# To those who doubt if pulling eggs is selection...



## Dendrobait (May 29, 2005)

The Road To Extinction Is Paved With Good Intentions - Conservation


----------



## Scott (Feb 17, 2004)

Exactly what my fear of artificially feeding oophaga tads that are not getting cared for by the parents.

s


----------



## Fantastica (May 5, 2013)

I don't see much of the issue here. Favoring fecundity over genetic diversity is necessary if there's only two individuals left to restart a population. If it's a really bad gene, and it effects 9% of a population, then the behavior will lead to less of those offspring and the gene won't persist in the population over generations.
Sounds much better than extinction.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk


----------



## frogparty (Dec 27, 2007)

Scott- you could make this same argument for pulling any eggs out. yOu are selecting against parents with the capacity to transport tadpoles to a successful rearing site. 

Whether or not they are egg feeders is almost a secondary thought here, as deposition site selection has to be equally, if not more important to the success of offspring, and is definitely more relevant to all dendrobatids in the hobby


----------



## edwardsatc (Feb 17, 2004)

frogparty said:


> Scott- you could make this same argument for pulling any eggs out. yOu are selecting against parents with the capacity to transport tadpoles to a successful rearing site.


There may be selection _for _frogs that don't transport, but there is no selection _against_ frogs that do transport.

In other words, if a mutation arises that produces frogs which don't transport, then that mutation is allowed to persist. But pulling eggs does not select _against_ those frogs that do transport. So pulling eggs from parents that are _known_ to be capable of transport does no harm.


----------



## frogparty (Dec 27, 2007)

edwardsatc said:


> There may be selection _for _frogs that don't transport, but there is no selection _against_ frogs that do transport.
> 
> In other words, if a mutation arises that produces frogs which don't transport, then that mutation is allowed to persist. But pulling eggs does not select _against_ those frogs that do transport. So pulling eggs from parents that are _known_ to be capable of transport does no harm.


true. You actually have no way of knowing what you are selecting for.... but you do know you are not putting any selective pressure towards that trait.


----------



## hypostatic (Apr 25, 2011)

Every. Single. Thing. You. Do. Causes. Selective. Pressure.

The food you use. Your lighting. The arrangement of the plants. The temperature of the room. Where you live. If you sneeze.

Everything causes a selective pressure. The largest pressures being the artificial environments that we keep them in, and the forced matings we select.

Pulling eggs also creates a selective pressure, regardless of species. In fact, so does not pulling eggs.


----------



## aspidites73 (Oct 2, 2012)

I second this, and offer a more simplistic view. Since being removed from the wild, evolution is no longer valid. Yes, it occurs, but it has no impact in nature. An argument could be made that Bromeliads are selecting for tads that provide them the best fertilizer. Further, birds are selecting for tads that better hide themselves (by mere fact of eating the ones who don't). People are quick to point out how we select or do not select (still a form of selection) effects a captive population yet, they never mention that the natural world could care less. Who cares if our captive populations veer off to good or bad tad transporters? The animals will survive as long as we are willing to help them survive. They are no longer members of nature. Like it or not, they belong to us! 

EDIT: I do appreciate the article! Thanks dendrobait



hypostatic said:


> Every. Single. Thing. You. Do. Causes. Selective. Pressure.
> 
> The food you use. Your lighting. The arrangement of the plants. The temperature of the room. Where you live. If you sneeze.
> 
> ...


----------



## frogparty (Dec 27, 2007)

some people would argue that it matters a LOT if we ever plan on trying to re introduce animals in to wild habitat.


----------



## hypostatic (Apr 25, 2011)

aspidites73 said:


> I second this, and offer a more simplistic view. Since being removed from the wild, evolution is no longer valid. Yes, it occurs, but it has no impact in nature.


Evolution is what we call the change in alleles in an interbreeding population over many generations. I would call each hobbyist's collection a different population, and I don't see them really qualifying as interbreeding. So yes, very different



frogparty said:


> some people would argue that it matters a LOT if we ever plan on trying to re introduce animals in to wild habitat.


I believe I've read multiple times by Ed stating that the animals in the hobby aren't suitable for reintroduction.


----------



## frogparty (Dec 27, 2007)

hypostatic said:


> Evolution is what we call the change in alleles in an interbreeding population over many generations. I would call each hobbyist's collection a different population, and I don't see them really qualifying as interbreeding. So yes, very different
> 
> 
> 
> I believe I've read multiple times by Ed stating that the animals in the hobby aren't suitable for reintroduction.


Not the way we currently manage the hobby, correct. 

One of the reasons why is because we select for traits so differently than wild type selection.


