Captive breeding and the genetic fitness of natural populations

By Michael Lynch, Martin O'Hely. Conservation Genetics, 2001

356 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Agronomy and Crop Science, Genetics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/1b4b2e8cf1db5aacede40678152fd1a54a471e60

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Agronomy and Crop Science

1. M. M. Hansen
2. Einar E. Nielsen
3. Joel s. Brown
4. D. Bekkevold
5. A. Robert
6. K. Kostow
7. M. Chilcote

In Genetics

1. K. Kostow
2. A. Robert
3. A. Hendry
4. M. Kinnison
5. M. Chilcote
6. T. Pearsons
7. D. Fast
8. Mark V. Johnston

Citations in the corpus

• Captive breeding genetics and reintroduction success (2009, background): “…magnitude of the load primarily depends on the residence time of genes in the relaxed environment and the gene flow from captive to wild population (Lynch and O’Hely, 2001), which is in agreement with empirical evidence that success of biological control programs is negatively related to time in…”
• Responsible genetic approach to stock restoration, sea ranching and stock enhancement of marine fishes and invertebrates (2017, background): “Theoretical results show that introgressive hybridizations can lead to drops in fitness in only a few generations and the magnitudes of these drops depend, in part, on the number of generations a brood stock has been cultivated in a hatchery under relaxed or positive selection for maladaptive or dom”
• Factors influencing the relative fitness of hatchery and wild spring Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in the Wenatchee River, Washington, USA (2010, background): “…their reproductive success is unknown (McClure et al. 2003) and may lead to reduced short- and long-term natural productivity because of genetic deterioration of the natural population as a result of interbreeding between naturally produced fish and hatchery fish (Lynch and O’Hely 2001; Ford 2002).”
• Documented and Potential Biological Impacts of Recreational Fishing: Insights for Management and Conservation (2006, background): “, 2004), even if individuals from the wild population were continuously introduced in the breeding stock (Lynch and O’Hely, 2001).”
• Genetic impact of gadoid culture on wild fish populations: predictions, lessons from salmonids, and possibilities for minimizing adverse effects (2006, methodology): “Using a quantitative genetic model, Lynch and O’Hely (2001) ex-”
• Relationship between natural productivity and the frequency of wild fish in mixed spawning populations of wild and hatchery steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) (2003, background): “, broodstock origin, broodstock age, infusion rate of wild fish, and phenotypic divergence) that are identified as potentially significant in studies that examine the process of genetic divergence between hatchery and wild fish (Waples 1999; Lynch and O’Hely 2001; Ford 2002).”
• Minimizing genetic adaptation in captive breeding programs: A review (2009, background): “In contrast, Lynch and O’Hely (2001) argue that supplementation programs are useful only in the short-term to increase the size of the natural population.”
• Differences in juvenile phenotypes and survival between hatchery stocks and a natural population provide evidence for modified selection due to captive breeding (2004, background): “Modified selection pressures and demographic characteristics of a population may work together to contribute to genetic change in a captive population (Lynch and O’Hely 2001).”
• Factors that contribute to the ecological risks of salmon and steelhead hatchery programs and some mitigating strategies (2009, methodology): “Much of the emphasis of the risk assessments to date has been on genetic integration or segregation of hatchery and wild fish and the effects of genetic risks, following the theoretical work by Lynch and O’Hely (2001) and Ford (2002).”
• Contemporary evolution meets conservation biology (2003, background): “If the refuge population diverges from the native population, it might become maladapted to its ancestral habitat [5,15,40] and therefore more difficult to reintroduce [ 55 ].”
• Comparison of Life History Traits between First-Generation Hatchery and Wild Upper Yakima River Spring Chinook Salmon (2006, background): “In general, significant changes in locally adapted life history traits will be maladaptive in the wild (Lynch and O’Hely 2001; Ford 2002; Goodman 2004, 2005), leading to reduced individual reproductive success (Taylor 1991; Fleming and Gross 1993; Fleming et al. 2000) and possibly resulting in…”
• Evolutionarily enlightened management (2003, background): “Evolutionarily enlightened management can make predictions regarding the outcomes of supportive breeding (Lynch and O’Hely, 2001; Ford, 2002) and aid in the design of captive breeding (Allendorf, 1993) and ex situ conservation programs (Hamilton, 1994) that minimize genetic losses and adaptive shift”