Advertisement

Genetic rescue insights from population- and family-level hybridization effects in brook trout

  • Zachery R. R. Wells
  • Thais A. Bernos
  • Matthew C. Yates
  • Dylan J. FraserEmail author
Research Article

Abstract

Although hybridization can be used as a tool for genetic rescue, it can also generate outbreeding depression and reduce local adaptation. Improved understanding of these processes is required to better inform conservation decisions for threatened populations. Few studies, however, investigate how multiple factors influence hybridization effects. We investigated how effective population sizes (Ne), geographic distance, genetic divergence (QST, FST), and environmental stress influence hybridization effects among eight highly divergent brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) populations varying in Ne (range 44–589). In a common garden, we compared three fitness-related traits among hybrid and non-hybrid crosses. Contrary to expectations, we found little evidence of outbreeding depression; instead, hybridization effects were mostly neutral (60/66 non-hybrid vs. hybrid comparisons) with some support for heterosis (6/66). When controlling for maternal-family effects, several factors influenced fitness-related traits but cumulatively explained little variance in relative hybrid fitness (0–6.4%). For instance, when hybridized dams came from small Ne populations, relative fitness increased for some traits (length at hatch), suggesting heterosis, yet decreased at other traits (survival to hatch), suggesting outbreeding depression. Trait inconsistencies in relative hybrid fitness were also observed under different degrees of environmental stress. Results also differed when family variance in hybridization effects was unaccounted for. Collectively, our results suggest that, under certain conditions, current guidelines on genetic rescue and associated outbreeding risks might be too conservative. The occurrence of genetic rescue and outbreeding depression, nonetheless, remain difficult to predict because families and individual traits can express different effects from hybridization within populations.

Keywords

Outbreeding depression Hybridization Heterosis Population size Divergence Salmonid 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank DFO (Newfoundland) for providing permits to conduct field collections of brook trout gametes, J. Wood and C. Zastavniouk for assistance with gamete collections, and K. Marin and S. Islam for their assistance in gamete crossing and fish husbandry. This study was supported by NSERC Discovery and Accelerator Grants to D. Fraser and an NSERC Postgraduate Scholarship to M. Yates. Finally, we thank Dr. J.C. Garza and two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on a previous version of our manuscript.

Supplementary material

10592_2019_1179_MOESM1_ESM.docx (94 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 94 kb)

References

  1. Araki H, Cooper B, Blouin MS (2007) Genetic effects of captive breeding cause a rapid, cumulative fitness decline in the wild. Science 318:100–103.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1145621 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Araki H, Berejikian BA, Ford MJ, Blouin MS (2008) Fitness of hatchery-reared salmonids in the wild. Evol Appl 1:342–355.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-4571.2008.00026.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baker JP, Van Sickle J, Gagen CJ et al (1996) Episodic acidification of small streams in the northeastern united states: effects on fish populations. Ecol Appl 6:422–437.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2269380 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bashey F (2008) Competition as a selective mechanism for larger offspring size in guppies. Oikos 117:104–113.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2007.0030-1299.16094.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw.  https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
  6. Beacham TD, Murray CB (1985) Effect of female size, egg size, and water temperature on developmental biology of chum salmon (< i>Oncorhynchus keta < i>) from the Nitinat River, British Columbia. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 42:1755–1765.  https://doi.org/10.1139/f85-220 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bernos TA, Fraser DJ (2016) Spatiotemporal relationship between adult census size and genetic population size across a wide population size gradient. Mol Ecol 25:4472–4487.  https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.13790 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Charlesworth D, Willis JH (2009) The genetics of inbreeding depression. Nat Rev Genet 10:783–796.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg2664 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Crnokrak P, Barrett SCH (2002) Perspective: purging the genetic load: a review of the experimental evidence. Evolution 56(12):2347–2358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Danzmann RG, Morgan RP II, Jones MW et al (1998) A major sextet of mitochondrial DNA phylogenetic assemblages extant in eastern North American brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis): distribution and postglacial dispersal patterns. Can J Zool 76:1300–1318.  https://doi.org/10.1139/cjz-76-7-1300 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Debes PV, Fraser DJ, McBride MC, Hutchings JA (2013) Multigenerational hybridisation and its consequences for maternal effects in Atlantic salmon. Heredity (Edinb) 111:238–247.  https://doi.org/10.1038/hdy.2013.43 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Debes PV, Fraser DJ, Yates M, Hutchings JA (2014) The between-population genetic architecture of growth, maturation, and plasticity in Atlantic Salmon. Genetics 196(4):1277–1291.  https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.114.161729 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Edmands S (1999) Heterosis and outbreeding depression in interpopulation crosses spanning a wide range of divergence. Evolution (N Y) 53:1757–1768.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2640438 Google Scholar
  14. Edmands S (2002) Does parental divergence predict reproductive compatibility? Trends Ecol Evol 17:520–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Edmands S (2007) Between a rock and a hard place: evaluating the relative risks of inbreeding and outbreeding for conservation and management. Mol Ecol 16:463–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Edmands S, Deimler JK (2004) Local adaptation, intrinsic coadaptation and the effects of environmental stress on interpopulation hybrids in the copepod Tigriopus californicus. J Exp Mar Bio Ecol 303:183–196.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jembe.2003.11.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Einum S, Fleming IA (2000) Selection against late emergence and small offspring in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Evolution (N Y) 54:628–639.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0014-3820.2000.tb00064.x Google Scholar
  18. Flebbe PA, Roghair LD, Bruggink JL (2006) Spatial modeling to project Southern Appalachian trout distribution in a warmer climate. Trans Am Fish Soc 135:1371–1382.  https://doi.org/10.1577/T05-217.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Frankham R (2010) Challenges and opportunities of genetic approaches to biological conservation. Biol Conserv 143:1919–1927.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BIOCON.2010.05.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Frankham R (2015) Genetic rescue of small inbred populations: meta-analysis reveals large and consistent benefits of gene flow. Mol Ecol 24:2610–2618.  https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.13139 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Frankham R, Briscoe DA, Ballou JD (2002) Introduction to conservation genetics. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Frankham R, Ballou JD, Eldridge MDB et al (2011) Predicting the probability of outbreeding depression. Conserv Biol 25:465–475.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01662.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Frankham R, Brook BW, Bradshaw CJA, Traill LW, Spielman D (2013) 50/500 rule and minimum viable populations: response to Jamieson and Allendorf. Trends in Ecol Evol 28(4):187–188.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2013.01.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Frankham R, Bradshaw CJA, Brook BW (2014) Genetics in conservation management: revised recommendations for the 50/500 rules, Red List criteria and population viability analyses. Biol Conserv 170:56–63.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.12.036 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fraser DJ, Cook AM, Eddington JD, Bentzen P, Hutchings JA (2008) Mixed evidence for reduced local adaptation in wild salmon resulting from interbreeding with escaped farmed salmon: complexities in hybrid fitness. Evol Appl 1:501–512.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-4571.2008.00037.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fraser DJ, Houde ALS, Debes PV et al (2010) Consequences of farmed-wild hybridization across divergent wild populations and multiple traits in salmon. Ecol Appl 20:935–953.  https://doi.org/10.1890/09-0694.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fraser DJ, Weir LK, Bernatchez L et al (2011) Extent and scale of local adaptation in salmonid fishes: review and meta-analysis. Heredity (Edinb) 106:404–420.  https://doi.org/10.1038/hdy.2010.167 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fraser DJ, Debes PV, Bernatchez L, Hutchings JA (2014) Population size, habitat fragmentation, and the nature of adaptive variation in a stream fish. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 281:8.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2014.0370 Google Scholar
