Genetic Effects of Captive Breeding Cause a Rapid, Cumulative Fitness Decline in the Wild

By H. Araki, Becky Cooper, Michael S. Blouin. Science, 2007

932 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Genetics, Nature and Landscape Conservation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ab9460d4a899cde5d70ac367020c8d67eceefc94

How researchers see this paper

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

In Genetics

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

Citations in the corpus

Ecological and Evolutionary Consequences of Environmental Change and Management Actions for Migrating Fish (2019, background): “…rarely use a sufficient number of breeding individuals, and studies indicate that the genetic variation declines in populations exposed to repeated captive breeding (Hansen et al., 2001; Säisä et al., 2003) thereby reducing their performance and adaptability in the wild (Araki et al., 2007).”
Freshwater biodiversity conservation: recent progress and future challenges (2010, background): “Successful application of captive propagation and reintroduction of any species, whether to a site from which the species was known historically or otherwise, requires careful consideration of genetic and ecological issues (e.g., Neves 2004, Araki et al. 2007).”
Captive breeding genetics and reintroduction success (2009, background): “…fitness caused by captive propagation (Fleming et al., 1996; Bryant and Reed, 1999; Lomnicki and Jasienski, 2000) and recent results indicate that the reduction of reproductive capabilities in the wild can be as fast and as strong as 40% decline per captive-reared generation (Araki et al., 2007).”
Responsible genetic approach to stock restoration, sea ranching and stock enhancement of marine fishes and invertebrates (2017, background): “…shows that domestication and inadvertent selection in culture changes the genetic profiles of hatchery-reared individuals and that hybridizations between hatchery-reared and wild individuals can adversely affect wild populations (Araki et al. 2007; Hedgecock and Coykendall 2007; Young et al. 2008).”
Impending extinction of salmon, steelhead, and trout (Salmonidae) in California (2013, background): “Recent multi-generational genetic studies (Akari et al. 2007a, b, 2008, 2009) andmeta-analysis (Chilcote et al. 2011) have corroborated earlier findings that when fish with hatchery ancestry spawn in the river they produce substantially fewer successfully reproducing offspring than do wild fish…”
Minimizing genetic adaptation in captive breeding programs: A review (2009, background): “Within captivity, genetic changes can occur that may reduce a species’ ability to persist once a population is reintroduced back into its natural habitat (Swinnerton et al., 2004; Araki et al., 2007b; Hedrick and Fredrickson, 2008).”
Factors influencing the relative fitness of hatchery and wild spring Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in the Wenatchee River, Washington, USA (2010, background): “Published by NRC Research Press W illiam son et al. 1845 Published by N R C R esearch Press been observed for other salmonid species, including coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch; Ford et al. 2006) and steelhead (Seamons et al. 2004; Araki et al. 2007c).”
Factors that contribute to the ecological risks of salmon and steelhead hatchery programs and some mitigating strategies (2009, background): “…result of these differences, hatchery fish often have poorer smolt-to-adult survival than wild fish and poorer reproductive success when they spawn naturally (Fleming et al. 2000; Kostow et al. 2003; McGinnity et al. 2003; Kostow 2004; McLean et al. 2004; Ford et al. 2006; Araki et al. 2006, 2007).”
Restoring species through reintroductions: strategies for source population selection (2015, background): “Domestication selection may be especially problematic when a population has had multiple generations of captive breeding (Lynch & O’Hely 2001; Araki et al. 2007).”
Response to domestication and selection for growth in the European sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) in separate and mixed tanks (2009, positive): “…occur in the first generation of captive breeding (Doyle et al., 1995), leaving room for significant domestication selection, and it was also recently shown that just one generation of captive breeding could significantly impair thefitness of rainbow trout in thewild (Araki et al., 2007).”
Enriched rearing improves survival of hatchery-reared Atlantic salmon smolts during migration in the River Tornionjoki (2013, background): “Captive breeding can lead to decreases of fitness in the wild (Araki et al. 2007) caused by genetic domestication and adaptation to the unnatural rearing environment.”
Paradigm shifts in marine fisheries genetics: ugly hypotheses slain by beautiful facts (2008, background): “…is currently used extensively in salmonid populations (Bentzen et al. 2001), mainly to estimate reproductive success (Dickerson et al. 2002; Seamons et al. 2004), interactions between wild and hatchery fish (Araki et al. 2007) and the evolution of life-history strategies (Garant et al. 2003).”
A framework for incorporating evolutionary genomics into biodiversity conservation and management (2015, background): “specific deleterious fitness effects that have plagued ex situ captive breeding programmes [245,246] are also im-”