Considering sampling bias in close-kin mark–recapture abundance estimates of Atlantic salmon
Genetic methods for the estimation of population size can be powerful alternatives to conventional methods. Close-kin mark–recapture (CKMR) is based on the principles of conventional mark–recapture, but instead of being physically marked, individuals are marked through their close kin. The aim of th...
Published in: | Ecology and Evolution |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
Format: | Article in Journal/Newspaper |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Wiley
2021
|
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | https://hdl.handle.net/11250/2766081 https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.7279 |
id |
ftunivbergen:oai:bora.uib.no:11250/2766081 |
---|---|
record_format |
openpolar |
spelling |
ftunivbergen:oai:bora.uib.no:11250/2766081 2023-05-15T15:31:17+02:00 Considering sampling bias in close-kin mark–recapture abundance estimates of Atlantic salmon Wacker, Sebastian Skaug, Hans Julius Forseth, Torbjørn Solem, Øyvind Ulvan, Eva Marita Fiske, Peder Karlsson, Sten 2021 application/pdf https://hdl.handle.net/11250/2766081 https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.7279 eng eng Wiley Andre: County Governor of Trøndelag Andre: Norwegian Reserarch Centre for Hydropower TechnologyHydroCen Andre: Norwegian Environment Agency urn:issn:2045-7758 https://hdl.handle.net/11250/2766081 https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.7279 cristin:1911668 Ecology and Evolution. 2021, 11 (9), 3917-3932. Navngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.no Copyright 2021 The Authors. Ecology and Evolution 3917-3932 11 9 VDP::Zoologiske og botaniske fag: 480 VDP::Zoology and botany: 480 Journal article Peer reviewed 2021 ftunivbergen https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.7279 2023-03-14T17:44:50Z Genetic methods for the estimation of population size can be powerful alternatives to conventional methods. Close-kin mark–recapture (CKMR) is based on the principles of conventional mark–recapture, but instead of being physically marked, individuals are marked through their close kin. The aim of this study was to evaluate the potential of CKMR for the estimation of spawner abundance in Atlantic salmon and how age, sex, spatial, and temporal sampling bias may affect CKMR estimates. Spawner abundance in a wild population was estimated from genetic samples of adults returning in 2018 and of their potential offspring collected in 2019. Adult samples were obtained in two ways. First, adults were sampled and released alive in the breeding habitat during spawning surveys. Second, genetic samples were collected from out-migrating smolts PIT-tagged in 2017 and registered when returning as adults in 2018. CKMR estimates based on adult samples collected during spawning surveys were somewhat higher than conventional counts. Uncertainty was small (CV < 0.15), due to the detection of a high number of parent–offspring pairs. Sampling of adults was age- and size-biased and correction for those biases resulted in moderate changes in the CKMR estimate. Juvenile dispersal was limited, but spatially balanced sampling of adults rendered CKMR estimates robust to spatially biased sampling of juveniles. CKMR estimates based on returning PIT-tagged adults were approximately twice as high as estimates based on samples collected during spawning surveys. We suggest that estimates based on PIT-tagged fish reflect the total abundance of adults entering the river, while estimates based on samples collected during spawning surveys reflect the abundance of adults present in the breeding habitat at the time of spawning. Our study showed that CKMR can be used to estimate spawner abundance in Atlantic salmon, with a moderate sampling effort, but a carefully designed sampling regime is required. publishedVersion Article in Journal/Newspaper Atlantic salmon University of Bergen: Bergen Open Research Archive (BORA-UiB) Ecology and Evolution 11 9 3917 3932 |
institution |
Open Polar |
collection |
University of Bergen: Bergen Open Research Archive (BORA-UiB) |
op_collection_id |
ftunivbergen |
language |
English |
topic |
VDP::Zoologiske og botaniske fag: 480 VDP::Zoology and botany: 480 |
spellingShingle |
