Subscribe
Prev | Table of Contents | Next
Science
Vol. 329 no. 5999 pp. 1641-1645
DOI: 10.1126/science.1192891
  • Report

Genetic Restoration of the Florida Panther

  1. Stephen J. O’Brien1,
  1. 1Laboratory of Genomic Diversity, National Cancer Institute, Frederick, MD 21702, USA.
  2. 2Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Naples, FL 34114, USA.
  3. 3SAIC-Frederick, Laboratory of Genomic Diversity, National Cancer Institute, Frederick, MD 21702, USA.
  4. 4U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Vero Beach, FL 32960, USA.
  5. 5Livestock Protection Company, Alpine, TX 79832, USA.
  6. 6Big Cypress National Preserve, Ochopee, FL 34141, USA.
  7. 8Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute, Front Royal, VA 22630, USA.
  8. 9White Oak Conservation Center, Yulee, FL 32046, USA.
  9. 10Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA.
  1. To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: stephenobrien{at}nih.gov (S.J.O.); warjohns{at}mail.nih.gov (W.E.J.); Dave.Onorato{at}MyFWC.com (D.P.O.)
  1. * These authors contributed equally to this work.

Abstract

The rediscovery of remnant Florida panthers (Puma concolor coryi) in southern Florida swamplands prompted a program to protect and stabilize the population. In 1995, conservation managers translocated eight female pumas (P. c. stanleyana) from Texas to increase depleted genetic diversity, improve population numbers, and reverse indications of inbreeding depression. We have assessed the demographic, population-genetic, and biomedical consequences of this restoration experiment and show that panther numbers increased threefold, genetic heterozygosity doubled, survival and fitness measures improved, and inbreeding correlates declined significantly. Although these results are encouraging, continued habitat loss, persistent inbreeding, infectious agents, and possible habitat saturation pose new dilemmas. This intensive management program illustrates the challenges of maintaining populations of large predators worldwide.

  • Received for publication 27 May 2010.
  • Accepted for publication 11 August 2010.

Responses to this article