Can captive breeding have deleterious effects on individual fitness?

Overall effectiveness category Evidence not assessed
Number of studies: 3
Share Tweet Email

View assessment score

How is the evidence assessed?

Effectiveness

not assessed
Certainty

not assessed
Harms

not assessed

Calculating overall effectiveness category

Background information and definitions

One potential problem with captive breeding is that it limits the effective population of a species to the number of captive individuals that are available to interbreed. This could lead to inbreeding depression and a loss of fitness. Similarly, the different selection pressures on individuals in captivity may alter the physiology of captive populations, as has occurred in domesticated species.

It is important to note that low genetic diversity, inbreeding and changes due to captivity do not necessarily lead to reduced fitness. Care should therefore be taken in interpreting the results from the studies below.

Key messages

Three studies of wild populations, wild and captive populations and museum specimens, one replicated, found evidence for potentially deleterious physiological or genetic changes due to captive breeding. These studies did not investigate fitness.
A study of a wild Mauritius kestrel, Falco punctatus, population derived totally from captive individuals found high inbreeding and a loss of genetic diversity, but this was caused more by the very low population size (four wild birds) than by captivity per se.
The museum-based study found reduced relative brain volume in captive wildfowl, compared with wild birds, whilst a comparison of wild and captive populations of white-headed ducks Oxyura leucocephala found lower genetic diversity in captive populations.

About key messages

Key messages provide a descriptive index to studies we have found that test this intervention.

Studies are not directly comparable or of equal value. When making decisions based on this evidence, you should consider factors such as study size, study design, reported metrics and relevance of the study to your situation, rather than simply counting the number of studies that support a particular interpretation.

Supporting evidence from individual studies

A study of a population of Mauritius kestrels Falco punctatus in eastern Mauritius (Ewing et al. 2008) found that the population had grown from 12 individuals in 1987 to a minimum of 154 by 2002. Over this time, the degree of inbreeding increased by 2.6% each generation and by 2002, 25% of pairs were either closely or moderately related. Over this period 1.6% of genetic diversity was lost each generation. Effects on reproduction or survival were not monitored.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Ewing S.R., Nager R.G., Nicoll M.A.C., Jones C. G. & Keller L.F. (2008) Inbreeding and loss of genetic variation in a reintroduced population of Mauritius kestrel. Conservation Biology, 22, 395-404.
A replicated study of brain volume in 21 species of wildfowl from museum collections (Guay & Iwaniuk 2008) found that brain volume was lower in captive populations for 16 of the species, with an average decrease of 4.7% (range of 1-33%). Relative brain volume (brain volume in relation to other body measurements) was also lower in captive populations for 20 of the species, with an average reduction of 7.7% (range of 2-30%). A total of 268 skeletons were examined, at least one member of each sex was examined for each species. The effect of these decreases on behaviour, survival or reproduction is not known.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Guay P.J. & Iwaniuk A.N. (2008) Captive breeding reduces brain volume in waterfowl (Anseriformes). The Condor, 110, 276-284.
A controlled 2008 study of genetic diversity in white-headed ducks Oxyura leucocephala (Muñoz-Fuentes et al. 2008) found that two captive-bred populations had significantly lower genetic diversity than wild birds from Greece and Spain. A total of 38 captive-bred birds were tested, (27 from a Spanish collection and 11 from a UK collection) and compared with 70 wild birds collected between 1993 and 2003 (63 from Spain, seven from Greece). The captive Spanish birds descended from eight wild birds caught in Spain in 1982, the UK birds from three wild birds caught in Pakistan in 1968. Both microsatellite and mitochondrial DNA were less diverse in captive populations. Effects on reproduction or survival were not monitored.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Muñoz-Fuentes V., Green A.J. & Sorenson M.D. (2008) Comparing the genetics of wild and captive populations of White-headed Ducks Oxyura leucocephala: consequences for recovery programmes. Ibis, 150, 807-815.

Please cite as:

Williams, D.R., Child, M.F., Dicks, L.V., Ockendon, N., Pople, R.G., Showler, D.A., Walsh, J.C., zu Ermgassen, E.K.H.J. & Sutherland, W.J. (2020) Bird Conservation. Pages 137-281 in: W.J. Sutherland, L.V. Dicks, S.O. Petrovan & R.K. Smith (eds) What Works in Conservation 2020. Open Book Publishers, Cambridge, UK.

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Bird Conservation

Related Actions

Actions	Effectiveness	Studies	Category
Use captive breeding to increase or maintain populations of songbirds Action Link	Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)	3	Synopsis Link
Can captive breeding have deleterious effects on individual fitness? Action Link	Evidence not assessed	3	Synopsis Link
Artificially incubate and hand-rear storks and ibises in captivity Action Link	Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)	2	Synopsis Link