2009
DOI: 10.1098/rsbl.2009.0315
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Carry-over effect of captive breeding reduces reproductive fitness of wild-born descendants in the wild

Abstract: Supplementation of wild populations with captive-bred organisms is a common practice for conservation of threatened wild populations. Yet it is largely unknown whether such programmes actually help population size recovery. While a negative genetic effect of captive breeding that decreases fitness of captive-bred organisms has been detected, there is no direct evidence for a carry-over effect of captive breeding in their wild-born descendants, which would drag down the fitness of the wild population in subsequ… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

5
246
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 215 publications
(251 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
5
246
0
Order By: Relevance
“…We genotyped all samples at eight highly polymorphic microsatellite loci (Omy 1001, Omy 1011, Omy 1191, Omy77, One108, One2, Ssa407 and Str2), which average 36 alleles per locus (see Araki et al, 2007a,b for details of microsatellite loci, Hardy-Weinberg proportions and molecular methods). These data were previously employed to determine the relative reproductive success of hatchery and wild steelhead (Araki et al, 2007a,b), and of wild-born steelhead having hatchery vs wild parents (Araki et al, 2009). Results from this work documented that hatchery fish created with two wild parents averaged 85% the reproductive success of their wild counterparts and that an additional generation in captivity reduced fitness in the wild by an additional 50% (Araki et al, 2007a).…”
Section: Sample Collection and Typingmentioning
confidence: 64%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…We genotyped all samples at eight highly polymorphic microsatellite loci (Omy 1001, Omy 1011, Omy 1191, Omy77, One108, One2, Ssa407 and Str2), which average 36 alleles per locus (see Araki et al, 2007a,b for details of microsatellite loci, Hardy-Weinberg proportions and molecular methods). These data were previously employed to determine the relative reproductive success of hatchery and wild steelhead (Araki et al, 2007a,b), and of wild-born steelhead having hatchery vs wild parents (Araki et al, 2009). Results from this work documented that hatchery fish created with two wild parents averaged 85% the reproductive success of their wild counterparts and that an additional generation in captivity reduced fitness in the wild by an additional 50% (Araki et al, 2007a).…”
Section: Sample Collection and Typingmentioning
confidence: 64%
“…After returning from the ocean, a portion (or in many cases all) of the returning adult hatchery fish are allowed onto the spawning grounds with the wild-born fish. Wild broodstock are preferred in some supplementation programs because they can produce offspring that have much higher fitness in the wild than offspring from older, domesticated hatchery stocks (though even first generation hatchery fish can have reduced fitness in the wild; Araki et al, 2007a;Araki et al, 2009;Williamson et al, 2010;Berntson et al, 2011;Theriault et al, 2011;Christie et al, 2012).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Finally, re duced genetic diversity among individuals can arise due to founder effects, small effective population sizes and genetic drift (see Bekkevold et al 2006, Hutchings & Fraser 2008 for reviews and Pampoulie et al 2006, Glover et al 2010 for examples in cod). In this context, one of the main ecological concerns is that escapee fish hybridize with wild populations leading to introgression of farmed genetic material into the wild pool (as observed in some Norwegian Atlantic salmon populations by Glover et al 2012Glover et al , 2013, potentially lowering wild stock fitness and/or causing the extinction of the original wild genotypes (reviewed by Fleming 1995, Weir & Grant 2005, Ferguson et al 2007, Hutchings & Fraser 2008; see Araki et al 2009 for a study in a fish population). As an example, in Atlantic salmon, interbreeding and competition be tween farmed and wild individuals causes lower fitness and productivity of wild populations (Fleming et al 2000, McGinnity et al 2003, even though this effect seems to be family specific .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Ecologists, conservationists, and wildlife managers alike should be aware of the quality/type of habitat that individuals come from and the possibility of unexpected dynamics in focus areas caused by carryover effects of natal habitats on immigrating individuals. This aspect highlights a possible difficulty in identifying carryover effects in nature, given that it could be critical to know where dispersing individuals come from and what conditions they experienced to identify potential carryover effects when natal and new habitats differ (16,30,48,52,53). Furthermore, carryover effects can alter dispersal decisions and capabilities (16,44).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%