Abstract
Determining the origin of individuals in mixed population samples is key in many ecological, conservation and management contexts. Genetic data can be analyzed using genetic stock identification (GSI), where the origin of single individuals is determined using Individual Assignment (IA) and population proportions are estimated with Mixed Stock Analysis (MSA). In such analyses, allele frequencies in a reference baseline are required. Unknown individuals or mixture proportions are assigned to source populations based on the likelihood that their multilocus genotypes occur in a particular baseline sample. Representative sampling of populations included in a baseline is important when designing and performing GSI. Here, we investigate the effects of family sampling on GSI, using both simulated and empirical genotypes for Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). We show that nonrepresentative sampling leading to inclusion of close relatives in a reference baseline may introduce bias in estimated proportions of contributing populations in a mixed sample, and increases the amount of incorrectly assigned individual fish. Simulated data further show that the induced bias increases with increasing family structure, but that it can be partly mitigated by increased baseline population sample sizes. Results from standard accuracy tests of GSI (using only a reference baseline and/or self‐assignment) gave a false and elevated indication of the baseline power and accuracy to identify stock proportions and individuals. These findings suggest that family structure in baseline population samples should be quantified and its consequences evaluated, before carrying out GSI.
Highlights
Determining the population origin of individuals is fundamental in many ecological, evolutionary, conservation, and management contexts (e.g., Allendorf & Luikart, 2007)
We show that nonrepresentative family sampling leading to inclusion of close relatives in a genetic reference baseline may introduce biases when evaluating the contribution of different populations in mixed samples using mixed stock analysis (MSA) and when assigning individuals to putative sources of origin using individual assignment (IA)
The influence of full-siblings in the reference baseline was similar for analyses of both empirical and simulated genotypes, with larger bias in Mixed Stock Analysis (MSA) and Individual Assignment (IA) estimates with higher level of family structure
Summary
In addition to the use of Carlin-tags, which in the Baltic mainly gives information on reared stocks, there has been an increasing use of molecular techniques during the last 15 years to identify catch composition of both hatchery and wild stocks using genetic MSA Such analysis on salmon have been performed on several occasions (Koljonen, 2006; Koljonen & McKinnell, 1996; Koljonen, Pella, & Masuda, 2005; Östergren et al, 2015, 2014; Whitlock et al, 2018), and is carried out on an annual basis within the work of ICES WGBAST (e.g., ICES, 2018). To fill the knowledge gap on how close relatives in baseline population samples affects GSI, we investigated the effects of family structure in baseline population samples on the performance of GSI methods (MSA and IA) We approached these questions by analyzing empirical baselines from seven hatchery reared Atlantic salmon populations in the Baltic Sea combined with a complementary simulation exercise. Our key questions were as follows: (a) What are the effects of various degree of family structure in baseline population samples on GSI estimates (IA and MSA)? (b) Does the baseline population sample size influence the results at various degree of family structure? (c) How are commonly used tools for evaluation of baselines (e.g., self-assignment and 100% simulations) affected by a varying degree of family structure in baselines? (d) What is the best way to mitigate the potential effects of family structure on GSI estimates?
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.