----------



## hypostatic (Apr 25, 2011)

Yes, we tend to select frogs that we think are "pretty". I've even seen a well known/respected breeder say that they select frogs to breed based on how well they think they look like the "ideal" morph representative.


----------



## Dendrobait (May 29, 2005)

I think a big reason people keep dendrobatids is because of this fascinating parental behavior. 

Also, it is much less work if the frogs are willing to transport or able to rear their own young.

I for one would refuse to buy if i knew that the frogs came from a bloodline that is known to be poor at parenting. 

This isn't a matter of having frogs suitable for reintroduction...but it is a matter for their viability in the hobby. The same goes for babying every froglet along and trying to get everything to survive/breed. Instead of the prettiest animals we should be breeding the toughest animals...those that will be the most rewarding rather than frustrating for other hobbyists to work with.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Fantastica said:


> I don't see much of the issue here. Favoring fecundity over genetic diversity is necessary if there's only two individuals left to restart a population. If it's a really bad gene, and it effects 9% of a population, then the behavior will lead to less of those offspring and the gene won't persist in the population over generations.
> Sounds much better than extinction.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk


This the wrong message to take from the article.. The message in the article is that they shouldn't have encouraged fecundity over genetic diversity. 

I would also point out that while the actual allele for rim-layers is maladaptive, there could be linked or associated genes that are positively adaptive for the birds (it could actually be adaptive for one sex, such as the males). 
This is a classic example of why the populations should be managed for genetic diversity as soon as possible.

some comments 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Dendrobait said:


> .
> . The same goes for babying every froglet along and trying to get everything to survive/breed. Instead of the prettiest animals we should be breeding the toughest animals...those that will be the most rewarding rather than frustrating for other hobbyists to work with.


This results in direct selection for the genes most adapted to captive husbandry methods. People often forget that if an animal isn't managed for genetic diversity (which often helps code for behaviors), then the captive population will diverge sufficiently that it will no longer be the same as the wild population.. In this case, even though there are captive animals of that species, it will be functionally extinct as the captive populations will probably be non-viable in the wild. This is not a new phenomena see for example Intraspecific differences in behaviour and ... [J Comp Physiol B. 2001] - PubMed - NCBI 

Geiser, F.; Ferguson, C.; 2001; Intraspecific differences in behaviour and physiology: effects of captive breeding on patterns of torpor in feathertail gliders; J Comp Physiol B.171(7):569-76 (I included the citations since links to articles have moved or been broken in the past). 

At some point, the hobby needs to make a decision as to whether they are okay with the frog equivalent of the fancy guppy or society finch. 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

frogparty said:


> Not the way we currently manage the hobby, correct.
> 
> One of the reasons why is because we select for traits so differently than wild type selection.


The issues is that we select for traits at all. People appear to often become confused by idea that we should not be selecting for traits in captivity since selection occurs in the wild. The correct answer/method is that we should be doing the best we can to not select for any traits at all. That would at least keep the frogs as close to the point of time that they were collected as possible for a long period of time (more than 100 years...). 

This has been discussed repeatedly in the past with out much buy in and a lot of blow back by people who claim that inbreeding or selection is fine for the frogs. 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## frogparty (Dec 27, 2007)

Well, at least in regards to the inbreeding/line breeding......there are quite a few of us quite vocal about fining non sibling unrelated animals for the formation of our breeding pairs/groups. 

Yes it can be a pain sometimes, and sometimes it seems downright impossible, but its worth it, and worth it to the hobby. 

People are just lazy, or dont want to pay shipping from multiple sources to get their frogs


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

edwardsatc said:


> There may be selection _for _frogs that don't transport, but there is no selection _against_ frogs that do transport.


(Donn, you adressed this below but I think it needs a little further elaboration). 



edwardsatc said:


> In other words, if a mutation arises that produces frogs which don't transport, then that mutation is allowed to persist. But pulling eggs does not select _against_ those frogs that do transport. So pulling eggs from parents that are _known_ to be capable of transport does no harm.


I have to say sort of... It will then depend on energy expenditure. If the non-transporting group allocates less calories towards the care of the eggs/tadpole, then they should be able to produce more eggs if all else is equal. Over time, this will shift the number of gene copies toward non-transporting animals. 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## hypostatic (Apr 25, 2011)

The best thing though, would be to pair up unrelated frogs randomly, not caring about the patterning of the frogs.


----------



## frogparty (Dec 27, 2007)

hypostatic said:


> The best thing though, would be to pair up unrelated frogs randomly, not caring about the patterning of the frogs.


agreed. Easily done with many frogs where phenotypic divergence is minimal, like vanzos. I admit that with frogs like varadero imis it would be hard for me to pair randomly.


