{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03146067415730337, 'fraction_numerical': 0.006741573033707865, 'mean_word_length': 4.94, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Reply to Matos: Maternal effects cannot explain documented patterns of reproductive success

Matos (1) suggests that maternal effects could also explain the results we presented in a recent paper (2). However, from the outset of our study, we were aware that environmental maternal effects could be a competing explanation for the reduced fitness of hatchery-origin fish. In figure 4 of ref. 2, for example, we presented the results for male and female broodstock separately. The broodstock were either wild-born or hatchery-born individuals (0 and 1 generations in captivity, respectively). As described in the paper, each hatchery-born broodstock fish was mated with only a wild-born partner. Thus, the male hatchery broodstock were mated with wild female broodstock. As such, there is no way that the results presented for males could be attributable to an environmental maternal effect.