5 results
20 - Role and efficiency of artificial insemination and genome resource banking
-
- By Jogayle Howard, National Zoological Park, Yan Huang, China Conservation and Research Center for the Giant Panda, Pengyan Wang, China Research and Conservation Center for the Giant Panda, Desheng Li, China Conservation and Research Center for the Giant Panda, Guiquan Zhang, China Research and Conservation Center for the Giant Panda, Rong Hou, Chengdu Research Base of Giant Panda Breeding, Zhihe Zhang, Chengdu Research Base of Giant Panda Breeding, Barbara S. Durrant, Conservation and Research for Endangered Species, Rebecca Spindler, Toronto Zoo, Hemin Zhang, China Conservation and Research Center for the Giant Panda, Anju Zhang, Chengdu Giant Panda Breeding Research Foundation, David E. Wildt, National Zoological Park
- Edited by David E. Wildt, Smithsonian National Zoological Park, Washington DC, Anju Zhang, Hemin Zhang, Wildlife Conservation and Research Center for Giant Pandas, Donald L. Janssen, Zoological Society of San Diego, Susie Ellis
-
- Book:
- Giant Pandas
- Published online:
- 09 August 2009
- Print publication:
- 27 July 2006, pp 469-494
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
INTRODUCTION
Historically, the breeding of giant pandas in ex situ programmes has been difficult due to behavioural incompatibility and interanimal aggression. Because some individuals fail to mate naturally, the potential loss of valuable genes is a major concern to effective genetic management (see Chapter 21). Consistently successful artificial insemination (AI) would allow incorporating genetically valuable males with behavioural or physical anomalies into the gene pool. This strategy becomes even more powerful when used in the context of a genome resource bank (GRB), an organised repository of cryopreserved biomaterials (tissue, blood, DNA and sperm) (see Chapter 7). The use of sperm cryopreservation and AI allows the movement of genes among zoos and breeding centres without needing to transfer animals, which is both stressful and costly.
‘Assisted breeding’ refers to the tools and techniques associated with helping a pair of animals propagate, from AI to embryo transfer to cloning, among others (Howard, 1999; Pukazhenthi & Wildt, 2004). With the exception of AI, there is not much need for most other assisted-breeding techniques for the giant panda. As will be demonstrated here, AI is quite adequate for dealing with most cases of infertility or with helping to maintain adequate gene diversity in the captive population. In fact, the major breeding facilities, especially the China Conservation and Research Centre for the Giant Panda (hereafter referred to as the Wolong Breeding Centre) and the Chengdu Research Base of Giant Panda Breeding, routinely use AI to increase pregnancy success.
3 - Factors limiting reproductive success in the giant panda as revealed by a Biomedical Survey
-
- By Susie Ellis, Conservation International, Donald Lo Janssen, San Diego Zoo, Zoological Society of San Diego, Mark S. Edwards, San Diego Zoo, Zoological Society of San Diego, Jogayle Howard, National Zoological Park, Guangxin He, Chengdu Research Base of Giant Panda Breeding, Jianqiu Yu, Chengdu Research Base for Giant Panda Breeding, Guiquan Zhang, China Research and Conservation Center for the Giant Panda, Rongping Wei, China Conservation and Research Center for the Giant Panda, R. Eric Miller, Saint Louis Zoo, WildCare Institute, David E. Wildt, National Zoological Park
- Edited by David E. Wildt, Smithsonian National Zoological Park, Washington DC, Anju Zhang, Hemin Zhang, Wildlife Conservation and Research Center for Giant Pandas, Donald L. Janssen, Zoological Society of San Diego, Susie Ellis
-
- Book:
- Giant Pandas
- Published online:
- 09 August 2009
- Print publication:
- 27 July 2006, pp 37-58
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
INTRODUCTION
There is surprisingly little published information about giant panda biology, especially in the life sciences. This poor quantity (and quality) of data has been due primarily to too few individual animals available for study and a traditional hands-off policy towards hands-on research in such a rare and high-profile species. However, recent changes (see Chapter 2) have created important, new opportunities for giant panda investigations. People responsible for ensuring that the species survives now realise that giant pandas living in zoos and breeding centres are a valuable research resource (see Chapter 1). It also has been recognised that this population must be intensively managed if it is truly to support giant pandas that are surviving precariously in nature. The intended result will be an ever-increasing amount of new, scholarly information and sufficient panda numbers to continue educating the public, helping to raise conservation funding, serving as a hedge against extinction, and even as a source of animals for potential reintroductions. However, these laudable goals can only be achieved by first understanding and then rigorously managing the captive population so that it becomes demographically and genetically stable. This, in fact, has become the mantra of Chinese managers of the ex situ population: ‘to develop a self-sustaining, captive population of giant pandas that will assist supporting a long-term, viable population in the wild’ (see Chapter 2).
