Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24567747›Full record

ArticleEvolutionary applications2014

Genetic assessment of a summer chum salmon metapopulation in recovery.

Maureen P Small, Thom H Johnson, Cherril Bowman, Edith Martinez

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Evolutionary applications, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

4 authors.

Maureen P SmallWashington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Molecular Genetics Laboratory Olympia, WA, USA.
Thom H JohnsonPoint No Point Treaty Council Kingston, WA, USA.
Cherril BowmanWashington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Molecular Genetics Laboratory Olympia, WA, USA.
Edith MartinezWashington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Molecular Genetics Laboratory Olympia, WA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Programs to rebuild imperiled wild fish populations often include hatchery-born fish derived from wild populations to supplement natural spawner abundance. These programs require monitoring to determine their demographic, biological, and genetic effects. In 1990s in Washington State, the Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative developed a recovery program for the threatened Hood Canal summer chum salmon Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) (the metapopulation) that used in-river spawners (wild fish) for each respective supplementation broodstock in six tributaries. Returning spawners (wild-born and hatchery-born) composed subsequent broodstocks, and tributary-specific supplementation was limited to three generations. We assessed impacts of the programs on neutral genetic diversity in this metapopulation using 16 microsatellite loci and a thirty-year dataset spanning before and after supplementation, roughly eight generations. Following supplementation, differentiation among subpopulations decreased (but not significantly) and isolation by distance patterns remained unchanged. There was no decline in genetic diversity in wild-born fish, but hatchery-born fish sampled in the same spawning areas had significantly lower genetic diversity and unequal family representation. Despite potential for negative effects from supplementation programs, few were detected in wild-born fish. We hypothesize that chum salmon natural history makes them less vulnerable to negative impacts from hatchery supplementation.

Indexed as

conservationhatchery impactsmicrosatellitespopulation structurerecoverysalmonidssupplementation

Identifiers

PMID24567747
PMCPMC3927888

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.