VDP::Zoologiske og botaniske fag: 480 VDP::Zoology and botany: 480 Wacker, Sebastian Skaug, Hans Julius Forseth, Torbjørn Solem, Øyvind Ulvan, Eva Marita Fiske, Peder Karlsson, Sten Considering sampling bias in close-kin mark–recapture abundance estimates of Atlantic salmon |
topic_facet |
VDP::Zoologiske og botaniske fag: 480 VDP::Zoology and botany: 480 |
description |
Genetic methods for the estimation of population size can be powerful alternatives to conventional methods. Close-kin mark–recapture (CKMR) is based on the principles of conventional mark–recapture, but instead of being physically marked, individuals are marked through their close kin. The aim of this study was to evaluate the potential of CKMR for the estimation of spawner abundance in Atlantic salmon and how age, sex, spatial, and temporal sampling bias may affect CKMR estimates. Spawner abundance in a wild population was estimated from genetic samples of adults returning in 2018 and of their potential offspring collected in 2019. Adult samples were obtained in two ways. First, adults were sampled and released alive in the breeding habitat during spawning surveys. Second, genetic samples were collected from out-migrating smolts PIT-tagged in 2017 and registered when returning as adults in 2018. CKMR estimates based on adult samples collected during spawning surveys were somewhat higher than conventional counts. Uncertainty was small (CV < 0.15), due to the detection of a high number of parent–offspring pairs. Sampling of adults was age- and size-biased and correction for those biases resulted in moderate changes in the CKMR estimate. Juvenile dispersal was limited, but spatially balanced sampling of adults rendered CKMR estimates robust to spatially biased sampling of juveniles. CKMR estimates based on returning PIT-tagged adults were approximately twice as high as estimates based on samples collected during spawning surveys. We suggest that estimates based on PIT-tagged fish reflect the total abundance of adults entering the river, while estimates based on samples collected during spawning surveys reflect the abundance of adults present in the breeding habitat at the time of spawning. Our study showed that CKMR can be used to estimate spawner abundance in Atlantic salmon, with a moderate sampling effort, but a carefully designed sampling regime is required. publishedVersion |
format |
Article in Journal/Newspaper |
author |
Wacker, Sebastian Skaug, Hans Julius Forseth, Torbjørn Solem, Øyvind Ulvan, Eva Marita Fiske, Peder Karlsson, Sten |
author_facet |
Wacker, Sebastian Skaug, Hans Julius Forseth, Torbjørn Solem, Øyvind Ulvan, Eva Marita Fiske, Peder Karlsson, Sten |
author_sort |
Wacker, Sebastian |
title |
Considering sampling bias in close-kin mark–recapture abundance estimates of Atlantic salmon |
title_short |
Considering sampling bias in close-kin mark–recapture abundance estimates of Atlantic salmon |
title_full |
Considering sampling bias in close-kin mark–recapture abundance estimates of Atlantic salmon |
title_fullStr |
Considering sampling bias in close-kin mark–recapture abundance estimates of Atlantic salmon |
title_full_unstemmed |
Considering sampling bias in close-kin mark–recapture abundance estimates of Atlantic salmon |
title_sort |
considering sampling bias in close-kin mark–recapture abundance estimates of atlantic salmon |
publisher |
Wiley |
publishDate |
2021 |
url |
https://hdl.handle.net/11250/2766081 https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.7279 |
genre |
Atlantic salmon |
genre_facet |
Atlantic salmon |
op_source |
Ecology and Evolution 3917-3932 11 9 |
op_relation |
Andre: County Governor of Trøndelag Andre: Norwegian Reserarch Centre for Hydropower TechnologyHydroCen Andre: Norwegian Environment Agency urn:issn:2045-7758 https://hdl.handle.net/11250/2766081 https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.7279 cristin:1911668 Ecology and Evolution. 2021, 11 (9), 3917-3932. |
op_rights |
Navngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.no Copyright 2021 The Authors. |
op_doi |
https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.7279 |
container_title |
Ecology and Evolution |
container_volume |
11 |
container_issue |
9 |
container_start_page |
3917 |
op_container_end_page |
3932 |
_version_ |
1766361767962738688 |