Laserfiche WebLink
<br />for choice of hatchery facilities and hatchery operations (e.g., risks of introgression <br />occurring if other Gila spp. are on station or in the watershed). <br /> <br />Second, there is risk of inbreeding occurring within the hatchery population. Traits that <br />frequently exhibit inbreeding depression are quantitative, and are associated with <br />reproductive capacityand physiological efficiency (Kincaid 1983, Lande 1981). In order <br />to maintain variability in hatchery populations, a total of 50 to 500 genetically effective <br />founding breeders has been recommended (Franklin 1980, Hynes et al. 1981, Kincaid <br />1983). However, more recent genetics theory suggests these numbers may be at least <br />an order of magnitude too low for preserving quantitative variability (Lande 1995). The <br />danger is that if hatchery fish are deficient in overall genetic variability, this may <br />decrease genetic variability in the population into which they are released. Lande and <br />Barrowclough (1987) point out that once quantitative variability is lost, a population must <br />regain and sustain high abundance for hundreds to thousands of generations until that <br />variability is replaced by new mutations. The above studies imply that 1) in order to fully <br />retain genetic variability in a captive broodstock, several thousand individuals may be <br />needed, and 2) if quantitative variability is reduced in the wild because of inappropriate <br />hatchery actions, the loss is very long term (Le., an irrevocable mistake can be made). <br /> <br />Third, genetic hazard can be imposed upon wild populations via the release of <br />broodstock individuals, resulting in a reduction in effective population size (Ryman and <br />Laikre 1991, Waples and Do 1994, Ryman et al. 1995, Wang and Ryman 2001). Since <br />captive bred populations are usually created using only a very small proportion of the <br />wild population, the captive portion of the population has a low genetic effective <br />population size (Ne). The danger comes from a large portion of the captive bred <br />offspring breeding upon release with the wild population (Ryman and Laikre 1991, <br />Lynch and O'Hely 2001). Hence, the overall Ne (and genetic fitness) of the wild <br />population can be reduced to levels dramatically lower than it would have been with no <br />captive propagation and supplemental stocking (Ryman and Laikre 1991, Waples and <br />Do 1994, Ryman et al. 1995, Wang and Ryman 2001). <br /> <br />A low Ne in the wild becomes an accurate predictor of extinction, because of linked <br />mechanisms of reduced gene flow, genetic drift, reduced within population variability, <br />and inbreeding depression (Lacey 1987, Lynch et al. 1995). Because of this effect, <br />genetic variation in supported populations may be at risk, even when presumably <br />adequate numbers of breeders are used. This risk is especially high for fishes, that <br />have high and variable reproductive rates. Furthermore, this risk appears to be <br />contributing to the demise of fisheries on a worldwide basis (Tringali and Bert 1998). <br /> <br />If the underlying problems for population decline are not initially addressed (e.g., habitat <br />destruction; Meffe 1992), supported populations may exceed carrying capacity and can <br />then be subject to a "supplementation and crash" scenario (Waples and Do 1994). The <br />supplemented population can then become susceptible to the combined effects of a <br />reduction in Ne, swamping of wild-population alleles by those from hatchery fish, and <br />future drift-associated changes caused by the population crash (Tringali and Bert 1998). <br />If supportive breeding does not result in substantial and continuous increase.of the <br /> <br />13 <br />