Ichthyological Research

, Volume 61, Issue 2, pp 193–198 | Cite as

Ex situ reproduction of Portuguese endangered cyprinids in the context of their conservation

  • Carla Sousa-SantosEmail author
  • Fátima Gil
  • Vítor C. Almada
News and Comments

The captive breeding of highly endangered species is considered to be an indispensable instrument when the natural habitats of those species are extremely degraded and/or when the effective population sizes are so reduced that there is an eminent risk of extinction (Bentsen and Olesen 2002; Maitland and Morgan 2002; Faria et al. 2010). Several authors agree that captive breeding programs do not completely solve conservation problems and should only be adopted as a safeguard against species extinction until the natural habitats are restored and the animals can be reintroduced into their original habitats under appropriate conditions (Johnson and Jensen 1991; Philippart 1992; Caughley and Gunn 1996; Näslund 1998; Snyder et al. 1999; Berejikian 2000; Bobori et al 2001; Maitland and Morgan 2002; Schönhuth et al. 2003), a strategy known as supportive breeding (Wang and Ryman 2001). This strategy has been applied in several countries when it is urgent to preserve fish populations in...


Effective Population Size Captive Population Captive Breeding Initial Stock Consecutive Generation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



The authors are grateful to the staff of the Vasco da Gama’s Aquarium and of the Campelo Station/Quercus Team for their help in the maintenance and feeding of the fish; to Pedro Coelho, Cristina Lima and Fernando Roneberg for their help during fish captures; to Francisco Caruana for information on Spanish fish ex situ reproduction programs; and to Joana Robalo and André Levy for the revision of the manuscript. This study was funded by the FCT Pluriannual Program (UI&D 331/94, partially FEDER funded) and by the FCT project PTDC/AAC-CLI/103110/2008. C. Sousa-Santos was supported by a post-doctoral grant from FCT (SFRH/BPD/29774/2006).

Supplementary material

10228_2013_383_MOESM1_ESM.docx (197 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 196 kb)
10228_2013_383_MOESM2_ESM.docx (14 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 14 kb)