  29. Fraser DJ, Walker L, Yates MC, et al (2019) Population correlates of rapid captive-induced maladaptation in a wild fish. Evol Appl.  https://doi.org/10.1111/eva.12649
  30. Gilk SE, Wang IA, Hoover CL et al (2004) Outbreeding depression in hybrids between spatially separated Pink Salmon, Oncorhynchus gorbuscha, populations: marine survival, homing ability, and variability in family size. Environ Biol Fishes 69:287–297.  https://doi.org/10.1023/B:EBFI.0000022888.28218.c1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Grindeland JM (2008) Inbreeding depression and outbreeding depression in Digitalis purpurea: optimal outcrossing distance in a tetraploid. J Evol Biol 21:716–726.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2008.01519.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hijmans R, Williams E, Vennes C, Hijmans M (2015) Package “geosphere”Google Scholar
  33. Houde ALS, Fraser DJ, Hutchings JA (2010) Fitness-related consequences of competitive interactions between farmed and wild Atlantic salmon at different proportional representations of wild-farmed hybrids. ICES J Mar Sci 67:657–667.  https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsp272 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Houde ALS, Fraser DJ, O’Reilly P, Hutchings JA (2011) Relative risks of inbreeding and outbreeding depression in the wild in endangered salmon. Evol Appl 4:634–647.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-4571.2011.00186.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hudy M, Thieling TM, Gillespie N, Smith EP (2008) Distribution, status, and land use characteristics of Subwatersheds within the native range of brook trout in the Eastern United States. North Am J Fish Manag 28:1069–1085.  https://doi.org/10.1577/M07-017.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Husband BC, Schemske DW (1997) The effect of inbreeding in diploid and tetraploid populations of Epilobium angustifolium (Onagraceae): implications for the genetic basis of inbreeding depression. Evolution (N Y) 51:737–746.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2411150 Google Scholar
  37. Huss M, Byström P, Strand Å et al (2008) Influence of growth history on the accumulation of energy reserves and winter mortality in young fish. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 65:2149–2156.  https://doi.org/10.1139/F08-115 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hutchings JA (1996) Adaptive phenotypic plasticity in brook trout, Salvelinus fontinalis, life histories. Écoscience 3:25–32.  https://doi.org/10.1080/11956860.1996.11682311 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kanno Y, Vokoun JC, Letcher BH (2011) Sibship reconstruction for inferring mating systems, dispersal and effective population size in headwater brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) populations. Conserv Genet 12:619–628.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10592-010-0166-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Keller LF, Waller DM (2002) Inbreeding effects in wild populations. Trends Ecol Evol 17:230–241.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(02)02489-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kelly JK (2005) Family level inbreeding depression and the evolution of plant mating systems. New Phytol 165(1):55–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kenward MG, Roger JH (1997) Small sample inference for fixed effects from restricted maximum likelihood. Biometrics 53(3):983.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2533558 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kronenberger JA, Funk WC, Smith JW et al (2017) Testing the demographic effects of divergent immigrants on small populations of Trinidadian guppies. Anim Conserv 20:3–11.  https://doi.org/10.1111/acv.12286 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Leberg PL, Firmin BD (2008) Role of inbreeding depression and purging in captive breeding and restoration programmes. Mol Ecol 17(1):334–343.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2007.03433.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Leinonen T, McCairns RJS, O’Hara RB, Merilä J (2013) QST–FST comparisons: evolutionary and ecological insights from genomic heterogeneity. Nat Rev Genet 14:179–190.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg3395 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lemmon EM, Juenger TE (2017) Geographic variation in hybridization across a reinforcement contact zone of chorus frogs (Pseudacris). Ecol Evol 7:9485–9502.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.3443 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lynch M (1991) The genetic interpretation of inbreeding depression and outbreeding depression. Evolution (N Y) 45:622–629.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2409915 Google Scholar
  48. Marten PS (1992) Effect of temperature variation on the incubation and development of brook trout eggs. Progress Fish-Culturist 54:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Mavárez J, Salazar CA, Bermingham E et al (2006) Speciation by hybridization in Heliconius butterflies. Nature 441:868–871.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature04738 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. McClelland EK, Naish KA (2007) What is the fitness outcome of crossing unrelated fish populations? A meta-analysis and an evaluation of future research directions. Conserv Genet 8:397–416.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10592-006-9178-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Nakagawa S, Schielzeth H (2013) A general and simple method for obtaining R 2 from generalized linear mixed-effects models. Methods Ecol Evol 4:133–142.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-210x.2012.00261.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Oehlert GW (1992) A note on the delta method. Am Stat 46:27–29.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.1992.10475842 Google Scholar
