The role of body size versus growth on the decision to migrate: a case study with Salmo trutta
- 369 Downloads
In a population exhibiting partial migration (i.e. migration and residency tactics occur in the same population), the mechanisms underlying the tactical choice are still unclear. Empirical studies have highlighted a variety of factors that could influence the coexistence of resident and migratory individuals, with growth and body size considered to be key factors in the decision to migrate. Most studies suffer from at least one of the two following caveats: (1) survival and capture probabilities are not taken into account in the data analysis, and (2) body size is often used as a proxy for individual growth. We performed a capture–mark–recapture experiment to study partial migration among juvenile brown trout Salmo trutta at the end of their first year, when a portion of the population emigrate from the natal stream while others choose residency tactic. Bayesian multistate capture–recapture models accounting for survival and recaptures probabilities were used to investigate the relative role of body size and individual growth on survival and migration probabilities. Our results show that, despite an apparent effect of both size and growth on migration, growth is the better integrative parameter and acts directly on migration probability whereas body size acts more strongly on survival. Consequently, we recommend caution if size is used as a proxy for growth when studying the factors that drive partial migration in juvenile salmonid species.
KeywordsBayesian model Capture–mark–recapture Migration Passive integrated transponders (PIT)
This study was carried out with the financial support of Le Conseil Régional de Basse-Normandie and the French National Institute for Agronomic Research (INRA) to ML Acolas (doctoral fellowship). Dominique Huteau has developed the portable PIT detectors used in this project. He is gratefully acknowledged, as well as Frédéric Marchand and Julien Tremblay for their broad participation to field work and especially tracking surveys. We wish to thank Richard Delanoé and the Office National de l’Eau et des Milieux Aquatiques (ONEMA) in Basse-Normandie for electrofishing surveys. We thank Martin Schlaepfer and Rick Cunjak for relevant comments on earlier draft and edition of the English style.
This experiment complies with the current laws of the country in which they were performed.
- Bennetts RE, Nichols JD, Lebreton JD, Pradel R, Hines JE, Kitchens WM (2001) Methods for estimating dispersal probabilities and related parameters using marked animals. In: Clobert L, Danchin E, Dhondt AA, Nichols JD (eds) Dispersal. Oxford University press, Oxford, pp. 3–18Google Scholar
- Choquet R, Reboulet AM, Lebreton JD, Gimenez O, Pradel R (2005) U-CARE 2.2 User’s manual. CEFE, Montpellier, France (http://ftp.cefe.cnrs.fr/biom/Soft-CR/)
- Cucherousset J, Ombredane D, Bagliniere JL (2006) Linking juvenile growth and migration behaviour of brown trout (Salmo trutta) using individual PIT-tagging. Cah Biol Mar 47:73–78Google Scholar
- Garcia de Leaniz C, Fleming IA, Einum S, Verspoor E, Jordan GR, Consuegra S, Aubin Horth N, Lajus D, Letcher BH, Youngson AF, Webb A, Vollestad LA, Villanueva B, Ferguson A, Quinn TP (2007) A critical review of adaptative genetic variation in Atlantic salmon: implications for conservation. Biol Rev 82:173–211PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Gelman A, Carlin JB, Sterns HS, Rubin DB (1995) Bayesian data analysis. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Gross MR (1987) Evolution of diadromy in fishes. Am Fish So Symp 1:14–25Google Scholar
- Hendry AP, Bohlin T, Jonsson B, Berg OK (2004) To sea or not to sea. In: Hendry AP, Stearns SC (eds) Evolution illuminated. Salmon and their relative. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 92–125Google Scholar
- Jonsson B, Jonsson N (2011) Migration. In: Jonsson B, Jonsson N (eds) Ecology of atlantic salmon and brown trout: Habitat as a template for life histories. Fish and fisheries series 33, Springer pp 247–325Google Scholar
- McDowall RM (1988) Diadromy in fishes. Migration between freshwater and marine environments. Timber, Croon HelmGoogle Scholar
- Pradel R, Clobert J, Lebreton JD (1990) Recent developments for the analysis of capture–recapture multiple data sets. An example concerning two blue tit populations. The Ring 13:193–204Google Scholar
- Prentice EF, Flagg TA, McCutcheon CS (1990) The effect of passive integrated transponder (PIT) tags in salmonids. Am Fish Soc Symp 7:317–322Google Scholar
- Sogard SM (1997) Size-selective mortality in the juvenile stage of teleost fishes: a review. Bull Mar Sci 60:1129–1157Google Scholar
- Stamps JA (1991) Why evolutionary issues are reviving interest in proximate behavioral mechanisms. Amer Zool 31:338–348Google Scholar
- Tanner MA, Wong WH (1987) The calculation of posterior distributions by data augmentation (with discussion). J Am Stat Assoc 82:529–550Google Scholar
- Zalewski M, Cowx IG (1990) Factors affecting the efficiency of electric fishing. In: Cowx IG, Lamarque P (eds) Fishing with electricity. Fishing News Books, Blackwell Scientific, Oxford, pp 64–91Google Scholar