----------



## Dendrobait (May 29, 2005)

Ed said:


> This results in direct selection for the genes most adapted to captive husbandry methods. People often forget that if an animal isn't managed for genetic diversity (which often helps code for behaviors), then the captive population will diverge sufficiently that it will no longer be the same as the wild population.. In this case, even though there are captive animals of that species, it will be functionally extinct as the captive populations will probably be non-viable in the wild.


I guess the question is if one is able to assume that an animal that is obviously not thriving in captivity would be one of the ones that would make it in the wild. For example, albinos etc...although from my understanding the new thinking is to include albinos and other obvious misfits in breeding programs at the approximate ratio as the alleles would occur in the wild. 

I think one of the big and probably unsolvable problems in this hobby is bottlenecking and selection based on who gets the frogs.

Picture some frogs that get purchased by a beginner, versus some that get picked up by a seasoned breeder. Those bought by the breeder are going to have higher fitness in the hobby-they will likely produce more offspring that will then be circulated wider than those bought by the novice(who may kill them, or perhaps keep them as pets forever, or perhaps they do breed and go to a few friends). And the breeder is going to prefer either a certain color pattern, or the more vigorous and perhaps prolific frog when he holds back future breeders or frogs that go to fellow breeder friends-vs frogs that get offered to the general public and vaporize.


----------



## bradlyb (Jul 22, 2013)

They mention the California Condor in the beginning of the article, and that is one of my favorite examples (since I live about 30 minutes from where you can occasionally see them).

The condor example has to do with their behavior. Even though they were saved from the brink of extinction they are essentially pets. I have seen a dozen condors on the side of the highway bathing and posing for photos, with people only 20 feet away from them. This is not natural behavior. 

To quote the article, "management programs that prioritize fecundity over genetic diversity may result in the promotion of maladaptive traits and the genes that underlie them." The robin example has an original breeding population of a single breeding pair. Their genetic diversity, as a result, is virtually nonexistent. 

In our own frog collections we have to worry about genetic diversity to only a small extent. Should we promote genetic diversity in the trade? Of course we should. This comes with good husbandry practices and thoughtful breeding. On the other hand we have to consider what our frog symbolize. Are we keeping them as a conversationalist measure? I think not. Our pet frogs are not being kept to be released in the future. With the demand of imported frogs decreasing, and with the amount of captive bred frogs being produced, out frogs are most certainly going through their own process of gene flow, and therefore decreasing the overall genetic diversity of our pets.

Is this decrease in genetic diversity a bad thing within the frog trade? We, as humans, are putting our own selective pressures upon our frogs. Feeding tadpoles, changing their water or not, keeping them at certain temperatures, various humidities, with various concentrations of plants in their vivariums, feeding them specific food items with specific vitamin regimes, all of these are promoting a species that can be kept for our viewing pleasures. 

Let me give another example. I have been reading through various threads on communal tadpole raising, especially in the context of my amazonica/vents. Many threads point of cannibalism, while others have shown that given the right diet and cover this can be almost completely avoided. Something I read commonly in those threads was, and I am paraphrasing, "and the ones that do get eaten by their siblings are probably the weak ones that shouldn't survive anyway." My immediate thought is* weak for what trait?* Are they slower growers? Is that a bad thing? What if that "now dead tadpole" would have had some other trait that would have made it a stronger individual in the vivarium?

So, is pulling eggs artificial/human selection? Of course it is, but everything we do with our vivariums causes some sort of selective pressure and we have little way of knowing what traits we are selecting for. The take home message, for me anyway, is that we need to promote genetic diversity within our trade by doing as little inbreeding as possible.


----------



## bradlyb (Jul 22, 2013)

Dendrobait said:


> although from my understanding the new thinking is to include albinos and other obvious misfits in breeding programs at the approximate ratio as the alleles would occur in the wild.


Why should we only keep the naturally occurring ratio of misfits within the trade? 

Or, more appropriately, why do we keep dart frogs at all?


----------



## hypostatic (Apr 25, 2011)

bradlyb said:


> Why should we only keep the naturally occurring ratio of misfits within the trade?
> 
> Or, more appropriately, why do we keep dart frogs at all?


We should try to do this to best emulate the wild population's allele frequencies. If this isn't done, what will most likely happen is the loss of genetic diversity (which includes potential MHCs which has been discussed). This makes the captive population less healthy. In particular, albino animals (and other misfits) have a poor survival record even in captivity, so it is bad practice to purposefully increase the number of these animals in the hobby.