  53. Pess GR, Kiffney PM, Liermann MC et al (2011) The influences of body size, habitat quality, and competition on the movement and survival of juvenile coho salmon during the early stages of stream recolonization. Trans Am Fish Soc 140:883–897.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00028487.2011.587752 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Pickup M, Young AG (2008) Population size, self-incompatibility and genetic rescue in diploid and tetraploid races of Rutidosis leptorrhynchoides (Asteraceae). Heredity (Edinb) 100:268–274.  https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.hdy.6801070 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Pickup M, Field DL, Rowell DM, Young AG (2013) Source population characteristics affect heterosis following genetic rescue of fragmented plant populations. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 280:20122058.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2012.2058 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Pierce AA, Gutierrez R, Rice AM, Pfennig KS (2017) Genetic variation during range expansion: effects of habitat novelty and hybridization. Proc Biol Sci 284:20170007.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2017.0007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Prill N, Bullock JM, van Dam NM, Leimu R (2014) Loss of heterosis and family-dependent inbreeding depression in plant performance and resistance against multiple herbivores under drought stress. J Ecol 102:1497–1505.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.12327 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Quinn TP, Peterson NP (1996) The influence of habitat complexity and fish size on over-winter survival and growth of individually marked juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) in Big Beef Creek, Washington. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 53:1555–1564.  https://doi.org/10.1139/f96-092 Google Scholar
  59. R Development Core Team (2008) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Core Team, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  60. Ralls K, Ballou JD, Dudash MR et al (2017) Call for a Paradigm Shift in the genetic management of fragmented populations. Conserv Lett 11:e12412.  https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12412 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Ramachandran S, Deshpande O, Roseman CC et al (2005) Support from the relationship of genetic and geographic distance in human populations for a serial founder effect originating in Africa. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102:15942–15947.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0507611102 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Reed DH, Frankham R (2003) Correlation between fitness and genetic diversity. Conserv Biol 17:230–237.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2003.01236.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Robinson ZL, Coombs JA, Hudy M et al (2017) Experimental test of genetic rescue in isolated populations of brook trout. Mol Ecol 26:4418–4433.  https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.14225 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Stabell OB (1984) Homing and olfaction in salmonids: a critical review with special reference to the Atlantic Salmon. Biol Rev 59:333–388.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-185X.1984.tb00709.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Thorgaard GH, Allendorf FW, Knudsen KL (1983) Gene-centromere mapping in rainbow trout: high interference over long map distances. Genetics 103:771–783Google Scholar
  66. Tallmon D, Luikart G, Waples RS (2004) The alluring simplicity and complex reality of genetic rescue. Trends Ecol Evol 19(9):489–496.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2004.07.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wells ZRR, McDonnell LH, Chapman LJ, Fraser DJ (2016) Limited variability in upper thermal tolerance among pure and hybrid populations of a cold-water fish. Conserv Physiol 4:cow063.  https://doi.org/10.1093/conphys/cow063 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wenger SJ, Isaak DJ, Luce CH et al (2011) Flow regime, temperature, and biotic interactions drive differential declines of trout species under climate change. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108:14175–14180.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1103097108 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Whiteley AR, Fitzpatrick SW, Funk WC, Tallmon DA (2015) Genetic rescue to the rescue. Trends Ecol Evol 30:42–49.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TREE.2014.10.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Willett CS (2012) Hybrid breakdown weakens under thermal stress in population crosses of the copepod Tigriopus californicus. J Hered 103:103–114.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jhered/esr109 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Willi Y, Van Buskirk J, Hoffmann AA et al (2006) Limits to the adaptive potential of small populations. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 37:433–458.  https://doi.org/10.2307/annurev.ecolsys.37.091305.30000017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wood JLA, Fraser DJ (2015) Similar plastic responses to elevated temperature among differentially abundant brook trout populations. Ecology 96:1010–1019.  https://doi.org/10.1890/14-1378.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Wood JLA, Belmar-Lucero S, Hutchings JA, Fraser DJ (2014) Relationship of habitat variability to population size in a stream fish. Ecol Appl 24:1085–1100.  https://doi.org/10.1890/13-1647.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Wood JLA, Tezel D, Joyal D, Fraser DJ (2015) Population size is weakly related to quantitative genetic variation and trait differentiation in a stream fish. Evolution (N Y) 69:2303–2318.  https://doi.org/10.1111/evo.12733 Google Scholar
  75. Zastavniouk C, Weir LK, Fraser DJ (2017) The evolutionary consequences of habitat fragmentation: body morphology and coloration differentiation among brook trout populations of varying size. Ecol Evol 7:6850–6862.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.3229 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.BT Engineering IncOttawaCanada
  2. 2.Department of BiologyConcordia UniversityMontrealCanada
  3. 3.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  4. 4.Department of Biological SciencesUniversity of Toronto ScarboroughTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations