Risk Assessment of Inbreeding and Outbreeding Depression in a Captive‐Breeding Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Captive-breeding programs can be implemented to preserve the genetic diversity of endangered populations such that the controlled release of captive-bred individuals into the wild may promote recovery. A common difficulty, however, is that programs are founded with limited wild broodstock, and inbreeding can become increasingly difficult to avoid with successive generations in captivity. Program managers must choose between maintaining the genetic purity of populations, at the risk of inbreeding depression, or interbreeding populations, at the risk of outbreeding depression. We evaluate these relative risks in a captive-breeding program for 3 endangered populations of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). In each of 2 years, we released juvenile F(1) and F(2) interpopulation hybrids, backcrosses, as well as inbred and noninbred within-population crosstypes into 9 wild streams. Juvenile size and survival was quantified in each year. Few crosstype effects were observed, but interestingly, the relative fitness consequences of inbreeding and outbreeding varied from year to year. Temporal variation in environmental quality might have driven some of these annual differences, by exacerbating the importance of maternal effects on juvenile fitness in a year of low environmental quality and by affecting the severity of inbreeding depression differently in different years. Nonetheless, inbreeding was more consistently associated with a negative effect on fitness, whereas the consequences of outbreeding were less predictable. Considering the challenges associated with a sound risk assessment in the wild and given that the effect of inbreeding on fitness is relatively predictable, we suggest that risk can be weighted more strongly in terms of the probable outcome of outbreeding. Factors such as genetic similarities between populations and the number of generations in isolation can sometimes be used to assess outbreeding risk, in lieu of experimentation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".