Correction: Fraik et al. The Impacts of Dam Construction and Removal on the Genetics of Recovering Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) Populations across the Elwha River Watershed. Genes 2021, 12, 89.

In the original publication [...].

The Impacts of Dam Construction and Removal on the Genetics of Recovering Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) Populations across the Elwha River Watershed.

Dam construction and longitudinal river habitat fragmentation disrupt important life histories and movement of aquatic species. This is especially true for Oncorhynchus mykiss that exhibits both migratory (steelhead) and non-migratory (resident rainbow) forms. While the negative effects of dams on salmonids have been extensively documented, few studies have had the opportunity to compare population genetic diversity and structure prior to and following dam removal. Here we examine the impacts of the removal of two dams on the Elwha River on the population genetics of O. mykiss. Genetic data were produced from >1200 samples collected prior to dam removal from both life history forms, and post-dam removal from steelhead. We identified three genetic clusters prior to dam removal primarily explained by isolation due to dams and natural barriers. Following dam removal, genetic structure decreased and admixture increased. Despite large O. mykiss population declines after dam construction, we did not detect shifts in population genetic diversity or allele frequencies of loci putatively involved in migratory phenotypic variation. Steelhead descendants from formerly below and above dammed populations recolonized the river rapidly after dam removal, suggesting that dam construction did not significantly reduce genetic diversity underlying O. mykiss life history strategies. These results have significant evolutionary implications for the conservation of migratory adaptive potential in O. mykiss populations above current anthropogenic barriers.

Parental reasoning about growth attenuation therapy: report of a single-case study.

In 2006 a case report was published about a 6-year-old girl, Ashley, who has profound developmental disabilities and was treated with oestrogen patches to limit her final height, along with a hysterectomy and the removal of her breast buds. Ashley's parents claimed that attenuating her growth would make it possible for them to lift and move her more easily, facilitating greater involvement in family activities and making routine care more straightforward. The 'Ashley treatment' provoked public comment and academic debate and remains ethically controversial. As more children are being referred for such treatment, there is an urgent need to clarify how clinicians and ethics committees should respond to such requests. The controversy surrounding the Ashley treatment exists, at least in part, because of gaps in the literature, including a lack of empirical data about the outcomes for children who do and do not receive such treatment. However, we suggest in this paper that there is also merit in examining the parental decision-making process itself, and provide empirical data about the reasoning of one set of parents who ultimately chose part of this treatment for their child. Using the interview data, we illuminate some important points regarding how these parents characterise benefits and harms and their responsibilities as surrogate decision-makers. This analysis could inform decision-making about future requests for growth attenuation and might also have wider relevance to healthcare decision-making for children with profound cognitive impairment.