LOGIN

RSS Facebook Twitter YouTube
GLOSSARY       

SEARCHGLOSSARY

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

PROFILESEARCH

Avatar

Please consider registering
guest

sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —




— Match —





— Forum Options —





 

Minimum search word length is 4 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

sp_Feed Topic RSS sp_TopicIcon
How well can captive breeding programs conserve biodiversity? A review of salmonids
October 29, 2013
4:52 pm
Avatar
BillT
Eugene, Oregon
Veteran
Forum Posts: 229
Member Since:
September 10, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Selection by the captive environment:

 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.....036.x/full

Abstract

Captive breeding programs are increasingly being initiated to prevent the imminent extinction of endangered species and/or populations. But how well can they conserve genetic diversity and fitness, or re-establish self-sustaining populations in the wild? A review of these complex questions and related issues in salmonid fishes reveals several insights and uncertainties. Most programs can maintain genetic diversity within populations over several generations, but available research suggests the loss of fitness in captivity can be rapid, its magnitude probably increasing with the duration in captivity. Over the long-term, there is likely tremendous variation between (i) programs in their capacity to maintain genetic diversity and fitness, and (ii) species or even intraspecific life-history types in both the severity and manner of fitness-costs accrued. Encouragingly, many new theoretical and methodological approaches now exist for current and future programs to potentially reduce these effects. Nevertheless, an unavoidable trade-off exists between conserving genetic diversity and fitness in certain instances, such as when captive-bred individuals are temporarily released into the wild. Owing to several confounding factors, there is also currently little evidence that captive-bred lines of salmonids can or cannot be reintroduced as self-sustaining populations. Most notably, the root causes of salmonid declines have not been mitigated where captive breeding programs exist. Little research has also addressed under what conditions an increase in population abundance due to captive-rearing might offset fitness reductions induced in captivity. Finally, more empirical investigation is needed to evaluate the genetic/fitness benefits and risks associated with (i) maintaining captive broodstocks as either single or multiple populations within one or more facilities, (ii) utilizing cryopreservation or surrogate broodstock technologies, and (iii) adopting other alternatives to captive-rearing such as translocations to new habitats. Management recommendations surrounding these issues are proposed, with the aim of facilitating meta-analyses and more general principles or guidelines for captive-breeding. These include the need for the following: (i) captive monitoring to involve, a priori, greater application of hypothesis testing through the use of well-designed experiments and (ii) improved documentation of procedures adopted by specific programs for reducing the loss of genetic diversity and fitness.
Bill Trevarrow [email protected]
October 29, 2013
8:05 pm
Avatar
Plaamoo
Bellingham, Washington U.S.A.
Community Helper
Forum Posts: 1257
Member Since:
March 14, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Hot issue here in the NW eh Bill? All of the efforts that I'm aware of are aimed at increased harvest rather than preventing extinction. Raise em up, put em in, take em out. With numerous negative effects to the ecosystem.

Then there's this.

" Most notably, the root causes of salmonid declines have not been mitigated where captive breeding programs exist."

Dams, riverbed degradation, pollution, over-harvest etc.

 

It would seem to me that if species preservation is truly the goal, there are better ways to go about it.

October 29, 2013
10:11 pm
Avatar
BillT
Eugene, Oregon
Veteran
Forum Posts: 229
Member Since:
September 10, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Hot issue here in the NW eh Bill?

I guess so. Someone else from the NW here, nice.

 

I was surprised when I first heard about this stuff, especially how fast breeding in captivity can result in fish less adapted to life in the wild. But I suppose I should not have been based on lab selections on zebrafish.

My interest in this is based on breeding fish for lab use. I consider lab facilities a different environment to which some fish are better adapted and others may be able to become more adapted to. Inbreeding and diversity are also involved but a different issue.

 

Bill Trevarrow [email protected]
October 30, 2013
5:19 am
Avatar
Plaamoo
Bellingham, Washington U.S.A.
Community Helper
Forum Posts: 1257
Member Since:
March 14, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

BillT said

I guess so. Someone else from the NW here, nice.

 

 

I swore I had my location in my profile. maybe got lost in the last update? Anyway, I'm up in Bellingham Wa. Being an avid fisherman I typically look art it from that perspective.

October 30, 2013
8:43 am
Avatar
BallAquatics
Tremont City Ohio, USA pop.640
Member
Forum Posts: 96
Member Since:
May 26, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

This is one of my favorites on the subject.....

http://www.nanfa.org/captiveca.....elines.pdf

Dennis

October 30, 2013
1:21 pm
Avatar
Matt
Málaga, Spain
Admin
Forum Posts: 8239
Member Since:
June 13, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Agree with you Jim, proper habitat protection and management are surely preferable to these expensive restocking programs. It would also be interesting to know if loss of genetic diversity in captive-breeding programs varies with species.

If anyone would like a copy of the paper just holler. :)

Cake or death?
Forum Timezone: Europe/Paris

Most Users Ever Online: 246

Currently Online:
1 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Devices in use: Desktop (1)

Top Posters:

Stefan: 1567

Plaamoo: 1257

mikev: 1134

Malti: 1099

Mark Duffill: 1012

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 0

Members: 30522

Moderators: 0

Admins: 2

Forum Stats:

Groups: 4

Forums: 10

Topics: 4603

Posts: 36642

Newest Members: DCJ, Cole_Beall, datfish, wong123, Kevin20359

Administrators: dunc: 1323, Matt: 8239