Advertisement

Environmental Biology of Fishes

, Volume 101, Issue 8, pp 1249–1260 | Cite as

Intraspecific differences in morphology correspond to differential spawning habitat use in two riverine catostomid species

  • Timothy B. Grabowski
  • Jessica Pease
  • Jillian R. Groeschel-Taylor
Article

Abstract

Maintaining intraspecific diversity is an important goal for fisheries conservation and recovery actions. While ecomorphological studies have demonstrated intraspecific diversity related to feeding or flow regime, there has been little assessment of such variation in regard to spawning habitat. We evaluated the relationship between individual morphology of Robust Redhorse and Notchlip Redhorse and variables describing the spawning habitat from which they were captured, such as current velocity, depth, and substrate particle size. Robust Redhorse (n = 58) and Notchlip Redhorse (n = 43) were captured from spawning aggregations in the lower Savannah River, South Carolina-Georgia using prepositioned grid electrofishers. They were then measured and photographed before being released. We constructed a truss network using digitized landmarks on each of the photographs. Relationships between the morphological and environmental datasets were assessed using canonical correlation analysis. In both species, these morphological predictors were correlated primarily to depth, though current velocity also contributed to the environmental canonical score for Robust Redhorse. Robust Redhorse captured from the deeper locations with higher current velocities had heads with lower aspect ratio compared to individuals captured from shallower areas. Notchlip Redhorse from shallower areas were deeper-bodied and had shorter trunks than counterparts from deeper areas. These differences suggest that ensuring spawning habitat heterogeneity may be an important component to conserving intraspecific diversity, particularly in systems where such habitat is limiting.

Keywords

Ecomorphology Spawning habitat Robust Redhorse Notchlip Redhorse Savannah River 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank A. Aranguren, H. Bart, E. Bettross, P. Ely, L. Ferguson, L. Hunt, J.J. Isely, J. Ivey, S. Lamprecht, G. Looney, K. Grabowski, M. Noad, N. Ratterman, C. Roelke, F. Sessions, J. Shirley, A. Sowers, D. Spangenberg, N. Waggoner, J. Wise, and S. Young for their assistance in the field. E. Irwin and P. Sakaris provided technical advice for prepositioned grid electrofisher design, construction, and operation. E. Eidson and the Southeastern Natural Sciences Academy provided logistical support in the field. The collection of the fishes used in this study was conducted under the auspices of Clemson University Animal Care and Use Committee (ARC2007-034) and the Robust Redhorse Conservation Committee. We thank M. Barnes and A. Pease for their comments and suggestions on earlier drafts of this manuscript. The Hawaii Cooperative Fishery Research Unit is jointly sponsored by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the University of Hawaii System, the Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The Texas Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit is jointly sponsored by USGS, Texas Tech University, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, USFWS, and the Wildlife Management Institute. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

