Fish sperm competition in hatcheries and between wild and hatchery origin fish in nature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Males compete pre- and post-mating to fertilize the maximum number of eggs. In polyandry, sperm competition occurs when sperm from two or more males compete to fertilize eggs from a female. Here we review how sperm competition from hatchery origin fish can cause loss of genetic variability in fish populations kept in captivity and in wild populations. In fish hatchery practices, sperm competition occurs in mass spawners that release gametes in tanks, and in artificial fertilizations when pooled semen is used. In mass spawnings sperm competition is difficult to tease apart from pre-mating competition and other post-mating selective mechanisms, whereas, studies focused on the use of pooled semen in different fish species have shown a clear relationship between sperm motility parameters and precedence in fertilization. In both situations, sperm competition will result in a loss of genetic variability that accumulates over generations, but hatchery protocols can be adjusted to mitigate it. Another source of concern regarding sperm competition for hatchery produced fish is the spatial and temporal overlap in spawning with wild individuals, either via aquaculture escapees or purposeful stocking programs. This may result in sperm competition between hatchery origin and wild males and impact natural populations. Our review suggests that in order to give every adult selected as broodstock an equal opportunity to produce offspring in captivity, mass spawning and the use of pooled semen should be limited.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".