Why do we keep dart frogs? This is a very individual question, as everyone has a different reason. Mine is because I like having a small piece of the rainforest.


----------



## yerbamate (Nov 3, 2013)

hypostatic said:


> Every. Single. Thing. You. Do. Causes. Selective. Pressure.
> 
> The food you use. Your lighting. The arrangement of the plants. The temperature of the room. Where you live. If you sneeze.
> 
> ...


This quote really sums it up. Sometimes, we have to get really deeply immersed into an endeavor before we realize the true impact of our actions. Back in my zookeeper days, I remember wrestling much with the immensity of what Hypostatic has so eloquently stated. Zoos are selecting for species's traits permitting greater survival in captivity, even more so with species showing faster generational turnaround time. It's heavy when it dawns on you that evolution isn't just some vaguely conceptual idea, but rather an insidious, ever present and powerful force. Like time and existence themselves, there's no escaping it.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

yerbamate said:


> This quote really sums it up. Sometimes, we have to get really deeply immersed into an endeavor before we realize the true impact of our actions. Back in my zookeeper days, I remember wrestling much with the immensity of what Hypostatic has so eloquently stated. Zoos are selecting for species's traits permitting greater survival in captivity, even more so with species showing faster generational turnaround time. It's heavy when it dawns on you that evolution isn't just some vaguely conceptual idea, but rather an insidious, ever present and powerful force. Like time and existence themselves, there's no escaping it.


Actually, you can significantly reduce any selective pressures by proper maintenance of the genetic diversity of the population. This is where institutions such as zoos and aquariums have gone with their management programs.... 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Dendrobait said:


> I guess the question is if one is able to assume that an animal that is obviously not thriving in captivity would be one of the ones that would make it in the wild.


You can't make this assumption. It's one of the hardest thing for people to understand about captive populations.... Anytime you place any value on an individual, you are engaging in selection.



Dendrobait said:


> For example, albinos etc...although from my understanding the new thinking is to include albinos and other obvious misfits in breeding programs at the approximate ratio as the alleles would occur in the wild.


This is important because you cannot choose the associated genetics that are associate with that gene. You cannot eliminate only one trait.. you will always eliminate other genes as well if you try.... 



Dendrobait said:


> I think one of the big and probably unsolvable problems in this hobby is bottlenecking and selection based on who gets the frogs.


Given that in the vast majority of the frogs produce multiple offspring, it would easily be avoided if a portion of the hobby engaged in proper genetic management. 



Dendrobait said:


> Picture some frogs that get purchased by a beginner, versus some that get picked up by a seasoned breeder. Those bought by the breeder are going to have higher fitness in the hobby-they will likely produce more offspring that will then be circulated wider than those bought by the novice(who may kill them, or perhaps keep them as pets forever, or perhaps they do breed and go to a few friends). And the breeder is going to prefer either a certain color pattern, or the more vigorous and perhaps prolific frog when he holds back future breeders or frogs that go to fellow breeder friends-vs frogs that get offered to the general public and vaporize.


The scenario has to be given a maybe. For one reason it is because you end up with disproportionate possession.. for example, look at how many new people get leucomela pushed as the perfect starter frog. Even if a smaller percentage of the starter froggers are successful, you can end up with a disproportionate number of those frogs swamping the gene pool. 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## yerbamate (Nov 3, 2013)

Great discussion. It brings me back around to Dart Frog Warehouse and the kind of pressure that a mega-breeder gunning for quick profit will place on a population. This, in turn, makes me think of the large numbers of mis-shaped fish that I now see from Wal-Mart tanks and even smaller specialist fish stores. The overall health of a lot of those smaller tropicals (ostensibly raised in the same Florida ponds from the same stock for decades) definitely seems to be doing worse than what I remember 20-30 years ago.


----------



## Noel Calvert (Jan 8, 2013)

Hello Everyone:
Noel Calvert of GueCal Vivero Colombiano S.A.S.
I do not know if this post is still active or not, but I will be posting similar comments in a new post as well. 

I am very interested in this discussion with one very important difference. I live in South West Colombia. I am currently in the process of purchasing land to create a privately owned Botanical Garden & natural reserves. On these pieces of land I would very much like to address the issues that are being spoken about here regarding conservation of these frogs & possibly other amphibian types. 

Here is how I think my location, interests, & land could benefit this discussion as well as actually be an affective way of repairing the problem in real time instead of some imaginary predesignate future when something may or may not pass.

