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

Biology Letters

Volumn 5, Issue 5, 2009, Pages 621-624

  Araki, Hitoshi ^a,b   Cooper, Becky ^a   Blouin, Michael S ^a  

^a OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b SWISS FEDERAL INSTITUTE OF AQUATIC SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Captive breeding; Parentage; Reproductive success; Steelhead trout

Indexed keywords

CAPTIVE BREEDING; CONSERVATION GENETICS; ENDANGERED SPECIES; FITNESS; PARENTAGE; POPULATION SIZE; REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS; SALMONID; SPECIES CONSERVATION; WILD POPULATION;

ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; ARTICLE; BREEDING; CAPTIVE BREEDING; FITNESS; HATCHERY; NONHUMAN; PEDIGREE; POPULATION SIZE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RAINBOW TROUT; REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS; SAMPLING; SPAWNING; WILDLIFE CONSERVATION;

ONCORHYNCHUS MYKISS; SALMONIDAE;

EID: 70349290642     PISSN: 17449561     EISSN: 1744957X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1098/rsbl.2009.0315     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Allendorf, F. W. & Luikart, G. 2007 Conservation and the genetics of populations. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.
2. Araki, H., Cooper, B. & Blouin, M. S. 2007a Genetic effects of captive breeding cause a rapid, cumulative fitness decline in the wild. Science 318, 100-103. (doi:10.1126/science.1145621) (Pubitemid 47538041)
3. Araki, H., Ardren,W. R., Olsen, E.,Cooper,B.&Blouin, M. S. 2007b Reproductive success of captive-bred steelhead trout in the wild: evaluation of three hatchery programs in the Hood River. Conserv. Biol. 21, 181-190. (doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00564.x)
4. Araki, H., Waples, R. S., Ardren, W. R., Cooper, B. & Blouin, M. S. 2007c Effective population size of steelhead trout: influence of variance in reproductive success, hatchery programs, and genetic compensation between life-history forms. Mol. Ecol. 16, 953-966. (doi:10.1111/j.1365-294X.2006.03206. x)
5. Araki, H., Berejikian, B. A., Ford, M. J. & Blouin, M. S. 2008 Fitness of hatchery-reared salmonids in the wild. Evol. Appl. 1, 342-355. (doi:10.1111/j.1752-4571.2008.00026.x)
6. Ford, M. J. 2002 Selection in captivity during supportive breeding may reduce fitness in the wild. Conserv. Biol. 16, 815-825. (doi:10.1046/j.1523- 1739.2002.00257.x)
7. Frankham, R., Ballou, J. D. & Briscoe, D. A. 2002 Introduction to conservation genetics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
8. Fraser, D. J. 2008 How well can captive breeding programs conserve biodiversity? A review of salmonids. Evol. Appl. 1, 535-586.
9. Lynch, M. & O' Hely, M. 2001 Captive breeding and the genetic fitness of natural populations. Conserv. Genet. 2, 363-378. (doi:10.1023/A: 1012550620717)
10. Olney, P. J. S., Mace, G. M. & Feistner, A. 1994 Creative conservation: interactive management of wild and captive animals. London, UK: Chapman & Hall.
11. Olsen, E. A. 2003 Hood River and Pelton ladder evaluation studies. Annual report 2000-2001 of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Portland, OR: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.
12. Reisenbichler, R. R. & McIntyre, J. D. 1977 Genetic differences in growth and survival of juvenile hatchery and wild steelhead trout, Salmo gairdneri. Can. J. Fish. Res. Board 34, 123-128.
13. Reisenbichler, R. R. & Rubin, S. 1999 Genetic changes from artificial propagation of Pacific salmon affect the productivity and viability of supplemented populations. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 56, 459-466. (doi:10.1006/jmsc.1999. 0455)
14. Waples, R. S. & Drake, J. 2004 Risk/benefit considerations for marine stock enhancement: a pacific salmon perspective. In Stock enhancement and sea ranching: developments, pitfalls and opportunities (eds K. M. Leber, S. Kitada, H. L. Blankenship & T. Sva° sand), pp. 260-306. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.