4.5 Article

Genetic Assessment of Remnant Sub-Populations of Sterlet (Acipenser ruthenus Linnaeus, 1758) in the Upper Danube

期刊

DIVERSITY-BASEL
卷 14, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/d14100893

关键词

Danube; population size; relationship; sturgeon; conservation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aims to assess the population sizes of sturgeons in two locations, the German-Austrian border and the Austrian-Slovakian border. The results show that the population sizes are very small and reproduction is intermittent at these sites. Therefore, conservation actions, including the restoration of migration corridors, are necessary to protect sturgeons in the Upper Danube.
While the potamodromous sterlet was common in the past throughout the Upper Danube in Germany and Austria, it nearly vanished in the second half of the 20th century. Until recently, only one small and isolated reproductive sub-population is known from the German-Austrian border. However, isolated remnants in another section downstream of Vienna, near the Austrian-Slovakian border, were discovered in 2014. An assessment of the population size is one of the most important prerequisites for conservation management. This study aims to assess the population sizes at both sites, using genetic pedigrees and comparison to mark-recapture data. A total of 193 samples collected from these populations between 2011 and 2021 have been investigated. In addition, 59 samples from captive stocks, 38 wild fish from downstream, and 247 genetic profiles from previous studies were used for comparison. Results show close relationships and intermittent reproduction on one site. Estimated populations based upon genetic pedigree are very small, and are consistent with mark-recapture results. Small population sizes of remnant populations have only limited, sporadic reproduction, as well as continual losses to outmigration support conservation actions for sturgeons in the Upper Danube, including the restoration of functional migration corridors.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据