Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30228303›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2018

Cryptic introgression: evidence that selection and plasticity mask the full phenotypic potential of domesticated Atlantic salmon in the wild.

Kevin A Glover, Monica F Solberg, Francois Besnier, Øystein Skaala

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing 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

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Life-History Plasticity of CulturedAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026
    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. AutosomalFrontiers in genetics · 2020
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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.

Kevin A GloverInstitute of Marine Research, P.O. Box 1870, N-5817, Bergen, Norway. kevin.glover@hi.no.
Monica F SolbergInstitute of Marine Research, P.O. Box 1870, N-5817, Bergen, Norway.
Francois BesnierInstitute of Marine Research, P.O. Box 1870, N-5817, Bergen, Norway.
Øystein SkaalaInstitute of Marine Research, P.O. Box 1870, N-5817, Bergen, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Domesticated Atlantic salmon grow much faster than wild salmon when reared together in fish tanks under farming conditions (size ratios typically 1:2-3). In contrast, domesticated salmon only display marginally higher growth than wild salmon when reared together in rivers (size ratios typically 1:1-1.2). This begs the question why? Is this a difference in the plastic response driven by divergent energy budgets between the two environments, or is it a result of selection, whereby domesticated salmon that display the greatest growth-potential are those at greatest risk of mortality in the wild? We reared domesticated, hybrid and wild salmon in a river until they smoltified at age 2 or 4, and thereafter in fish tanks for a further 2 years. In the river, there was no difference in the mean size between the groups. In contrast, after being transferred from the river to fish tanks, the domesticated salmon significantly outgrew the wild salmon (maximum size ratio of ~1:1.8). This demonstrates that selection alone cannot be responsible for the lack of growth differences observed between domesticated and wild salmon in rivers. Nevertheless, the final size ratios observed after rearing in tanks were lower than expected in that environment, thus suggesting that plasticity, as for selection, cannot be the sole mechanism. We therefore conclude that a combination of energy-budget plasticity, and selection via growth-potential mortality, cause the differences in growth reaction norms between domesticated and wild salmon across these contrasting environments. Our results imply that if phenotypic changes are not observed in wild populations following introgression of domesticated conspecifics, it does not mean that functional genetic changes have not occurred in the admixed population. Clearly, under the right environmental conditions, the underlying genetic changes will manifest themselves in the phenotype.

Indexed as

Adaptation, BiologicalDomesticationEnvironmentAnimalsAnimals, DomesticFisheriesPhenotypeSalmo salar

Identifiers

PMID30228303
PMCPMC6143624

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.