Environmental Biology of Fishes

, 81:171

Distinguishing between juvenile anadromous and resident brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) using morphology

Full Paper

Abstract

Phenotypic variation linked to habitat use has been observed in fish, both between and within species. In many river systems, migratory and resident forms of salmonids coexist, including anadromous (migrant) and resident brook trout, Salvelinus fontinalis. In such populations, juvenile anadromous (migrant) brook trout, prior to migration, inhabit regions of higher current velocity than residents. Because it is more costly to occupy fast currents than slow currents, differences in morphology minimizing the effects of drag were expected between the two forms. As predicted, migrant brook trout were found to be more streamlined (narrower and shallower bodies) than resident brook trout, and these differences persisted into the marine life of the fish. Migrants also exhibited shorter pectoral fins, which facilitate pelagic swimming, indicating that migrants, prior to their migration to the sea, possess the appropriate morphology for swimming in open water habitats. The reported differences between migrants and residents were powerful enough to derive discriminant functions, using only five of the seven measured traits, allowing for accurate classification of brook trout as either migrants or residents with an overall correct classification rate of 87%. Importantly, this study contributes to the notion that a link exists between morphology, habitat use, metabolic costs and life-history strategies.

Keywords

Fish shape Habitat use Coexistence Salmonid Metabolic costs Energetics Sea trout Migration Anadromy 