1: Through groups like this, I interact with hobbyists interested in this conservation effort. 
2: I request frog donations in the form of specific species as land becomes suitable to introduce them. 
3: I pay shipping, or ideally come retrieve the frogs personally.
I slowly reintroduce these frogs into the land without interfering at all with their future survival beyond providing suitable natural habitat.
4: Observation of the various populations for 3 to 5 years.
5: At the end of the 3-5 year time span , retrieval of many of the frogs for transport & reintroduction into their specific natural habitats. 

Important things to note about this would be:
1: The frogs need to have been observed exhibiting natural behavior such as parental chores if the species is known to do that.
2: Only natural phenotypes...
no morphs as those do not appear in the wild (I think), & therefore would not meet the needs for conservation of the actual species.
3: Complete as possible genealogy of said frogs to try to avoid siblings being consigned for this effort. 
4: extreme care needs to be taken packing the frogs for shipping as this would be a conservation effort, and we do not want dead frogs from shipping rather than natural selection processes during the population growth stage.
5: If you have a positive comment to help with this effort or to facilitate its success, then please comment about it... However if the comment is simply how this would never work for whatever reason, please keep that to yourself... This is about solutions, not pessimism.
6: I am personally in negotiations with the environmental protection agency here, so this effort would be manageable through them.


----------



## frogface (Feb 20, 2010)

Very interesting. I hope to hear more about your planned nature reserve.


----------



## thedude (Nov 28, 2007)

Noel Calvert said:


> 5: If you have a positive comment to help with this effort or to facilitate its success, then please comment about it... However if the comment is simply how this would never work for whatever reason, please keep that to yourself... This is about solutions, not pessimism.


Doesn't really work like that. You're going to get both sides no matter what.

Now then, you are talking about introducing species into the wild, which brings up 2 BIG red flags.
1. Are these species native to the area you're talking about? Or just from the same type of habitat? Invasive species is a huge problem in the world. You wouldn't want to introduce, say pumilio in to an area of histrionica habitat in Colombia. Invasives could potentially ruin the native ecosystem. Likewise you shouldn't introduce separate distinct populations like the anchicaya population to the pangala population (just an example). This would lead to unnatural hybrids, which comes with a whole new set of issues.

2. Then you have the issue of introducing very dangerous pathogens. You said you wanted them donated from individuals? Bad idea. Aside from some institutions, most people cannot offer you any animals that are fit for reintroduction. You could put the native amphibians of your land and potentially the land around it in great harm.

Now then, you could always buy land with endangered species on it to keep it from being destroyed.


----------



## hypostatic (Apr 25, 2011)

He has started a thread on this, found here:
http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/science-conservation/158650-non-captive-breeding-program.html


----------



## Noel Calvert (Jan 8, 2013)

thedude said:


> Doesn't really work like that. You're going to get both sides no matter what.
> 
> Now then, you are talking about introducing species into the wild, which brings up 2 BIG red flags.
> 1. Are these species native to the area you're talking about? Or just from the same type of habitat? Invasive species is a huge problem in the world. You wouldn't want to introduce, say pumilio in to an area of histrionica habitat in Colombia. Invasive species could potentially ruin the native ecosystem. Likewise you shouldn't introduce separate distinct populations like the anchicaya population to the pangala population (just an example). This would lead to unnatural hybrids, which comes with a whole new set of issues.
> ...


You are giving me plenty to contemplate & to find answers for as we discuss this idea. Thanks for the participation.

I have said elsewhere that people could suggest species to work with. This is the ideal approach for me as you hobbyist probably know more about the locality & species information than I presently do. I will also research this with the local experts on the subject though those are few & far between.

The last part of your reply is probably the most useful to me, & something I was planning to ask about during the setup of this project. I would like very much to locate areas with endangered species to protect, and possibly help to recover. 

It might make good sense to list the institutions you were referring to to help along the idea of the effort I would like to undertake. Obviously I am not the first person to have this idea, so this crowd here probably has a lot better information of where to locate suitable frogs, & other amphibians for a project like this.

As far as the negative comments thing, it can be expected though generally people do not know how to manage themselves in that manner. I have for instance seen pages such as this monitored & negative responses simply removed within a few minutes to a few days. Of course I will get negative responses, but my request for more positive responses helps to weed out at least some of those which were probably less than productive anyways. Some of the negative stuff I am getting is guiding the discussion to something that when put into action may be a suitable & sustainable effort. 

On a note about the original subject of this post, the moment you put the animals in an inclosure & began taking care of them you acted selectively.


----------



## hypostatic (Apr 25, 2011)

Noel, you seem to have posted about your project on several different threads. You should keep it's discussion contained in the thread you started:
http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/science-conservation/158650-non-captive-breeding-program.html


----------

