Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

In search of a “cultured fish phenotype”: a systematic review, meta-analysis and vote-counting analysis

  • Reviews
  • Published:
Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The notion that cultured fishes develop a morphology that differs from their wild conspecifics has become nearly axiomatic. A commonly supervened corollary is that exposure to culture causes predictable and consistent morphological changes that together form a common “cultured phenotype”. While this is often asserted, it has not been formally tested. We conducted a systematic review of the literature based on PRISMA best practice protocols and identified 65 papers, composed of 106 studies that compared the morphology of 39 species of cultured fish to their wild conspecifics. From this we conducted a meta-analysis of quantitative, and vote-counting analysis of qualitative differences in 16 external morphological features and condition factor. Our results confirm that aspects of a general “cultured phenotype” exist. The meta-analysis analysis revealed that cultured fish had shorter heads, upper jaws and fins, and the vote-counting analysis was suggestive of this as well. The vote-counting analysis showed that across all studies cultured fish had greater body depth and condition factor than wild fish, but this was not supported by the meta-analysis. In addition to matching those required to develop the “cultured phenotype”, the detected morphological changes are consistent with experimentally observed plastic responses to conditions typical of the cultured environment. This is discussed, as is how the observed changes may be influenced or reinforced by intentional and unintentional selection.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adams DC, Rohlf FJ, Slice DE (2004) Geometric morphometrics: ten years of progress following the ‘revolution’. Ital J Zool 71:5–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ambrosio PP, Costa C, Sánchez P, Flos R (2008) Stocking density and its influence on shape of Senegalese sole adults. Aquac Int 16:333–343. doi:10.1007/S10499-007-9147-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Antonello J et al (2009) Estimates of heritability and genetic correlation for body length and resistance to fish pasteurellosis in the gilthead sea bream (Sparus aurata L.). Aquaculture 298:29–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Araki H, Berejikian BA, Ford MJ, Blouin MS (2008) Fitness of hatchery-reared salmonids in the wild. Evol Appl 1:342–355. doi:10.1111/J.1752-4571.2008.00026.X

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Arechavala-Lopez P, Sanchez-Jerez P, Bayle-Sempere JT, Sfakianakis DG, Somarakis S (2012) Morphological differences between wild and farmed Mediterranean fish. Hydrobiologia 679:217–231. doi:10.1007/S10750-011-0886-Y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arechavala-Lopez P, Fernandez-Jover D, Black KD, Ladoukakis E, Bayle-Sempere JT, Sanchez-Jerez P, Dempster T (2013a) Differentiating the wild or farmed origin of Mediterranean fish: a review of tools for sea bream and sea bass. Rev Aquac 5:137–157. doi:10.1111/Raq.12006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arechavala-Lopez P, Sanchez-Jerez P, Izquierdo-Gomez D, Toledo-Guedes K, Bayle-Sempere JT (2013b) Does fin damage allow discrimination among wild, escaped and farmed Sparus aurata (L.) and Dicentrarchus labrax (L.)? J Appl Ichthyol 29:352–357. doi:10.1111/Jai.12090

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bailey MM, Lachapelle KA, Kinnison MT (2010) Ontogenetic selection on hatchery salmon in the wild: natural selection on artificial phenotypes. Evol Appl 3:340–351. doi:10.1111/J.1752-4571.2009.00115.X

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Balon EK (1995) Origin and domestication of the wild carp, Cyprinus carpio: from Roman gourmets to the swimming flowers. Aquaculture 129:3–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barahona-Fernandes MH (1982) Body deformation in hatchery reared European sea bass Dicentrarchus labrax (L.). Types, prevalence and effect on fish survival. J Fish Biol 21:239–249. doi:10.1111/j.1095-8649.1982.tb02830.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bekkevold D, Hansen MM, Nielsen EE (2006) Genetic impact of gadoid culture on wild fish populations: predictions, lessons from salmonids, and possibilities for minimizing adverse effects. ICES J Mar Sci 63:198–208. doi:10.1016/J.Icesjms.11.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belk MC, Benson LJ, Rasmussen J, Peck SL (2008) Hatchery-induced morphological variation in an endangered fish: a challenge for hatchery-based recovery efforts. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 65:401–408. doi:10.1139/F07-176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y (1995) Controlling the False Discovery Rate—a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J Roy Stat Soc B Met 57:289–300

    Google Scholar 

  • Blanchet S, Páez DJ, Bernatchez L (2008) Dodson JJ (2008) An integrated comparison of captive-bred and wild Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar): implications for supportive breeding programs. Biol Conserv 141:1989–1999. doi:10.1016/J.Biocon.05.014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bosakowski T, Wagner EJ (1994) Assessment of fin erosion by comparison of relative fin length in hatchery and wild trout in Utah. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 51:636–641. doi:10.1139/F94-064

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brockmark S, Johnsson JI (2010) Reduced hatchery rearing density increases social dominance, postrelease growth, and survival in brown trout (Salmo trutta). Can J Fish Aquat Sci 67:288–295. doi:10.1139/F09-185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown AD, Sisneros JA, Jurasin T, Nguyen C, Coffin AB (2013) Differences in lateral line morphology between hatchery- and wild-origin steelhead. PLoS One 8:e59162. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0059162

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Bureau DP, Hua K, Cho CY (2006) Effect of feeding level on growth and nutrient deposition in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss Walbaum) growing from 150 to 600 g. Aquac Res 37:1090–1098. doi:10.1111/J.1365-2109.2006.01532.X