References

  1. Alfonso NR (2004) Evidence for two morphotypes of lake charr, Salvelinus namaycush, from Great Bear Lake, Northwest Territories, Canada. Environ Biol Fishes 71:21–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beeman JW, Rondorf DW, Tilson ME, Venditti DA (1995) Nonlethal measure of smolt status of juvenile steelhead based on body morphology. Trans Am Fish Soc 124:764–769CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bisson PA, Sullivan K, Nielsen JL (1988) Channel hydraulics, habitat use, and body form of juvenile coho Salmon, steelhead, and cutthroat trout in streams. Am Fish Soc 117:262–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blake RW (1983) Fish locomotion. Cambridge ; New York, Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  5. Boily P, Magnan P (2002) Relationship between individual variation in morphological characters and swimming costs in brook charr (Salvelinus fontinalis) and yellow perch (Perca flavescens). J Exp Biol 205:1031–1036PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Bourke P, Magnan P, Rodriguez MA (1997) Individual variations in habitat use and morphology in brook charr. J Fish Biol 51:783–794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Drucker EG, Lauder GV (2003) Function of pectoral fins in rainbow trout: behavioral repertoire and hydrodynamic forces. J Exp Biol 206:813–826PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ehlinger TJ (1990) Habitat choice and phenotype-limited feeding efficiency in bluegill: individual differences and trophic polymorphism. Ecology 7:886–896CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hoar WS (1976) Smolt transformation. J Fish Res Board Can 33:1234–1252Google Scholar
  10. Holopainen IJ, Aho J, Vornanen M, Huuskonen H (1997) Phenotypic plasticity and predator effects on morphology and physiology of crucian carp in nature and in the laboratory. J Fish Biol 50:781–798CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Imre I, McLaughlin R, Noakes DLG (2001) Temporal persistence of resource polymorphism in brook charr, Salvelinus fontinalis. Environ Biol Fish 60:393–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Imre I, McLaughlin RL, Noakes DLG (2002) Phenotypic plasticity in brook charr: changes in caudal fin induced by water flow. J Fish Biol 61:1171–1181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Johnsson JI, Nobbelin F, Bohlin T (1999) Territorial competition among wild brown trout fry: effects of ownership and body size. J Fish Biol 54:469–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Keenleyside MHA (1962) Skin-diving observations of Atlantic salmon and brook trout in the Miramichi River, New Brunswick. J Fish Res Board Can 19:625–634Google Scholar
  15. Lesueur C (1993) Compte rendu des résultats obtenus lors de l'étude de l'omble de fontaine anadrome de la rivière Ste-Marguerite (Saguenay) en 1992. Association de la rivière Ste-Marguerite, Sacré-Coeur, QuébecGoogle Scholar
  16. Martin WR (1949) The mechanics of environmental control of body form in fishes. Publications of the Ontario Fisheries Research Laboratory 70:5–76Google Scholar
  17. McCormick SD, Naiman RJ, Montgomery ET (1985) Physiological smolt characteristics of anadromous and non-anadromous brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) and Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Can J Fish Aquat Sci 42:529–538Google Scholar
  18. McLaughlin RL, Grant JWA (1994) Morphological and behavioural differences among recently-emerged brook charr, Salvelinus fontinalis, foraging in slow- vs. fast-running water. Envion Biol Fishes 39:289–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Morinville GR, Rasmussen JB (2003) Early juvenile bioenergetic differences between anadromous and resident brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis). Can J Fish Aquat Sci 60:401–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Morinville GR, Rasmussen JB (2006) Does life-history variability in salmonids affect habitat use by juveniles? A comparison among streams open and closed to anadromy. J Animal Ecol 75:693–704CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pakkasmaa S, Piironen J (2001) Water velocity shapes juvenile salmonids. Evol Ecol 14:721–730CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Peres-Neto PR, Magnan P (2004) The influence of swimming demand on phenotypic plasticity and morphological integration: a comparison of two polymorphic charr species. Oecologia 140:36–45PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Perry GML, Audet C, Bernatchez L (2005) Maternal genetic effects on adaptive divergence between anadromous and resident brook charr during early life history. J Evol Biol 18:1348–1361PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Perry GML, Audet C, Laplatte B, Bernatchez L (2004) Shifting patterns in genetic control at the embryo-alevin boundary in brook charr. Evolution 58:2002–2012PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Pettersson LB, Brönmark C (1999) Energetic consequences of an inducible morphological defence in crucian carp. Oecologia 121:12–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Power G (1980) The brook charr, Salvelinus fontinalis. In: Balon EK (ed) Charrs, salmonid fishes of the genus Salvelinus. The Hague, Netherlands, W. Junk, pp 141–203Google Scholar
  27. Proulx R, Magnan P (2002) Physiological performance of two forms of lacustrine brook charr, Salvelinus fontinalis, in the open-water habitat. Environ Biol Fishes 64:127–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Proulx R, Magnan P (2004) Contribution of phenotypic plasticity and heredity to the trophic polymorphism of lacustrine brook charr (Salvelinus fontinalis M.). Evol Ecol Res 6:503–522Google Scholar
  29. Riddell BE, Leggett WC (1981) Evidence of an adaptive basis for geographic variation in body morphology and time of downstream migration of juvenile Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Can J Fish Aquat Sci 38:308–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sagnes P, Champagne J-Y, Morel R (2000) Shifts in drag and swimming potential during grayling ontogenesis: relations with habitat use. J Fish Biol 57:52–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sibbing FA, Nagelkerke LAJ (2001) Resource partitioning by Lake Tana barbs predicted from fish morphometrics and prey characteristics. Rev Fish Biol Fish 10:393–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Skúlason S, Noakes DLG, Snorrason SS (1989) Ontogeny of trophic morphology in four sympatric morphs of Arctic charr Salvelinus alpinus in Thingvallavatin, Iceland. Biol J Linn Soc 38:281–301Google Scholar
  33. Swain D, Blair HL (1989) Differences in morphology and behaviour between juvenile Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) rearing in a lake and in its tributary stream. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 46:1406–1414Google Scholar
  34. Taylor EB, Foote CJ (1991) Critical swimming velocities of juvenile sockeye salmon and kokanee, the anadromous and non-anadromous forms of Oncorhynchus nerka (Walbaum). J Fish Biol 38:407–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Taylor EB, McPhail JD (1985) Burst swimming and size-related predation of newly emerged Coho salmon, Oncorhynchus kisutch. Am Fish Soc 114:546–551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Taylor EB, McPhail JD (1986) Prolonged and burst swimming in anadromous and fresh-water threespine stickleback, Gasterosteus aculeatus. Can J Zool 64:416–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Thériault V, Dodson JJ (2003) Body size and the adoption of a migratory tactic in brook charr. J Fish Biol 63:1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Vogel S (1994) Life in moving fluids. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.JGoogle Scholar
  39. Webb PW (1975) Hydrodynamics and energetics of fish propulsion. Department of the Environment Fisheries and Marine Service: available from Information Canada, OttawaGoogle Scholar
  40. Webb PW (1984) Body form, locomotion and foraging in aquatic vertebrates. Am Zool 24:107–120Google Scholar
  41. Webb PW (1988) Simple physical principles and vertebrate aquatic locomotion. Am Zool 28:709–725Google Scholar
  42. Wilder DG (1952) A comparative study of anadromous and freshwater populations of brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis). J Fish Res Board Can 9:169–203Google Scholar
  43. Wood BM, Bain MB (1995) Morphology and microhabitat use in stream fish. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 52:1487–1498Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Geneviève R. Morinville
    • 1
    • 2
  • Joseph B. Rasmussen
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of BiologyMcGill UniversityMontrealCanada
  2. 2.Rescan Environmental ServicesVancouverCanada
  3. 3.Department of Biological Sciences, Water Institute for Semi-Arid Ecosystems (WISE)University of LethbridgeLethbridgeCanada

Personalised recommendations