Vertical self-sorting behavior in juvenile Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha): evidence for family differences and variation in growth and morphology
- 218 Downloads
Life history variation is fundamental to the evolution of Pacific salmon and their persistence under variable conditions. We discovered that Chinook salmon sort themselves into surface- and bottom-oriented groups in tanks within days after exogenous feeding. We hypothesised that this behaviour is correlated with subsequent differences in body morphology and growth (as measured by final length and mass) observed later in life. We found consistent morphological differences between surface and bottom phenotypes. Furthermore, we found that surface and bottom orientation within each group is maintained for at least one year after the phenotypes were separated. These surface and bottom phenotypes are expressed across genetic stocks, brood years, and laboratories and we show that the proportion of surface- and bottom-oriented offspring also differed among families. Importantly, feed delivery location did not affect morphology or growth, and the surface fish were longer than bottom fish at the end of the rearing experiment. The body shape of the former correlates with wild individuals that rear in mainstem habitats and migrate in the fall as subyearlings and the latter resemble those that remain in the upper tributaries and migrate as yearling spring migrants. Our findings suggest that early self-sorting behaviour may have a genetic basis and be correlated with other phenotypic traits that are important indicators for juvenile migration timing.
KeywordsLife history variation Geometric morphometrics Phenotype Genetics
We thank R. Couture and J. O’Neil for rearing fish for these experiments and construction of behavioural observation facilities. O. Hakanson, C. Danley, K. Self and H. Stewart assisted with sampling and data collection. L. Ciannelli and others provided constructive comments on earlier drafts of this manuscript. The US Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District provided funding for this research (Project TD-13-02). Additional support was provided by the USGS, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Oregon Hatchery Research Center. Animal rearing, behaviour experiments and morphometric procedures were approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee at Oregon State University (ACUP #4289).
Compliance with ethical standards
Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.
This draft manuscript is distributed solely for purposes of scientific peer review. Its content is deliberative and predecisional, so it must not be disclosed or released by reviewers. Because the manuscript has not yet been approved for publication by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), it does not represent any official USGS finding or policy.
- Billman EJ, Whitman LD, Schroeder RK, Sharpe CS, Noakes DLG, Schreck CB (2014) Body morphology differs in wild juvenile Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) that express different migratory phenotypes in the Willamette River, Oregon, U.S. A. J Fish Biol 85(4):1097–1110. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfb.12482 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Bodaly RA (1979) Morphological and ecological divergence within the lake whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis) species complex in Yukon territory. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 36:1214–1222Google Scholar
- Bourke P, Magnan P, Rodríguez MA (1997) Individual variations in habitat use and morphology in brook charr. J Fish Biol 51(4):783–794. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.1997.tb01999.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Gilbert CH (1912) Age at maturity of the Pacific coast salmon of the genus Oncorhynchus. Fish Bull 32:1–22Google Scholar
- Hassell EMA, Meyers PJ, Billman EJ, Rasmussen JE, Belk MC (2012) Ontogeny and sex alter the effect of predation on body shape in a livebearing fish: sexual dimorphism, parallelism, and costs of reproduction. Ecol Evol 2(7):1738–1746. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.278 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Healey MC (1991) Life history of Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). In: Groot C, Margolis L (eds) Pacific salmon life histories. UBC Press, Vancouver, pp 313–393Google Scholar
- Hoar WS (1953) Control and timing of fish migration. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 28(4):437–452. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-185X.1953.tb01387.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Imre I, McLaughlin RL, Noakes DLG (2002) Phenotypic plasticity in brook charr: changes in caudal fin induced by water flow. J Fish Biol 61(5):1171–1181. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.2002.tb02463.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Jonsson B, Jonsson N (2001) Polymorphism and speciation in Arctic charr. J Fish Biol 58(3):605–638. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.2001.tb00518.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Langerhans RB, Layman CA, Mona Shokrollahi A, DeWitt TJ (2004) Predator driven phenotypic diversification in Gambusia affinis. Evolution 58(10):2305–2318. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0014-3820.2004.tb01605.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Martin WR (1949) The mechanics of environmental control of body form in fishes. Publications of the Ontario Fisheries Research Laboratory, U Toronto Biol Ser 70:1–72Google Scholar
- Metcalfe NB, Thorpe JE (1992) Early predictors of life-history events: the link between first feeding date, dominance and seaward migration in Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L. J Fish Biol 41(sb):93–99. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.1992.tb03871.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Quinn TP (2005) The behavior and ecology of Pacific salmon and trout. University of Washington Press, SeattleGoogle Scholar
- Reinhardt UG (2001) Selection for surface feeding in farmed and sea-ranched Masu salmon juveniles. T Am Fish Soc 130(1):155–158. https://doi.org/10.1577/1548-8659(2001)130<0155:SFSFIF>2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Rohlf FJ (2003) tpsRegr, shape regression, version 1.28. Department of Ecology and Evolution, State University of New York at Stony BrookGoogle Scholar
- Rohlf FJ (2010a) tpsDig, version 2.16. Department of Ecology and Evolution, State University of New York at Stony BrookGoogle Scholar
- Rohlf FJ (2010b) tpsRelw, relative warps, version 1.49. Department of Ecology and Evolution, State University of New York at Stony BrookGoogle Scholar
- SAS Institute (2008) SAS 9.2 help and documentation. CaryGoogle Scholar
- Tiffan KF, Connor WP (2011) Distinguishing between natural and hatchery Snake River fall Chinook salmon subyearlings in the field using body morphology. T Am Fish Soc 140:21–30Google Scholar
- Vincent RE (1960) Some influences of domestication upon three stocks of brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis Mitchill). T Am Fish Soc 89(1):35–52. https://doi.org/10.1577/1548-8659(1960)89[35:SIODUT]2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Waples RS et al (2001) Characterizing diversity in salmon from the Pacific northwest. J Fish Biol 59:1–41Google Scholar
- Wesner JS, Billman EJ, Meier A, Belk MC (2011) Morphological convergence during pregnancy among predator and nonpredator populations of the livebearing fish Brachyrhaphis rhabdophora (Teleostei: Poeciliidae). Biol J Linn Soc 104(2):386–392. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8312.2011.01715.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar