Advertisement

Conservation Genetics

, Volume 6, Issue 5, pp 867–870 | Cite as

A comparison of sample types varying in invasiveness for use in DNA sex determination in an endangered population of greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus uropihasianus)

  • Krista L. Bush
  • Michael D. Vinsky
  • Cameron L. Aldridge
  • Cynthia A. Paszkowski
Article

Key words

DNA extraction endangered species noninvasive samples Sage-Grouse sex determination 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank field assistants for collection of Sage-Grouse samples, M. Boyce for field research supervision, and C. Strobeck for laboratory use. This research was funded by the Alberta Conservation Association, Alberta Sport, Recreation, Parks and Wildlife Foundation, American Pheasant and Waterfowl Society, World Wildlife Fund, Prairie Ornamental Pheasant and Waterfowl Association, Saskatchewan Environment, Society of Canadian Ornithologists, and the University of Alberta. KLB was supported by an NSERC Postgraduate Scholarship, Frances M. Peacock Scholarship for Native Bird Habitat, Charles Sivelle Scholarship, and the University of Alberta.

References

  1. Aldridge CL, Brigham RM (2003) Distribution, status and abundance of Greater Sage-Grouse, Centrocercus urophasianus, in Canada. Canadian Field Naturalist 117:25–34Google Scholar
  2. Kahn NW, St. John J, Quinn T (1998) Chromosome-specific intron size differences in the avian CHD gene provide an efficient method for sex dentification in birds. Auk 115:1074–1078Google Scholar
  3. Pearce JM, Fields RL, Scribner KT (1997) Nest materials as a source of genetic data for avian ecological studies. Journal of Field Ornithology, 68:471–481Google Scholar
  4. Poschadel JR and Möller D (2004) A versatile field method for tissue sampling on small reptiles and amphibians, applied to pond turtles, newts, frogs and toads. Conservation Genetics 5:865–867CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Qiagen (2003a) DNeasy® Tissue Handbook. Protocol for isolation of total DNA from animal tissues, pp. 18–20, QIAGEN. Valencia, California, USAGoogle Scholar
  6. Qiagen (2003b) QIAamp® DNA Micro Handbook. Protocol for isolation of genomic DNA from swabs, pp. 21–24; Protocol for isolation of genomic DNA from tissues, pp. 35–37. QIAGEN. Valencia, California, USAGoogle Scholar
  7. Sambrook J, Russell DW (2001) Molecular Cloning, a Laboratory Manual, 3rd edition. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Segelbacher G, Steinbrück G (2001) Bird faeces for sex identification and microsatellite analysis. Vogelwarte 41:139–142Google Scholar
  9. Segelbacher G (2002) Noninvasive genetic analysis in birds: testing reliability of feather samples. Molecular Ecology Notes 2:367–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Tablerlet P, Bouvet J (1991) A single plucked feather as a source of DNA for bird genetic studies. Auk 108:959–960Google Scholar
  11. Taberlet P, Waits LP, Luikart G (1999) Noninvasive genetic sampling: look before you leap. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 14:323–327CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Krista L. Bush
    • 1
  • Michael D. Vinsky
    • 2
  • Cameron L. Aldridge
    • 1
  • Cynthia A. Paszkowski
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada
  2. 2.Department of Agricultural, Food and Nutritional ScienceUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada

Personalised recommendations