Selection in Captivity during Supportive Breeding May Reduce Fitness in the Wild

By M. Ford. 2002

365 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/d75bf8b179e7aa2f60d8de6eaa59291871c05bf4

How researchers see this paper

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

In Genetics

Citations in the corpus

Comparison of Life History Traits between First-Generation Hatchery and Wild Upper Yakima River Spring Chinook Salmon (2006, methodology): “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…”
Impending extinction of salmon, steelhead, and trout (Salmonidae) in California (2013, background): “…has been evidence of decreased performance of hatchery-derived populations of resident trout when compared to analogous wild populations under natural conditions (Greene 1952; Flick andWebster 1964; Moyle 1969) but domestication selection issues are not confined to resident salmonids (Ford 2002).”
Differences in juvenile phenotypes and survival between hatchery stocks and a natural population provide evidence for modified selection due to captive breeding (2004, background): “The mechanisms that have been proposed to cause genetic divergence between hatchery and wild fish include modified selection pressures caused by different survivals and mortalities in the artificial versus natural environments (Reisenbichler and Rubin 1999; Ford 2002).”
Magnitude and Trends in Abundance of Hatchery and Wild Pink Salmon, Chum Salmon, and Sockeye Salmon in the North Pacific Ocean (2010, background): “Additionally, there can be substantial straying of hatchery fish into natural spawning areas, which can degrade the fitness and biological diversity of the wild populations (e.g., Levin et al. 2001; Ford 2002; Naish et al. 2007; Buhle et al. 2009).”
An integrated comparison of captive-bred and wild Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar): Implications for supportive breeding programs (2008, background): “…the genetic risks (e.g. inbreeding depression, change in allelic frequencies and/or the introduction of deleterious alleles in wild populations, Ryman et al., 1995; Ford, 2002) as well as the morphological, physiological and behavioural capabilities of captive-bred fish to survive in the wild.”
Salmonid inbreeding: a review (2002, methodology): “Simulations by Waples and Do (1994) indicated that all genes in a successful and continuing supplementation population will ultimately be derived increasingly from captive broodstock (see also Ford, 2002).”
Ex situ conservation genetics: a review of molecular studies on the genetic consequences of captive breeding programmes for endangered animal species (2011, background): “Ford 2002; Gilligan and Frankham 2003; Araki et al. 2007; Heath et al. 2003).”
Detecting introgressive hybridisation in rock partridge populations (Alectoris graeca) in Greece through Bayesian admixture analyses of multilocus genotypes (2007, background): “…arising from hybridisation with translocated or migrating animals from different environments, or from genetic adaptations to domestication (Ford 2002), has been clearly documented in fish (Hallerman 2003; Miller et al. 2004; Rubidge and Taylor 2004), and in avian populations (Marr et al.…”
Hatcheries, Conservation, and Sustainable Fisheries—Achieving Multiple Goals: Results of the Hatchery Scientific Review Group's Columbia River Basin Review (2011, background): “Based on the fraction of hatchery fish in the natural spawning escapement and on the fraction of natural-origin parents in the hatchery broodstock (pNOB) over time, AHA calculates a fitness factor (after Ford 2002 ).”
Differentiating the wild or farmed origin of Mediterranean fish: a review of tools for sea bream and sea bass (2013, background): “Although the impact of mixing of farmed and natural populations has not been assessed, theory suggests that captive-bred organisms could reduce the fitness of wild populations (Lynch&O’Hely 2001; Ford 2002; Araki et al. 2009).”
Is hatchery stocking a help or harm? Evidence, limitations and future directions in ecological and genetic surveys (2010, background): “Both kinds of selection, however, have to be very strong for such a genetic change on a contemporary time scale (Ford, 2002; Araki et al., 2008).”
Captive breeding genetics and reintroduction success (2009, methodology): “Although this technique is widely used in the context of hatchery populations of salmonids and should, in theory, have beneficial effects on the fitness of supplemented populations (Ford, 2002), it is generally unfeasible for threatened species.”
Relationship between natural productivity and the frequency of wild fish in mixed spawning populations of wild and hatchery steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) (2003, background): “However, this index is comprised of elements (e.g., broodstock origin, broodstock age, infusion rate of wild fish, and phenotypic divergence) that are identi fied as potentially significant in studies that examine the pro cess of genetic divergence between hatchery and wild fish (Waples 1999; Lynch ”
Framework for Assessing Viability of Threatened and Endangered Chinook Salmon and Steelhead in the Sacramento–San Joaquin Basin (2007, background): “Population genetics theory predicts that fish hatcheries can negatively impact wild populations when hatchery fish spawn in the wild (e.g., Emlen 1991; Lynch and O’Hely 2001; Ford 2002; Goodman 2005).”
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”