ArticleScientific reports2020
Comparison of single- and multi-trait approaches to identify best wild candidates for aquaculture shows that the simple way fails.
Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Morphometric Traits as Predictors of Body Mass in the Marine GastropodAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Article
- Multi-Trait Genomic Prediction of Meat Yield in Pacific Whiteleg Shrimp (Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Article
- Review
- A traits-based approach to assess aquaculture's contributions to food, climate change, and biodiversity goals.npj ocean sustainability · 2024Article
- Split it up and see: using proxies to highlight divergent inter-populational performances in aquaculture standardised conditions.BMC ecology and evolution · 2021Article
- Linking species traits and demography to explain complex temperature responses across levels of organization.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2021Article
- A workflow to design new directed domestication programs to move forward current and future insect production.Animal frontiers : the review magazine of animal agriculture · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In agriculture, diversifying production implies picking up, in the wild biodiversity, species or populations that can be domesticated and fruitfully produced. Two alternative approaches are available to highlight wild candidate(s) with high suitability for aquaculture: the single-trait (i.e. considering a single phenotypic trait and, thus, a single biological function) and multi-trait (i.e. considering multiple phenotypic traits involved in several biological functions) approaches. Although the former is the traditional and the simplest method, the latter could be theoretically more efficient. However, an explicit comparison of advantages and pitfalls between these approaches is lacking to date in aquaculture. Here, we compared the two approaches to identify best candidate(s) between four wild allopatric populations of Perca fluviatilis in standardised aquaculture conditions. Our results showed that the single-trait approach can (1) miss key divergences between populations and (2) highlight different best candidate(s) depending on the trait considered. In contrast, the multi-trait approach allowed identifying the population with the highest domestication potential thanks to several congruent lines of evidence. Nevertheless, such an integrative assessment is achieved with a far more time-consuming and expensive study. Therefore, improvements and rationalisations will be needed to make the multi-trait approach a promising way in the aquaculture development.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.