New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Koalas show how species can bounce back from genetic bottlenecks

Scientists have discovered a potential path out of devastating genetic bottlenecks that could help these Australian animals, as well as many other vulnerable and endangered species

A koala seen amid eucalyptus leaves, looking straight at the viewer.

CraigRJD/Getty Images

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Without interrupting their busy sleep schedule, Australia’s cute, if cantankerous, koalas have turned a truism of genetics on its head.

In short, the proliferation of certain koala populations shows how bottlenecks—which occur when a species’ numbers suddenly shrink, reducing genetic diversity—don’t necessarily doom an animal to inbreeding and eventually dying out. Previously bottlenecked species can bounce back, recovering a surprising amount of diversity.

“The assumption that a bottleneck leads to eventual extinction is not set in stone,” says Rachel O’Neill, a genome biologist at the University of Connecticut, who was not involved in the new research.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


For the study, published on March 5 in Science, researchers dug into the whole genomes of 418 koalas from different populations to understand how the effective population sizes of different groups had changed over time. Whereas a population size tallies the number of animals in a group, an effective population size measures how those animals’ genetic diversity is distributed among individuals by sexual reproduction.

The researchers found a pattern they didn’t expect among koala populations in the Australian state of Victoria, where the animals have high rates of inbreeding and genetic deformity. Their effective population sizes cratered in the late 1800s because of the fur trade, creating an expected bottleneck. But surprisingly, the scientists found that the effective population sizes of koalas in Victoria have been increasing over the past 40 generations, whereas those of Queensland and New South Wales koala populations—which conservationists have typically considered genetically healthier—have shown sharp declines.

“It still looks like they’re in bad shape, but if you dig further, we’re actually finding that there’s recovery from the bottleneck,” says study co-author Collin Ahrens, an evolutionary biologist at the independent research company Cesar Australia.

That genetic recovery has come thanks to explosive population growth—in Victoria, koalas are now so numerous that their management consists of trying to limit their numbers rather than increasing them, Ahrens notes. What’s happening is that these populations have increased so dramatically that there have been many opportunities for mutations to occur and even for the limited genes retained during the bottleneck to group in different ways.

“Recombination reshuffles the genetic variation,” Ahrens says. “That’s really important and something that’s been really difficult to measure.”

What happened with the Victorian koalas has an interesting parallel in invasive species. Scientists have long known that invasive organisms can rapidly proliferate after just a few individuals are introduced to a new ecosystem that they find is to their liking. Instead of being haunted by inbreeding, they sometimes thrive genetically, much to the detriment of the species around them.

The implications of the new research could reach far beyond koalas, given the number of species under threat from climate change and other human-driven pressures. “Right now we’re seeing a lot of anthropogenically driven declines, and I think their findings kind of give those populations hope,” says Caitlin Curry, a population geneticist at the San Diego Zoo Wildlife Alliance, who wasn’t involved in the new research. “If we give them the right resources and tools to have some kind of rapid expansion, maybe it also can restore their evolutionary potential.”

Meghan Bartels is a science journalist based in New York City. She was previously a senior reporter at Scientific American. Before that she spent more than four years as a writer and editor at Space.com, as well as nearly a year as a science reporter at Newsweek, where she focused on space and Earth science. Her writing has also appeared in Audubon, Nautilus, Astronomy and Smithsonian, among other publications. She attended Georgetown University and earned a master’s degree in journalism at New York University’s Science, Health and Environmental Reporting Program.

More by Meghan Bartels

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe