| Literature DB >> 23919174 |
Charles Perrier1, René Guyomard, Jean-Luc Bagliniere, Natacha Nikolic, Guillaume Evanno.
Abstract
While the stocking of captive-bred fish has been occurring for decades and has had substantial immediate genetic and evolutionary impacts on wild populations, its long-term consequences have only been weakly investigated. Here, we conducted a spatiotemporal analysis of 1428 Atlantic salmon sampled from 1965 to 2006 in 25 populations throughout France to investigate the influence of stocking on the neutral genetic structure in wild Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) populations. On the basis of the analysis of 11 microsatellite loci, we found that the overall genetic structure among populations dramatically decreased over the period studied. Admixture rates among populations were highly variable, ranging from a nearly undetectable contribution from donor stocks to total replacement of the native gene pool, suggesting extremely variable impacts of stocking. Depending on population, admixture rates either increased, remained stable, or decreased in samples collected between 1998 and 2006 compared to samples from 1965 to 1987, suggesting either rising, long-lasting or short-term impacts of stocking. We discuss the potential mechanisms contributing to this variability, including the reduced fitness of stocked fish and persistence of wild locally adapted individuals.Entities:
Keywords: Conservation; Salmo salar; population genetics; stocking; temporal stability
Year: 2013 PMID: 23919174 PMCID: PMC3728969 DOI: 10.1002/ece3.629
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ecol Evol ISSN: 2045-7758 Impact factor: 2.912
Figure 1Map showing locations of the study populations (see also Table 1).
Description of populations' characteristics and sampling for 25 sampled French rivers and two Scottish ones
| Region | River | Historical cohorts | Recent cohorts | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Abbreviation | Cohorts | Sample size | Stocking from 1950 to 1988 | Abbreviation | Cohorts | Sample size | Stocking from 1989 to 2006 | ||
| Scotland | Spey | H-SPE | 1985 | 48 | – | R-SPE | 2003 | 40 | – |
| Shin | H-SHI | 1989 | 48 | – | R-SHI | 2003 | 41 | – | |
| Upper Normandy | Bresle | H-BRE | 1968 | 19 | Scotland, Scandinavia | R-BRE | 1998–2004 | 29 | – |
| Arques | – | – | – | Scotland, Scandinavia | R-ARQ | 2003 | 31 | – | |
| Lower Normandy | Orne | – | – | – | Scotland, Sélune | R-ORN | 2001 | 31 | Gave d'Oloron |
| Vire | – | – | – | Scotland | R-VIR | 1998–2004 | 19 | – | |
| Sienne | H-SIE | 1985–1987 | 35 | – | R-SIE | 2002–2003 | 36 | Aulne | |
| Sée | H-SEE | 1977–1978 | 61 | – | R-SEE | 2002–2003 | 66 | Aulne | |
| Sélune | H-SEL | 1977–1978 | 39 | – | R-SEL | 2002–2003 | 80 | Aulne and Gave d'Oloron | |
| Couesnon | H-COU | 1978–1986 | 11 | Sélune | R-COU | 2002–2003 | 34 | Aulne and Gave d'Oloron | |
| Brittany | Trieux | H-TRI | 1968–1981 | 17 | Scotland | R-TRI | 2002 | 16 | – |
| Douron | H-DOU | 1978–1984 | 29 | Scotland | R-DOU | 2002–2003 | 27 | – | |
| Elorn | H-ELO | 1969–1970 | 18 | Scotland, local | R-ELO | 2003 | 30 | Local | |
| Aulne | H-AUL | 1969–1984 | 30 | Scotland, local | R-AUL | 2003 | 31 | Local | |
| Goyen | H-GOY | 1972–1984 | 33 | – | R-GOY | 2003 | 24 | – | |
| Steir | H-STE | 1971–1972 | 21 | Scotland | R-STE | 2002 | 14 | – | |
| Jet | H-JET | 1971–1973 | 11 | Scotland | R-JET | 2000–2004 | 17 | – | |
| Odet | H-ODE | 1972–1973 | 19 | Scotland | R-ODE | 2003 | 14 | – | |
| Aven | H-AVE | 1973–1978 | 40 | Local | R-AVE | 2003 | 34 | – | |
| Scorff | H-SCO | 1977–1978 | 64 | Scotland, local | R-SCO | 2002–2003 | 64 | – | |
| Blavet | H-BLA | 1977–1978 | 65 | Scotland, local | R-BLA | 2002–2003 | 63 | – | |
| Allier | Allier | H-ALL | 1965–1967 | 49 | Gave d'Oloron, Scotland, Canada, Scandinavia, local | R-ALL | 2001–2002 | 31 | Local |
| Gironde | Dordogne | – | – | – | Scotland, Allier, Gave d'Oloron, local | R-DOR | 2002 | 15 | Local |
| Garonne | – | – | – | Scotland, Allier, Gave d'Oloron, local | R-GAR | 2002 | 30 | Local | |
| Adour | Gave d'Oloron | H-GAV | 1984–1984 | 25 | Scotland, Scandinavia, local | R-GAV | 2003 | 29 | Local |
| Nive | H-NIE | 1984–1984 | 26 | Scotland, local | R-NIE | 2001–2006 | 8 | – | |
| Nivelle | H-NIL | 1977–1987 | 26 | Scotland, local | R-NIL | 1998–2004 | 17 | – | |
Summary per population of population status, stocking intensity (with nonnative fish), main donor stock, allelic richness before, during, and after stocking, effective size (Ne), within river temporal Fst, differentiation among targeted and donor populations, total admixture with other clusters, and persistence of local individuals
