title: Effective number of breeders, effective population size and their relationship with census size in an iteroparous species, Salvelinus fontinalis.
abstract: The relationship between the effective number of breeders (Nb) and the generational effective size (Ne) has rarely been examined empirically in species with overlapping generations and iteroparity. Based on a suite of 11 microsatellite markers, we examine the relationship between Nb, Ne and census population size (Nc) in 14 brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) populations inhabiting 12 small streams in Nova Scotia and sampled at least twice between 2009 and 2015. Unbiased estimates of Nb obtained with individuals of a single cohort, adjusted on the basis of age at first maturation (α) and adult lifespan (AL), were from 1.66 to 0.24 times the average estimates of Ne obtained with random samples of individuals of mixed ages (i.e. [Formula: see text]). In turn, these differences led to adjusted Ne estimates that were from nearly five to 0.7 times the estimates derived from mixed-aged individuals. These differences translate into the same range of variation in the ratio of effective to census population size [Formula: see text] within populations. Adopting [Formula: see text] as the more precise and unbiased estimates, we found that these brook trout populations differ markedly in their effective to census population sizes (range approx. 0.3 to approx. 0.01). Using AgeNe, we then showed that the variance in reproductive success or reproductive skew varied among populations by a factor of 40, from Vk/k ≈ 5 to 200. These results suggest wide differences in population dynamics, probably resulting from differences in productivity affecting the intensity of competition for access to mates or redds, and thus reproductive skew. Understanding the relationship between Ne, Nb and Nc, and how these relate to population dynamics and fluctuations in population size, are important for the design of robust conservation strategies in small populations with overlapping generations and iteroparity.
authors.affiliation: Department of Biology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada B3H4R2 daniel.ruzzante@dal.ca.
authors.forename: Daniel E
authors.initials: DE
authors.lastname: Ruzzante
authors.affiliation: Department of Biology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada B3H4R2.
authors.forename: Gregory R
authors.initials: GR
authors.lastname: McCracken
authors.affiliation: Department of Biology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada B3H4R2.
authors.forename: Samantha
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Parmelee
authors.affiliation: Department of Biology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada B3H4R2.
authors.forename: Kristen
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Hill
authors.affiliation: Inland Fisheries Division, Nova Scotia Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada B3J 2R5.
authors.forename: Amelia
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Corrigan
authors.affiliation: Inland Fisheries Division, Nova Scotia Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada B3J 2R5.
authors.forename: John
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: MacMillan
authors.affiliation: Department of Biology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada B3H4R2.
authors.forename: Sandra J
authors.initials: SJ
authors.lastname: Walde
mesh_terms: D063147:Animal Distribution; D000818:Animals; D002170:Canada; D011156:Population Density; D012098:Reproduction / Q000502:physiology*; D014337:Trout / Q000502:physiology*
keywords: Nb; Ne; age at maturation; brook trout; iteroparity; small populations
references.citation: J Hered. 2015 Jan-Feb;106(1):1-19
references.pmid: 25425676
references.citation: Am Nat. 2006 Jan;167(1):118-35
references.pmid: 16475104
references.citation: Mol Ecol Resour. 2009 Sep;9(5):1322-32
references.pmid: 21564903
references.citation: Ecol Appl. 2014 Jul;24(5):1085-100
references.pmid: 25154098
references.citation: Mol Ecol. 2008 Aug;17(15):3428-47
references.pmid: 19160474
references.citation: Genetics. 2003 Mar;163(3):1177-91
references.pmid: 12663554
references.citation: Genetics. 2002 Jun;161(2):783-91
references.pmid: 12072473
references.citation: Mol Ecol. 2012 Feb;21(4):862-75
references.pmid: 22229706
references.citation: Mol Ecol. 2009 May;18(10):2148-64
references.pmid: 19389175
references.citation: Bioinformatics. 2007 Jul 15;23(14):1801-6
references.pmid: 17485429
references.citation: Ecology. 2011 Jul;92(7):1513-22
references.pmid: 21870625
references.citation: Bioinformatics. 2012 Oct 1;28(19):2537-9
references.pmid: 22820204
references.citation: Ecol Evol. 2012 Mar;2(3):562-73
references.pmid: 22822435
references.citation: Proc Biol Sci. 2013 Aug 07;280(1768):20131339
references.pmid: 23926150
references.citation: Mol Ecol Resour. 2008 Jul;8(4):753-6
references.pmid: 21585883
references.citation: Mol Ecol. 2011 Sep;20(18):3711-29
references.pmid: 21819470
references.citation: Mol Ecol. 2009 Dec;18(23):4854-69
references.pmid: 19878451
references.citation: Mol Ecol. 2005 Jul;14(8):2611-20
references.pmid: 15969739
references.citation: Am Nat. 2002 Aug;160(2):195-204
references.pmid: 18707486
references.citation: Genetics. 1931 Mar;16(2):97-159
references.pmid: 17246615
references.citation: Mol Ecol Resour. 2010 May;10(3):564-7
references.pmid: 21565059
references.citation: Genet Res. 2007 Dec;89(5-6):491-503
references.pmid: 18976539
references.citation: Ecol Evol. 2012 Sep;2(9):2357-65
references.pmid: 23139893
references.citation: Mol Ecol. 2015 Jul;24(14):3585-602
references.pmid: 26080621
references.citation: Genetics. 2014 Jun;197(2):769-80
references.pmid: 24717176
references.citation: Evol Appl. 2013 Feb;6(2):290-302
references.pmid: 23798978
references.citation: Genetics. 2003 Jan;163(1):429-46
references.pmid: 12586728
references.citation: Ecol Evol. 2013 Mar;3(3):569-80
references.pmid: 23532448
references.citation: Bioinformatics. 2004 Jan 22;20(2):289-90
references.pmid: 14734327
references.citation: Mol Ecol. 2006 Oct;15(11):3175-89
references.pmid: 16968263