It is not possible to preserve the diversity of most species
>(possible exceptions for plants with very small populations and very
>limited numbers of sites, but even here the genetic diversity could be
>fairly large) without large numbers. One could have two plants with large
>numbers of genetic differences, but that still would only be two plants.
>To really preserve the range of diversity found in the wild, one would
>have to cultivate, and maintain, at least one example of each genetically
>different plant.
It's been very interesting reading all the threads on genetic diversity as
my state (Arizona) has just realsed California Condors back into the wild.
They have been extict here for over 70 years. It seems that the entire world
population a few years ago numbered 21 (all in captivity, none in the wild).
I just wonder how much diversity was able to be maintained in such a small
population. I haven't read anything in the media about this being a
problem, but that certainly doesn't mean that the conservationists haven't
thought about it.
Limited genetic diversity would show up in what way? Problems with
inbreeding? Less evolutional mutations? Just curious :-)
Regards,
John in Phoenix