    Google Scholar 

  • Busack C, Knudsen CM, Hart G, Huffman P (2007) Morphological differences between adult wild and first-generation hatchery upper Yakima River spring Chinook salmon. Trans Am Fish Soc 136:1076–1087. doi:10.1577/T06-105.1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chittenden CM et al (2010) Genetic versus rearing-environment effects on phenotype: hatchery and natural rearing effects on hatchery- and wild-born coho salmon. PLoS ONE 5:e12261. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0012261

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Christie MR, Marine ML, French RA, Blouin MS (2012) Genetic adaptation to captivity can occur in a single generation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109:238–242. doi:10.1073/pnas.1111073109

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Colihueque N (2010) Genetics of salmonid skin pigmentation: clues and prospects for improving the external appearance of farmed salmonids. Rev Fish Biol Fisher 20:71–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colihueque N, Araneda C (2014) Appearance traits in fish farming: progress from classical genetics to genomics, providing insight into current and potential genetic improvement. Front Genet 5:251. doi:10.3389/fgene.2014.00251

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Currens KP, Sharpe CS, Hjort R, Schreck CB, Li HW (1989) Effects of different feeding regimes on the morphometrics of Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and rainbow trout (O. mykiss). Copeia 1989:689–695

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Development Core Team R (2015) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  • Einum S, Fleming IA (2001) Implications of stocking: ecological interactions between wild and released salmonids. Nord J Freshw Res 75:56–70

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellis T, Howell BR, Hayes J (1997) Morphological differences between wild and hatchery-reared turbot. J Fish Biol 50:1124–1128. doi:10.1111/j.1095-8649.1997.tb01637.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Enders EC, Boisclair D, Roy AG (2004) The costs of habitat utilization of wild, farmed, and domesticated juvenile Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Can J Fish Aquat Sci 61:2302–2313. doi:10.1139/F04-211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • FAO (2014) The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2014. Rome. http://www.fao.org/3/d1eaa9a1-5a71-4e42-86c0-f2111f07de16/i3720e.pdf

  • Fleming IA, Gross MR (1994) Breeding competition in a Pacific salmon (coho: Oncorhynchus kisutch): Measures of natural and sexual selection. Evolution 48:637–657. doi:10.2307/2410475

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fleming IA, Petersson E (2001) The ability of released, hatchery salmonids to breed and contribute to the natural productivity of wild populations. Nord J Freshw Res 75:71–98

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleming IA, Jonsson B, Gross MR (1994) Phenotypic divergence of sea-ranched, farmed, and wild salmon. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 51:2808–2824. doi:10.1139/F94-280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fleming IA, Agustsson T, Finstad B, Johnsson JI, Björnsson BT (2002) Effects of domestication on growth physiology and endocrinology of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Can J Fish Aquat Sci 59:1323–1330. doi:10.1139/F02-082

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Fraser DJ (2008) How well can captive breeding programs conserve biodiversity? A review of salmonids. Evol Appl 1:535–586. doi:10.1111/J.1752-4571.2008.00036.X

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Fraser DJ, Houde ALS, Debes PV, O’Reilly P, Eddington JD, Hutchings JA (2010) Consequences of farmed-wild hybridization across divergent wild populations and multiple traits in salmon. Ecol Appl 20:935–953. doi:10.1890/09-0694.1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gavaia PJ, Domingues S, Engrola S, Drake P, Sarasquete C, Dinis MT, Cancela ML (2009) Comparing skeletal development of wild and hatchery-reared Senegalese sole (Solea senegalensis, Kaup 1858): evaluation in larval and postlarval stages. Aquac Res 40:1585–1593. doi:10.1111/J.1365-2109.2009.02258.X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gjedrem T (2010) The first family-based breeding program in aquaculture. Rev Aquac 2:2–15. doi:10.1111/j.1753-5131.2010.01011.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grant SM, Brown JA, Boyce DL (1998) Enlarged fatty livers of small juvenile cod: a comparison of laboratory-cultured and wild juveniles. J Fish Biol 52:1105–1114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gross MR (1998) One species with two biologies: Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) in the wild and in aquaculture. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 55:131–144. doi:10.1139/Cjfas-55-S1-131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hard JJ, Berejikian BA, Tezak EP, Schroder SL, Knudsen CM, Parker LT (2000) Evidence for morphometric differentiation of wild and captively reared adult coho salmon: a geometric analysis. Environ Biol Fish 58:61–73. doi:10.1023/A:1007646332666

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hatlen B, Grisdale-Helland B (2006) Helland SJ (2006) Growth variation and fin damage in Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua L.) fed at graded levels of feed restriction. Aquaculture 261:1212–1221. doi:10.1016/J.Aquaculture.09.027

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hedges LV, Gurevitch J, Curtis PS (1999) The meta-analysis of response ratios in experimental ecology. Ecology 80:1150–1156. doi:10.1890/0012-9658(1999)080[1150:Tmaorr]2.0.Co;2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hutchings JA, Fraser DJ (2008) The nature of fisheries- and farming-induced evolution. Mol Ecol 17:294–313. doi:10.1111/J.1365-294x.2007.03485.X

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Iguchi K, Mogi M (2007) Effect of introducing wild paternity on stock performance of hatchery-reared ayu. Fish Sci 73:845–850. doi:10.1111/J.1444-2906.2007.01405.X

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Imre I, McLaughlin RL, Noakes DLG (2002) Phenotypic plasticity in brook charr: changes in caudal fin induced by water flow. J Fish Biol 61:1171–1181. doi:10.1006/Jfbi.2002.2131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kallio-Nyberg I, Koljonen ML (1997) The genetic consequence of hatchery-rearing on life-history traits of the Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.): a comparative analysis of sea-ranched salmon with wild and reared parents. Aquaculture 153:207–224. doi:10.1016/s0044-8486(97)00023-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kause A, Ritola O, Paananen T, