inbreeding. However, a recent simulation study suggests that one-off naïve supplementation from the wild cannot increase genetic diversity; thereby, suggesting more complicated supplementation regimes. Hence, we hypothesize that that repeated supplementations can better increase genetic diversity compared to single supplementation. Our simulations show that repeated 10% supplementations results in significantly higher genetic diversity (p-value ≤ 1.48E-03) compared to one-off 10% supplementation, and increasing the supplementation ratio of repeated supplementations results in higher genetic diversity (p-value ≤ 2.35E-04) compared to repeated 10% supplementations. However, increasing repeated supplementation ratios above 100% may not further increase genetic diversity. This implies that repeated supplementations have the potential to reduce but not eliminate inbreeding.

Keywords: Captive Population; Inbreeding; Supplementation; Simulation; Genetic Diversity


  1. Keller L. “Inbreeding Effects in Wild Populations”. Trends in Ecology and Evolution5 (2002): 230-241.
  2. Gorelik OV., et al. “The Use of Inbreeding in Dairy Cattle Breeding”. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science8 (2020): 082013.
  3. Das BK. “Genetics of Quantitative Traits in Human: Inbreeding as an Approach of Study”. International Journal of Human Genetics3 (2011): 155-166.
  4. Allaire FR and Henderson CR. “Inbreeding Within an Artificially Bred Dairy Cattle Population”. Journal of Dairy Science10 (1965): 1366-1371.
  5. Gamblin J., et al. “Bottlenecks Can Constrain and Channel Evolutionary Paths”. Genetics 2 (2023): iyad001.
  6. Weaver SC., et al. “Population Bottlenecks and Founder Effects: Implications for Mosquito-Borne Arboviral Emergence”. Nature Reviews Microbiology3 (2021): 184-195.
  7. Charlesworth D and Willis JH. “The Genetics of Inbreeding Depression. Nature Reviews Genetics 10 (11): 783-796.
  8. Hasselgren M., et al. “Genomic and Fitness Consequences of Inbreeding in an Endangered Carnivore”. Molecular Ecology 12 (2021): 2790-2799.
  9. Toczydlowski RH and Waller DM. “Failure to Purge: Population and Individual Inbreeding Effects on Fitness Across Generations of Wild Impatiens capensis”. Evolution6 (2023): 1315-1329.
  10. Trask AE., et al. “Multiple Life-Stage Inbreeding Depression Impacts Demography and Extinction Risk in an Extinct-in-the-Wild Species”. Scientific Reports1 (2021): 682.
  11. Liu D., et al. “Low Genetic Diversity in Broodstocks of Endangered Chinese Sucker, Myxocyprinusasiaticus: Implications for Artificial Propagation and Conservation”. ZooKeys 792 (2018): 117-132.
  12. Pacioni C., et al. “Is Supplementation an Efficient Management Action to Increase Genetic Diversity in Translocated Populations?” Ecological Management and Restoration2 (2020): 123-130.
  13. Crnokrak P and Roff DA. “Inbreeding Depression in the Wild”. Heredity 3 (1999): 260-270.
  14. Kamarudin NJ., et al. “A Simulation Study on the Effects of Founding Population Size and Number of Alleles Per Locus on the Observed Population Genetic Profile: Implications to Broodstock Management”. EC Veterinary Science8 (2020): 176-180.
  15. Johny A., et al. “Simulation Suggests that One-Off Simple Supplementation from the Wild into Captive Population May Not Increase Captive Genetic Diversity”. EC Veterinary Science7 (2021): 107-111.
  16. Saunders PA., et al. “Sex Chromosome Turnovers and Genetic Drift: A Simulation Study”. Journal of Evolutionary Biology9 (2018): 1413-1419.
  17. Sekine D and Yabe S. “Simulation-Based Optimization of Genomic Selection Scheme for Accelerating Genetic Gain while Preventing Inbreeding Depression in Onion Breeding”. Breeding Science 5 (2020): 594-604.
  18. Zhao F., et al. “Genetic Gain and Inbreeding from Simulation of Different Genomic Mating Schemes for Pig Improvement”. Journal of Animal Science and Biotechnology1 (2023): 87.
  19. Castillo CFG and Ling MHT. “Resistant Traits in Digital Organisms Do Not Revert Preselection Status Despite Extended Deselection: Implications to Microbial Antibiotics Resistance”. BioMed Research International (2014): 648389.
  20. Castillo CF., et al. “Resistance Maintained in Digital Organisms Despite Guanine/Cytosine-Based Fitness Cost and Extended De-Selection: Implications to Microbial Antibiotics Resistance”. MOJ Proteomics and Bioinformatics2 (2015): 00039.
  21. Anderson CJR and Harmon L. “Ecological and Mutation-Order Speciation in Digital Organisms. The American Naturalist 183.2 (2014): 257-268.
  22. Beckmann BE–Evolution of resistance to quorum quenching in digital organisms”. Artificial Life3 (2012): 291-310.
  23. Ling MH. “Island: A Simple Forward Simulation Tool for Population Genetics”. Acta Scientific Computer Sciences2 (2019): 20-22.
  24. Haber M. “Detection of Inbreeding Effects by the Chi-Square Test on Genotypic and Phenotypic Frequencies”. American Journal of Human Genetics5 (1980): 754-760.
  25. Graffelman J and Weir BS. “On the Testing of Hardy-Weinberg Proportions and Equality of Allele Frequencies in Males and Females at Biallelic Genetic Markers”. Genetic Epidemiology1 (2018): 34-48.
  26. Wang J and Shete S. “Testing Departure from Hardy-Weinberg Proportions”. Methods in Molecular Biology 850 (2012): 77-102.
  27. Ferchaud A–Impact of Supplementation on Deleterious Mutation Distribution in an Exploited Salmonid”. Evolutionary Applications7 (2018): 1053-1065.
  28. Wang J and Ryman N. “Genetic Effects of Multiple Generations of Supportive Breeding”. Conservation Biology6 (2001): 1619-1631.
  29. Byrne PG and Silla AJ. “An Experimental Test of the Genetic Consequences of Population Augmentation in an Amphibian”. Conservation Science and Practice6 (2020): e194.


Citation: Maurice HT Ling. “Simulation Suggests that Repeated Supplementations from the Wild into Captive Population Reduce but Cannot Eliminate Inbreeding". Acta Scientific Agriculture 8.8 (2024): 31-35.


Copyright: © 2024 Maurice HT Ling. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.


Acceptance rate32%
Acceptance to publication20-30 days
Impact Factor1.014

Indexed In

News and Events

  • Certification for Review
    Acta Scientific certifies the Editors/reviewers for their review done towards the assigned articles of the respective journals.
  • Submission Timeline for Upcoming Issue
    The last date for submission of articles for regular Issues is July 10, 2024.
  • Publication Certificate
    Authors will be issued a "Publication Certificate" as a mark of appreciation for publishing their work.
  • Best Article of the Issue
    The Editors will elect one Best Article after each issue release. The authors of this article will be provided with a certificate of "Best Article of the Issue"
  • Welcoming Article Submission
    Acta Scientific delightfully welcomes active researchers for submission of articles towards the upcoming issue of respective journals.

Contact US