Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Steelhead trout that are originally
bred in hatcheries are so genetically impaired that, even if they survive and
reproduce in the wild, their offspring will also be significantly less
successful at reproducing, according to a new study published today by
researchers from Oregon State University.
The poor reproductive fitness
– the ability to survive and reproduce – of the wild-born offspring of hatchery
fish means that adding hatchery fish to wild populations may ultimately be
hurting efforts to sustain those wild runs, scientists said.
The study
found that a fish born in the wild as the offspring of two hatchery-reared
steelhead averaged only 37 percent the reproductive fitness of a fish with two
wild parents, and 87 percent the fitness if one parent was wild and one was from
a hatchery. Most importantly, these differences were still detectable after a
full generation of natural selection in the wild.
The effect of
hatcheries on reproductive fitness in succeeding generations had been predicted
in theory, experts say, but until now had never been demonstrated in actual
field experiments.
"If anyone ever had any doubts about the genetic
differences between hatchery and wild fish, the data are now pretty clear," said
Michael Blouin, an OSU professor of zoology. "The effect is so strong that it
carries over into the first wild-born generation. Even if fish are born in the
wild and survive to reproduce, those adults that had hatchery parents still
produce substantially fewer surviving offspring than those with wild parents.
That's pretty remarkable."
An earlier report, published in 2007 in the
journal Science, had already shown that hatchery fish that migrate to the ocean
and return to spawn leave far fewer offspring than their wild relatives. The
newest findings suggest the problem does not end there, but carries over into
their wild-born descendants.
The implication, Blouin said, is that
hatchery salmonids – many of which do survive to reproduce in the wild– could be
gradually reducing the fitness of the wild populations with which they
interbreed. Those hatchery fish provide one more hurdle to overcome in the goal
of sustaining wild runs, along with problems caused by dams, loss or degradation
of habitat, pollution, overfishing and other causes.
Aside from
weakening the wild gene pool, the release of captive-bred fish also raises the
risk of introducing diseases and increasing competition for limited resources,
the report noted.
This research, which was just published in Biology
Letters, was supported by grants from the Bonneville Power Administration and
the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. It was based on years of genetic
analysis of thousands of steelhead trout in Oregon's Hood River, in field work
dating back to 1991. Scientists have been able to genetically "fingerprint"
three generations of returning fish to determine who their parents were, and
whether or not they were wild or hatchery fish.
The underlying problem,
experts say, is Darwinian natural selection.
Fish that do well in the
safe, quiet world of the hatcheries are selected to be different than those that
do well in a much more hostile and predatory real-world environment. Using wild
fish as brood stock each year should lessen the problem, but it was just that
type of hatchery fish that were used in the Hood River study. This demonstrates
that even a single generation of hatchery culture can still have strong effects.
Although this study was done with steelhead trout, it would be
reasonable to extrapolate its results to other salmonids, researchers said. It's
less clear what the findings mean to the many other species that are now being
bred in captivity in efforts to help wild populations recover, Blouin said, but
it's possible that similar effects could be found.
Captive breeding is
now a cornerstone of recovery efforts by conservation programs for many
threatened or endangered species, the researchers noted in their report.
Thousands of species may require captive breeding to prevent their extinction in
the next 200 years – which makes it particularly important to find out if such
programs will ultimately work. This study raises doubts.
"The message
should be clear," the researchers wrote in their report's conclusion. "Captive
breeding for reintroduction or supplementation can have a serious, long-term
downside in some taxa, and so should not be considered as a panacea for the
recovery of all endangered populations."
###
Oregon State
University