Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23762473›Full record

ArticlePloS one2013

Severe inbreeding and small effective number of breeders in a formerly abundant marine fish.

Shannon J O'Leary, Lyndie A Hice, Kevin A Feldheim, Michael G Frisk, Anne E McElroy, Mark D Fast, Demian D Chapman

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
4.9field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 67 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Shannon J O'LearySchool of Marine and Atmospheric Science, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York, United States of America. shannon.oleary@stonybrook.edu
Lyndie A Hice
Kevin A Feldheim
Michael G Frisk
Anne E McElroy
Mark D Fast
Demian D Chapman
Stony Brook University · USField Museum of Natural History · USOcean Institute · USUniversity of Prince Edward Island · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In contrast to freshwater fish it is presumed that marine fish are unlikely to spawn with close relatives due to the dilution effect of large breeding populations and their propensity for movement and reproductive mixing. Inbreeding is therefore not typically a focal concern of marine fish management. We measured the effective number of breeders in 6 New York estuaries for winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus), a formerly abundant fish, using 11 microsatellite markers (6-56 alleles per locus). The effective number of breeders for 1-2 years was remarkably small, with point estimates ranging from 65-289 individuals. Excess homozygosity was detected at 10 loci in all bays (FIS = 0.169-0.283) and individuals exhibited high average internal relatedness (IR; mean = 0.226). These both indicate that inbreeding is very common in all bays, after testing for and ruling out alternative explanations such as technical and sampling artifacts. This study demonstrates that even historically common marine fish can be prone to inbreeding, a factor that should be considered in fisheries management and conservation plans.

Indexed as

InbreedingSeawaterAllelesAnimalsBaysConfidence IntervalsFishesGenetic LociGenetic VariationGeographyHeterozygoteMicrosatellite RepeatsNew YorkSample Size

Identifiers

PMID23762473
PMCPMC3676343
OpenAlexW2166110010

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.