It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Maintaining standing genetic variation is a challenge in human-dominated landscapes. We used genetic (i.e., 16 short tandem repeats) and morphological (i.e., length and weight) measurements of 593 contemporary and historical brown trout (Salmo trutta) samples to study fine-scale and short-term impacts of different management practices. These had changed from traditional breeding practices, using the same broodstock for several years, to modern breeding practices, including annual broodstock replacement, in the transnational subarctic Pasvik River. Using population genetic structure analyses (i.e., Bayesian assignment tests, DAPCs, and PCAs), four historical genetic clusters (E2001A-D), likely representing family lineages resulting from different crosses, were found in zone E. These groups were characterized by consistently lower genetic diversity, higher within-group relatedness, lower effective population size, and significantly smaller body size than contemporary stocked (E2001E) and wild fish (E2001F). However, even current breeding practices are insufficient to prevent genetic diversity loss and morphological changes as demonstrated by on average smaller body sizes and recent genetic bottleneck signatures in the modern breeding stock compared to wild fish. Conservation management must evaluate breeding protocols for stocking programs and assess if these can preserve remaining natural genetic diversity and morphology in brown trout for long-term preservation of freshwater fauna.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 Norwegian Institute of Bioeconomy Research (NIBIO), Division of Environment and Natural Resources, Svanhovd, Norway (GRID:grid.454322.6) (ISNI:0000 0004 4910 9859)
2 Pasvik Strict Nature Reserve, Rajakoski, Russia (GRID:grid.454322.6)
3 Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA), Tromsø, Norway (GRID:grid.420127.2) (ISNI:0000 0001 2107 519X)
4 Norwegian Institute of Bioeconomy Research (NIBIO), Division of Forest and Forest Resources, Svanhovd, Norway (GRID:grid.454322.6) (ISNI:0000 0004 4910 9859)
5 UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Department of Arctic and Marine Biology, Faculty of Biosciences, Fisheries and Economics, Tromsø, Norway (GRID:grid.10919.30) (ISNI:0000000122595234)