  1. Adamski P, Witkowski Z (2007) Effectiveness of population recovery projects based on captive breeding. Biol Conserv 140:1–7Google Scholar
  2. Almada V, Sousa-Santos C (2010) Comparisons of the genetic structure of Squalius populations (Pisces, Cyprinidae) from rivers with contrasting histories, drainage areas and climatic conditions. Mol Phylogenet Evol 57:924–931Google Scholar
  3. Almada VC, Pereira AM, Robalo JI, Fonseca JI, Levy A, Maia C, Valente A (2008) Mitochondrial DNA fails to reveal genetic structure in sea-lampreys along European shores. Mol Phylogenet Evol 46:391–396Google Scholar
  4. Arkush KD, Siri PA (2001) Exploring the role of captive broodstock programs in salmon restoration. Fish Bull Contrib Biol Cent Val Salmonids 179:319–329Google Scholar
  5. Bentsen HB, Olesen I (2002) Designing aquaculture mass selection programs to avoid high inbreeding rates. Aquaculture 204:349–359Google Scholar
  6. Berejikian BA (2000) Research on captive broodstock programs for Pacific Salmon. Annual Report 1999–2000. US Department of Energy, OregonGoogle Scholar
  7. Blanchet S, Páez DJ, Bernatchez L, Dodson JJ (2008) An integrated comparison of captive- bred and wild Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar): implications for supportive breeding programs. Biol Conserv 141:1989–1999Google Scholar
  8. Bobori DC, Economidis PS, Maurakis EG (2001) Freshwater fish habitat science and management in Greece. Aquatic Ecosyst Health 4:381–391Google Scholar
  9. Brook BW, Tonkyn DW, O’Grady JJ, Frankham R (2002) Contribution of inbreeding to extinction risk in threatened species. Conserv Ecol 6:16Google Scholar
  10. Cabral MJ, Almeida J, Almeida PR, Dellinger T, Ferrand de Almeida N, Oliveira ME, Palmeirim JM, Queiroz AI, Rogado L, Santos-Reis M (eds) (2005) Portuguese red book of vertebrates. ICN, LisboaGoogle Scholar
  11. Cambray JA (1997) Captive breeding and sanctuaries for the endangered African anabantid Sandelia bainsii, the Eastern Cape rocky. Aquarium Sci Conserv 1:159–168Google Scholar
  12. Cardoso AC, Carrapato C (2008) Intervenção Saramugo 2008. ICNB, MértolaGoogle Scholar
  13. Caro T M, Laurenson MK (1994) Ecological and genetic factors in conservation: a cautionary tale. Science 263:485–486Google Scholar
  14. Caughley G (1994) Directions in conservation biology. J Anim Ecol 63:215–244Google Scholar
  15. Caughley G, Gunn A (1996) Conservation biology in theory and practice. Blackwell Science, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  16. CIP El Palmar (2006) Report from the El Palmar ichthyological research centre activities for the Biodiversity Conservation Service. DGGMN, ValenciaGoogle Scholar
  17. Clavero M, Germoso V, Levin N, Kark S (2010) Geographical linkages between threats and imperilment in freshwater fish in the mediterranean basin. Divers Distrib 16:744–754Google Scholar
  18. Collares-Pereira MJ, Cowx I (2004) The role of catchment scale environmental management in freshwater fish conservation. Fish Manag Ecol 11:303–312Google Scholar
  19. Duchesne P, Bernatchez L (2002) An analytical investigation of the dynamics of inbreeding in multi-generation supportive breeding. Conserv Genet 3:47–60Google Scholar
  20. Duncan JR, Lockwood JL (2001) Extinction in a field of bullets: a search for causes in the decline of the world’s freshwater fishes. Biol Conserv 102:97–105Google Scholar
  21. Faria PJ, van Oosterhout C, Cable J (2010) Optimal release strategies for captive-bred animals in reintroduction programs: experimental infections using the guppy as a model organism. Biol Conserv 143:35–41Google Scholar
  22. Frankham R (2005) Genetics and extinction. Biol Conserv 126:131–140Google Scholar
  23. Frankham R (2008) Genetic adaptation to captivity in species conservation programs. Mol Ecol 17:325–333Google Scholar
  24. Frankham R, Ballou JD, Briscoe DA (2002) Introduction to conservation genetics. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  25. Gautschi B, Müller JP, Schmid B, Shykoff JA (2003) Effective number of breeders and maintenance of genetic diversity in the captive bearded vulture population. Heredity 91:9–16Google Scholar
  26. Gil F, Sousa-Santos C, Almada V (2010) A simple and inexpensive technique for the ex-situ reproduction of critically endangered cyprinids—Achondrostoma occidentale as a case study. J World Aquacult Soc 41:661–664Google Scholar
  27. Hedrick PW (2001) Conservation genetics: where are we now? Trends Ecol Evol 16:630–636Google Scholar
  28. Hedrick PW, Kalinowski ST (2000) Inbreeding depression in Conservation Biology. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 31:139–162Google Scholar
  29. Hermoso V, Clavero M (2011) Threatening processes and conservation management of endemic freshwater fish in the Mediterranean Basin: a review. Mar Freshw Res 62:244–254Google Scholar
  30. Johnson JE, Jensen BL (1991) Hatcheries for endangered freshwater fish. In: Minckley WL, Deacon JE (eds) Battle against extinction. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp 199–217Google Scholar
  31. Kitanishi S, Nishio M, Uehara K, Ogawa R, Yokoyama T, Edo K (2013) Patterns of genetic diversity of mitochondrial DNA within captive populations of the endangered itasenoara bitterling: implications for a reintroduction program. Environ Biol Fish 96:567–572Google Scholar
  32. Lacy RC (2000) Considering threats to the viability of small populations using individual- based models. Ecol Bull 48:39–51Google Scholar