References

  1. Anderson RO, Neumann RM (1996) Length, weight, and associated structural indices. Murphy BR, Willis DW (eds) Fisheries techniques, 2nd ed. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, pp. 447–482Google Scholar
  2. Beacham TD, Murray CB (1985) Variation in length and body depth of Pink Salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) and Chum Salmon (O. keta) in Southern British Columbia. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 42:312-319Google Scholar
  3. Bunn S, Arthington A (2002) Basic principles and ecological consequences of altered flow regimes for aquatic biodiversity. Environ Manag 30:492–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cochran-Biederman JL, Winemiller KO (2010) Relationships among habitat, ecomorphology and diets of cichlids in the Bladen River, Belize. Environ Biol Fish 88:143–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Curry KD, Spacie A (1984) Differential use of stream habitat by spawning catostomids. Am Mid Nat 111:267–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Davidson FA (1935) The development of the secondary sexual characters in the Pink Salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha). J Morphol 57:169-183Google Scholar
  7. Duncan MS, Isely JJ, Cooke DW (2004) Evaluation of Shortnose sturgeon spawning in the Pinopolis dam tailrace, South Carolina. N Am J Fish Manag 24:932–938CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Eklöv P, Svanbäck R (2006) Predation risk influences adaptive morphological variation in fish populations. Am Nat 167:440–452CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Etnier DA, Starnes WC (1993) The fishes of Tennessee. The University of Tennessee Press, KnoxvilleGoogle Scholar
  10. Eudaly EM (1999) Reconnaissance planning aid report on Savannah River Basin study. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0708/ML070871012.pdf. Accessed 21 June 2017
  11. Fisk JM II, Kwak TJ, Heise RJ (2015) Effects of regulated river flows on habitat suitability for the Robust Redhorse. Trans Am Fish Soc 144:792–806CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fleming IA (1996) Reproductive strategies of Atlantic Salmon: ecology and evolution. Rev Fish Biol Fish 6:379–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fleming IA, Gross MR (1994) Breeding competition in a Pacific salmon (Coho: Oncorhynchus kisutch): measures of natural and sexual selection. Evloution 48:637-657Google Scholar
  14. Franssen NR, Harris J, Clark SR, Schaefer JF, Stewart LK (2013a) Shared and unique morphological responses of stream fishes to anthropogenic habitat alteration. Proc Roy Soc B 280:20122715CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Franssen NR, Stewart LK, Schaefer JF (2013b) Morphological divergence and flow-induced phenotypic plasticity in a native fish from anthropogenically altered stream habitats. Ecol Evol 3:4648–4657CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Freeman BJ, Freeman MC (2001) Criteria for suitable spawning habitat for the Robust Redhorse Moxostoma robustum. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. http://www.robustredhorse.com/f/Freeman%20and%20Freeman%202001.pdf. Accessed 21 June 2017
  17. Freeman MC, Bowen ZH, Bovee KD, Irwin ER (2001) Flow and habitat effects on juvenile fish abundance in natural and altered flow regimes. Ecol Appl 11:179–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Grabowski TB, Isely JJ (2005) Use of prepositioned grid electrofishers for the collection of Robust Redhorse broodstock. N Am J Aquacult 67:89–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Grabowski TB, Isely JJ (2006) Seasonal and diel movements and habitat use of robust Redhorses in the lower Savannah River, Georgia and South Carolina. Trans Am Fish Soc 135:1145–1155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Grabowski TB, Isely JJ (2007) Spatial and temporal segregation of spawning habitat by catostomids in the Savannah River, Georgia and South Carolina, U.S.A. J Fish Biol 70:782–798CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Grabowski TB, Jennings CA (2009) Post-release movements and habitat use of Robust Redhorse transplanted to the Ocmulgee River, Georgia. Aquat Conserv 19:170–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Grabowski TB, Ratterman NL, Isely JJ (2008) Demographics of the spawning aggregations of four catostomid species in the Savannah River, South Carolina and Georgia. Ecol Freshw Fish 17:318-327Google Scholar
  23. Grabowski TB, Thorsteinsson V, McAdam BJ, Marteinsdóttir G (2011) Evidence of segregated spawning in a single marine fish stock: sympatric divergence of ecotypes in Icelandic cod? PLoS One 6(3):e17528CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Haas TC, Blum MJ, Heins DC (2010) Morphological responses of a stream fish to water impoundment. Biol Lett 6:803–806CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. Harris PM, Hubbard C, Sandel M (2014) Catostomidae: suckers. In: Warren Jr ML, Burr BM (eds) Freshwater fishes of North America: Petromyzontidae to Catostomidae. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, pp 451–501Google Scholar
  26. Hightower JE, Sparks KL (2003) Migration and spawning habitat of American Shad in the Roanoke River, North Carolina. In Limburg KE, Waldman JR (eds) Biodiversity, status, and conservation of the world’s shads. Am Fish Soc Symp 35:193–199Google Scholar
  27. Jenkins RE (1970) Systematic studies of the catostomid fish tribe Moxostomatini. Cornell University, DissertationGoogle Scholar
  28. Jenkins RE, Burkhead NM (1993) Freshwater fishes of Virginia. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MDGoogle Scholar
  29. Jenkins RE, Jenkins DJ (1980) Reproductive behavior of the greater Redhorse Moxostoma valenciennesi, in the Thousand Island region. Can Field Nat 94:426–430Google Scholar
  30. Kaeuffer R, Peichel CL, Bolnick DI, Hendry AP (2011) Parallel and nonparallel aspects of ecological, phenotypic, and genetic divergence across replicate population pairs of lake and stream stickleback. Evolution 66:402–418CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. Kwak TJ, Skelly TM (1992) Spawning habitat, behavior, and morphology as isolating mechanisms of the golden redhorse, Moxostoma erythrurum, and the black redhorse, M. duquesnei, two syntopic fishes. Environ Biol Fish 34:124-137Google Scholar
  32. Langerhans RB (2008) Predictability of phenotypic differentiation across flow regimes in fishes. Integr Comp Biol 48:750-768Google Scholar
  33. Marcy BC Jr, Fletcher DE, Martin FD, Paller MH, Reichert MJM (2005) Fishes of the middle Savannah River basin. The University of Georgia Press, AthensGoogle Scholar
  34. McAdam BJ, Grabowski TB, Marteinsdóttir G (2012) Identification of stock components using morphological markers. J Fish Biol 81:1447–1462CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. McGarigal K, Cushman S, Stafford S (2002) Multivariate statistics for wildlife and ecology research. Springer, New York 283 pGoogle Scholar
  36. McLaughlin RL, Grant JWA (1994) Morphological and behavioural differences among recently-emerged Brook Charr, Salvelinus fontinalis, foraging in slow- vs. fast-running water. Environ Biol Fish 39:289–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mills R (1826) Statistics of South Carolina including a view of its natural, civil, and military history, general and particular. Hurlbut and Lloyd, CharlestonGoogle Scholar
  38. Mimura M, Yahara T, Faith DP , Vázquez‐Domínguez E, Colautti RI, Araki H, Javadi F, Núñez‐Farfán J, Mori AS, Zhou S, Hollingsworth PM, Neaves LE, Fukano Y, Smith GF, Sato Y-I, Tachida H, Hendry AP (2017) Understanding and monitoring the consequences of human impacts on intraspecific variation. Evol Appl 10:121-139Google Scholar
  39. Noon BR (1981) The distribution of an avian guild along a temperate elevational gradient: the importance and expression of competition. Ecol Monogr 51:105–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Page LM, Johnston CE (1990) Spawning behavior in the creek Chubsucker, Erimyzon oblongus, with a review of spawning behavior in suckers (Catostomidae). Environ Biol Fish 27:265–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pálsson ÓK, Thorsteinsson V (2003) Migration patterns, ambient temperature, and growth of Icelandic cod (Gadus morhua): evidence from storage tag data. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 60:1409–1423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pampoulie C, Jakobsdóttir KB, Marteinsdóttir G, Thorsteinsson V (2008) Are vertical behaviour patterns related to the Pantophysin locus in the Atlantic Cod (Gadus morhua L.)? Behav Genet 38:76–81CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Peterson DA, Hilborn R, Hauser L (2014) Local adaptation limits lifetime reproductive success of dispersers in a wild salmon metapopulation. Nat Commun 5:3696CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Quinn TP, Blair GR (1992) Morphological changes in senescing adult male Sockeye Salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka Walbaum). J Fish Biol 41:1045-1047Google Scholar
  45. Reid SM (2006) Timing and demographic characteristics of redhorse spawning runs in three Great Lakes basin rivers. J Freshw Ecol 21:249–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rohde FC, Arndt RG, Lindquist DG, Parnell JF (1994) Freshwater fishes of the Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel HillGoogle Scholar
  47. Rohlf FJ (2010) tpsDig. Department of Ecology and Evolution, State University of New York, Stony BrookGoogle Scholar
  48. Ryman N, Utter F, Laikre L (1995) Protection of intraspecific biodiversity of exploited fishes. Rev Fish Biol Fish 5:417–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Senay C, Boisclair D, Peres-Neto PR (2015) Habitat-based polymorphism is common in stream fishes. J Animal Ecol 84:219–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Skúlason S, Snorrason SS, Noakes DLG, Ferguson MM, Malmquist HJ (1989a) Segregation in spawning and early life history among polymorphic Arctic Charr Salvelinus alpinus, in Thingvallavatn, Iceland. J Fish Biol 35:225–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Skúlason S, Noakes DLG, Snorrason SS (1989b) Ontogeny of trophic morphology in four sympatric morphs of Arctic Charr, Salvelinus alpinus, in Thingvallavatn, Iceland. Biol J Linn Soc 38:281–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Spotte S (2007) Bluegills: biology and behavior. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD, USA 214pGoogle Scholar
  53. Straight CA (2014) Reproduction, migration, and prospects for persistence of a reintroduced population of an imperiled riverine fish, Robust Redhorse (Moxostoma robustum). University of Georgia, DissertationGoogle Scholar
  54. Taborsky M (1994) Sneakers, satellites, and helpers: parasitic and cooperative behavior in fish reproduction. Adv Stud Behavior 23:1–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Webb PW (1984) Body form, locomotion and foraging in aquatic vertebrate. Am Zool 24:107–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Welch SM, Eversole AG (2000) A report on the historical inland migration of several diadromous fishes in South Carolina rivers. South Carolina department of natural resources. Completion Report, Columbia, South CarolinaGoogle Scholar
  57. Wimberger PH (1994) Trophic polymorphisms, plasticity, and speciation in vertebrates. In: Stouder DJ, Fresh KL, Feller RJ (eds) Theory and application of fish feeding ecology. Belle Baruch Library in Marine Science 18. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, pp. 19–43Google Scholar
  58. Wirgin I, Oppermann T, Stabile J (2001) Genetic divergence of Robust Redhorse Moxostoma robustum (Cypriniformes: Catostomidae) from the Oconee River and the Savannah River based on mitochondrial DNA control region sequences. Copeia 2001:526–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wolman MG (1954) A method of sampling coarse river-bed material. Trans Am Geophys Union 35:954–956CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Zelditch ML, Swiderski DL, Sheets HD, Fink WL (2004) Geometric morphometrics for biologists: a primer. Elsevier Academic Press, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Timothy B. Grabowski
    • 1
  • Jessica Pease
    • 2
  • Jillian R. Groeschel-Taylor
    • 2
  1. 1.U.S. Geological Survey, Hawaii Cooperative Fishery Research UnitUniversity of Hawaii at HiloHiloUSA
  2. 2.Texas Cooperative Fish & Wildlife Research Unit, Department of Natural Resources ManagementTexas Tech UniversityLubbockUSA

Personalised recommendations