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...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:Ecology and Evolution
Main Authors: Wacker, Sebastian, Skaug, Hans Julius, Forseth, Torbjørn, Solem, Øyvind, Ulvan, Eva Marita, Fiske, Peder, Karlsson, Sten
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