  33. Lande R (1988) Genetics and demography in biological conservation. Science 241:1455–1460Google Scholar
  34. Levy A, Doadrio I, Almada VC (2009) Historical biogeography of European leuciscins (Cyprinidae): evaluating the Lago Mare dispersal hypothesis. J Biogeogr 36:55–65Google Scholar
  35. Ludwig A (2011) To take up the cudgels for inbreeding as tool in restoration programmes. J Appl Ichthyol 27:2–4Google Scholar
  36. Maitland PS, Morgan NC (2002) Conservation management of freshwater habitats—Lakes, rivers and wetlands. Kluwer Academic Publishers, NorwellGoogle Scholar
  37. Näslund I (1998) Survival and dispersal of hatchery-reared brown trout, Salmo trutta, released in small streams. In: Cowx IG (ed) Stocking and introduction of fish. Fishing News Books, Oxford, pp 59–76Google Scholar
  38. Pereira AM, Almada VC, Doadrio I (2010) Genetic relationships of brook lamprey of the genus Lampetra in a Pyrenean stream in Spain. Ichthyol Res 58:278–282Google Scholar
  39. Philippart JC (1992) Is captive breeding an effective solution for the conservation of endemic species? Biol Conserv 72:281–295Google Scholar
  40. Price EO, King JA (1968) Domestication and adaptation. In: Hafez ESE (ed) Adaptation of domestic animals. Lea and Feibiger, Philadelphia, pp 34–45Google Scholar
  41. Robalo JI, Almada VC, Sousa-Santos C, Moreira I, Doadrio I (2005) Chondrostoma occidentale, a new species of the genus Chondrostoma Agassiz, 1832 (Actynopterigii, Cyprinidae) from western Portugal. Graellsia 61:19–29Google Scholar
  42. Robalo JI, Sousa-Santos C, Almada VC, Doadrio I (2006a) Paleobiogeography of two Iberian endemic cyprinid fishes (Chondrostoma arcasii-Chondrostoma macrolepidotus) inferred from mitochondrial sequence data. J Hered 97:143–149Google Scholar
  43. Robalo JI, Sousa-Santos C, Levy A, Almada VC (2006b) Molecular insights on the taxonomic position of the paternal ancestor of the Squalius alburnoides hybridogenetic complex. Mol Phylogenet Evol 39:276–281Google Scholar
  44. Robalo JI, Doadrio I, Valente A, Almada VC (2007a) Identification of ESUs in the critically endangered Portuguese minnow Chondrostoma lusitanicum Collares-Pereira 1980, based on a phylogeographical analysis. Conserv Genet 8:1225–1229Google Scholar
  45. Robalo JI, Almada VC, Levy A, Doadrio I (2007b) Re-examination and phylogeny of the genus Chondrostoma based on mitochondrial and nuclear data and the definition of 5 new genera. Mol Phylogenet Evol 42:362–372Google Scholar
  46. Robert A (2009) Captive breeding genetics and reintroduction success. Biol Conserv 142:2915–2922Google Scholar
  47. Saura M, Pérez-Figueroa A, Fernández J, Toro MA, Caballero A (2008) Preserving population allele frequencies in ex situ conservation programs. Conserv Biol 22:1277–1287Google Scholar
  48. Schönhuth S, Luikart G, Doadrio I (2003) Effects of a founder event and supplementary introductions on genetic variation in a captive breeding population of the endangered Spanish killifish. J Fish Biol 63:1538–1551Google Scholar
  49. Snyder NFR, Derrickson SR, Beissinger SR, Wiley JW, Smith TB, Toone WD, Miller B (1999) Limitations of captive breeding in endangered species recovery. Conserv Biol 10:338–348Google Scholar
  50. Sousa V, Penha F, Collares-Pereira MJ, Chikhi L, Coelho MM (2008) Genetic structure and signature of population decrease in the critically endangered freshwater cyprinid Chondrostoma lusitanicum. Conserv Genet 9:791–805Google Scholar
  51. Sousa-Santos C, Collares-Pereira MJ, Almada VC (2006) Evidence of extensive mitochondrial introgression with nearly complete substitution of the typical Squalius pyrenaicus-like mtDNA of the Squalius alburnoides complex (Cyprinidae) in an independent Iberian drainage. J Fish Biol 68(Suppl B):292–30Google Scholar
  52. Sousa-Santos C, Collares-Pereira MJ, Almada VC (2007) Reading the history of a hybrid fish complex from its molecular record. Mol Phylogenet Evol 45:981–996Google Scholar
  53. Sousa-Santos C, Robalo J, Santos JM, Branco P, Ferreira T, Sousa M, Ramos A, Castilho R, Doadrio I, Almada V (2013) Atlas Genético Nacional dos peixes ciprinídeos nativos. Electronic publication available at
  54. Spielman D, Brook BW, Frankham R (2004) Most species are not driven to extinction before genetic factors impact them. P Natl Acad Sci-Biol 101:15261–15264Google Scholar
  55. Wang JL, Ryman N (2001) Genetic effects of multiple generations of supportive breeding. Conserv Biol 15:1619–1631Google Scholar
  56. Ward RD (2006) The importance of identifying spatial population structure in restocking and stock enhancement programmes. Fish Res 80:9–18Google Scholar
  57. Williams SE, Hoffman EA (2009) Minimizing genetic adaptation in captive breeding programs: a review. Biol Conserv 142:2388–2400Google Scholar
  58. Witzenberger KA, Hochkirch A (2011) Ex situ conservation genetics: a review of molecular studies on the genetic consequences of captive breeding programmes for endangered animal species. Biodivers Conserv 20:1843–1861Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Ichthyological Society of Japan 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carla Sousa-Santos
    • 1
    Email author
  • Fátima Gil
    • 2
  • Vítor C. Almada
    • 1
  1. 1.Unidade de Investigação em Eco-EtologiaISPA–Instituto Universitário de Ciências PsicológicasLisboaPortugal
  2. 2.Aquário Vasco da GamaRua Direita do DafundoCruz QuebradaPortugal

Personalised recommendations