Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30643117›Full record

ArticleNature communications2019

Supplementary stocking selects for domesticated genotypes.

Ingerid J Hagen, Arne J Jensen, Geir H Bolstad, Ola H Diserud, Kjetil Hindar, Håvard Lo, Sten Karlsson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nature communications, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Northern EuropeanEvolutionary applications · 2020
    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.

Ingerid J HagenNorwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA), P.O. Box 5685 Torgarden, 7485, Trondheim, Norway. ingerid.arnesen@nina.no.
Arne J JensenNorwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA), P.O. Box 5685 Torgarden, 7485, Trondheim, Norway.
Geir H BolstadNorwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA), P.O. Box 5685 Torgarden, 7485, Trondheim, Norway.
Ola H DiserudNorwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA), P.O. Box 5685 Torgarden, 7485, Trondheim, Norway.
Kjetil HindarNorwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA), P.O. Box 5685 Torgarden, 7485, Trondheim, Norway.
Håvard LoNorwegian Veterinary Institute, P.O. Box 5695 Torgarden, 7485, Trondheim, Norway.
Sten KarlssonNorwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA), P.O. Box 5685 Torgarden, 7485, Trondheim, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Stocking of hatchery produced fish is common practise to mitigate declines in natural populations and may have unwanted genetic consequences. Here we describe a novel phenomenon arising where broodstock used for stocking may be introgressed with farmed individuals. We test how stocking affects introgression in a wild population of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) by quantifying how the number of adult offspring recaptured in a stocked river depend on parental introgression. We found that hatchery conditions favour farmed genotypes such that introgressed broodstock produce up to four times the number of adult offspring compared to non-introgressed broodstock, leading to increased introgression in the recipient spawning population. Our results provide the first empirical evidence that stocking can unintentionally favour introgressed individuals and through selection for domesticated genotypes compromise the fitness of stocked wild populations.

Indexed as

DomesticationFisheriesGenotypeSelection, GeneticAnimalsFemaleGene-Environment InteractionGenetic VariationMaleRiversSalmo salar

Identifiers

PMID30643117
PMCPMC6331577

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.