| Population | Worst population status during last 50 years | Nonnative stocking intensity | Main nonnative donor stock | Allelic richness | Within river temporal | Percentage of admixture with other clusters | Persistence of putative local individuals | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before stocking | Contemporary to stocking | After stocking | Old | Recent | Before stocking | Contemporary to stocking | After stocking | Before stocking | Contemporary to stocking | After stocking | ||||||
| BRE | Small | High | Scotland | – | 10 | 9 | 208 | 64 | 0.04 | – | 0.04 | 0.10 | – | 60 | 2 | Yes |
| ARQ | Small | High | Scotland | – | – | 8 | – | 48 | – | – | – | 0.08 | – | – | 4 | Yes |
| ORN | Small | Medium | Scotland | – | – | 13 | – | 351 | – | – | – | 0.03 | – | – | 62 | Yes |
| VIR | Small | Low | Scotland | – | – | 10 | – | 174 | – | – | – | 0.03 | – | – | 50 | Yes |
| SIE | Small | Low | AUL | 10 | 12 | – | 64 | 140 | 0.015 | 0.06 | 0.03 | – | 11 | 32 | – | Yes |
| SEE | Healthy | Low | AUL | 12 | 12 | – | 90 | 189 | 0.007 | 0.06 | 0.05 | – | 9 | 14 | – | Yes |
| SEL | Small | Medium | AUL | 11 | 14 | – | 98 | 665 | 0.005 | 0.06 | 0.03 | – | 11 | 31 | – | Yes |
| COU | Near extinction | High | AUL | 8 | 11 | – | 73 | 342 | 0.023 | 0.05 | 0.02 | – | 18 | 68 | – | Yes |
| TRI | Small | High | Scotland | – | 9 | 10 | 271 | 279 | 0.034 | – | 0.04 | 0.05 | – | 25 | 21 | Yes |
| DOU | Small | Medium | Scotland | – | 10 | 11 | 596 | 166 | 0.008 | – | 0.06 | 0.04 | – | 12 | 11 | Yes |
| ELO | Healthy | Medium | Scotland | – | 8 | 12 | 393 | 1289 | 0.013 | – | 0.05 | 0.06 | – | 11 | 7 | Yes |
| AUL | Small | High | Scotland | – | 9 | 11 | 249 | 402 | 0.029 | – | 0.07 | 0.04 | – | 18 | 14 | Yes |
| GOY | Healthy | – | – | – | 11 | 10 | 225 | 506 | 0.001 | – | 0.05 | 0.05 | – | 10 | 11 | Yes |
| STE | Healthy | Low | Scotland | – | 8 | 9 | 218 | 336 | 0.018 | – | 0.09 | 0.04 | – | 3 | 8 | Yes |
| JET | Healthy | Low | Scotland | – | 6 | 9 | 328 | 685 | 0.009 | – | 0.06 | 0.05 | – | 4 | 6 | Yes |
| ODE | Healthy | Low | Scotland | – | 8 | 8 | 114 | 612 | 0.014 | – | 0.07 | 0.09 | – | 3 | 4 | Yes |
| AVE | Healthy | – | – | – | 10 | 10 | 165 | 86 | 0.011 | – | 0.06 | 0.06 | – | 5 | 3 | Yes |
| SCO | Healthy | Low | Scotland | – | 12 | 12 | 188 | 207 | 0.007 | – | 0.06 | 0.06 | – | 3 | 2 | Yes |
| BLA | Healthy | Low | Scotland | – | 11 | 13 | 585 | 75 | 0.002 | – | 0.07 | 0.06 | – | 5 | 5 | Yes |
| ALL | Small | High | Scotland | – | 8 | 9 | 409 | 228 | 0.016 | – | 0.10 | 0.07 | – | 2 | 6 | Yes |
| DOR | Near extinction | High | GAV | – | – | 9 | – | 261 | – | – | – | 0.01 | – | – | 100 | No |
| GAR | Near extinction | High | ALL | – | – | 10 | – | 81 | – | – | – | 0.04 | – | – | 100 | No |
| GAV | Healthy | Medium | Scotland | – | 9 | 12 | 173 | 85 | 0.016 | – | 0.04 | 0.04 | – | 9 | 11 | Yes |
| NIE | Small | Low | Scotland | – | 7 | 6 | 126 | 243 | 0.001 | – | 0.08 | 0.03 | – | 3 | 5 | Yes |
| NIL | Small | Medium | Scotland | – | 11 | 8 | 224 | 98 | 0.009 | – | 0.06 | 0.02 | – | 19 | 17 | Yes |
When the main donor stock was Scottish, the Fst among SPE and the considered sample was given.
Figure 2Allelic richness (AR), effective size (Ne), within river Fst, Fst between the considered river and the main donor stock, and population admixture proportion with nonlocal clusters in Atlantic salmon samples from French populations. Left and right bars correspond, respectively, to the historical and recent samples for each populations except for within river Fst (one single bar) and for Arques (ARQ), Orne (ORN), Vire (VIR), Dordogne (DOR), Garonne (GAR) (only recent samples).
Figure 3Individual Bayesian clustering results with STRUCTURE for all populations from France for k = 7 (A); admixture with donor stocks in Upper-Normandy for k = 3 (B); Lower-Normandy for k = 4 (C); Brittany for k = 2 (D); Allier, Gironde, and Adour for k = 4 (E); and admixture values of the local cluster with 90% confidence intervals obtained from B to E analyses (F).
Figure 4Neighbor-joining tree based on Nei genetic distances among the 49 samples.
Figure 5Recent versus historical pairwise genetic differentiation (Fst) among 20 Atlantic salmon populations temporally sampled. The y = x line indicates the threshold at which Fst is similar between historical and recent samples. Purple squares indicate pairs including the Bresle population, green triangles indicate pairs including only Brittany populations, and black circles indicate other pairs of populations. Averages for these three groups are given using same but filled symbols.