7 - Male reproductive biology in giant pandas in breeding programmes in China
-
- By Jogayle Howard, National Zoological Park, Zhihe Zhang, Chengdu Research Base of Giant Panda Breeding, Desheng Li, China Conservation and Research Center for the Giant Panda, Yan Huang, China Conservation and Research Center for the Giant Panda, Rong Hou, Chengdu Research Base of Giant Panda Breeding, Guanghan Li, Chengdu Giant Panda Breeding Research Foundation, Meijia Zhang, Chengdu Research Base of Giant Panda Breeding, Zhiyong Ye, Chengdu Research Base of Giant Panda Breeding, Jinguo Zhang, Beijing Zoo, Shiqiang Huang, Beijing Zoo, Rebecca Spindler, Toronto Zoo, Hemin Zhang, China Conservation and Research Center for the Giant Panda, David E. Wildt, National Zoological Park
- Edited by David E. Wildt, Smithsonian National Zoological Park, Washington DC, Anju Zhang, Hemin Zhang, Wildlife Conservation and Research Center for Giant Pandas, Donald L. Janssen, Zoological Society of San Diego, Susie Ellis
-
- Book:
- Giant Pandas
- Published online:
- 09 August 2009
- Print publication:
- 27 July 2006, pp 159-197
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
INTRODUCTION
The goal of the giant panda ex situ breeding programme is to produce healthy, genetically diverse and reproductively sound offspring. However, reproduction in this species has been poor, in part, due to lack of male libido or aggressive behaviours towards conspecific females. Although giant panda breeding facilities have made progress in producing more surviving young, only about 29% of captive male giant pandas have ever sired offspring (Lindburg et al., 1998), and most of these males were wild born. Of the 104 giant pandas in the ex situ population in China in 1996 (at the time of the first masterplanning meeting in China; Zheng et al., 1997; see also Chapter 2), there were 33 adult males of reproductive age (6–26 years old). Only five (15.2%) had ever mated naturally and sired young. This was the main reason for ‘male reproduction’ being a primary target of the Biomedical Survey conducted under the umbrella of the Conservation Breeding Specialist Group (CBSG) (see Chapter 2).
We had three goals, the first being to measure the presence or absence of any obvious physiological or anatomical abnormalities. The second was to learn more about species reproductive biology, specifically comparing males of different ages, successful versus unsuccessful breeders and wild-born versus captive born. Our approach also allowed a third opportunity: studies that would enhance our understanding on how better to use male gametes (sperm) to advance genetic management (see Chapter 21). In this case, our focus was on:
sperm morphology and acrosomal integrity;
testes development during the breeding season;
[…]
Environment influences morphology and development for in situ and ex situ populations of the black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes)
- Samantha M. Wisely, Rachel M. Santymire, Travis M. Livieri, Paul E. Marinari, Julie S. Kreeger, David E. Wildt, JoGayle Howard
-
- Journal:
- Animal Conservation forum / Volume 8 / Issue 3 / August 2005
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 26 August 2005, pp. 321-328
- Print publication:
- August 2005
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
For selected species, conservation breeding has become integrated into recovery plans, most often through the production of offspring for reintroduction into nature. As these programs increase in size and scope, it is imperative that conservation managers retain the biological integrity of the species. This study investigated the causes of morphological changes that are known to occur in black-footed ferrets (Mustela nigripes) maintained ex situ. In a previous study, ferrets maintained in captivity were 5–10% smaller in body size than pre-captive, in situ animals. In the present study, the authors compared nine morphological characters among ex situ animals and their in situ descendants. Within the ex situ population, cage types were compared to determine whether housing influenced morphometry. Black-footed ferrets born to reintroduced individuals quickly returned to their pre-captive size suggesting that a diminutive morphology ex situ did not have a genetic basis. Furthermore, cage type affected overall body size and shape; ulnas and tibias were as much as 9% shorter for ex situ animals. The authors hypothesise that small cage size and environmental homogeneity inhibit the mechanical stimuli necessary for long bone development. These findings have ramifications for ex situ managers who need to create artificial captive settings that promote natural physical development. In the absence of such an environment, ‘unnatural’ morphologies can result that may contribute to poor fitness or perhaps even domestication.
16 - Black-footed ferret: model for assisted reproductive technologies contributing to in situ conservation
-
- By Jogayle Howard, Conservation & Research Center, National Zoological Park, Smithsonian Institution, Front Royal, VA 22630 and Washington, DC 20008, U.S.A., Paul E. Marinari, National Black-Footed Ferret Conservation Center, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Laramie, WY 82070, U.S.A., David E. Wildt, Conservation & Research Center, National Zoological Park, Smithsonian Institution, Front Royal, VA 22630 and Washington, DC 20008, U.S.A.
- Edited by William V. Holt, Zoological Society of London, Amanda R. Pickard, Zoological Society of London, John C. Rodger, David E. Wildt, Smithsonian National Zoological Park, Washington DC
-
- Book:
- Reproductive Science and Integrated Conservation
- Published online:
- 21 January 2010
- Print publication:
- 05 December 2002, pp 249-266
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES
Assisted reproductive technologies (artificial insemination [AI], in vitro fertilisation [IVF], embryo transfer and gamete/embryo cryopreservation) have been postulated for decades as ‘high-tech’ solutions for helping conserve genetics and biodiversity. There is no doubt that these techniques could offer many advantages for managing small populations, largely by ensuring that all genetically valuable animals reproduce (Howard, 1993, 1999; Wildt & Roth, 1997; Wildt et al., 1997). The potential of assisted reproduction could be enhanced further by developing genome resource banks (repositories of cryopreserved sperm, eggs, embryos), thus preserving valuable genetic material for future generations. The combined use of assisted breeding and germplasm banks also has potential for infusing genetic material from wild-born individuals into genetically stagnant ex situ populations or even exchanging genetic material between isolated wild populations (Holt et al., 1996; Wildt et al., 1997).
Despite these advantages, assisted reproduction has not been used consistently in ‘practical’ wildlife management and in situ conservation, largely for one reason: until recently, no wildlife species has been adequately studied, at least to the extent that its reproduction was so comprehensively understood that assisted breeding could become routine.
It commonly is assumed that reproductive knowledge and techniques well established for laboratory rodents, domestic farm species and even humans are readily adaptable to propagating or overcoming infertility in wild animals (Wildt et al., 2000). This is a misperception because all species have naturally evolved ‘species-specific’ reproductive mechanisms, most of which have not yet been elucidated.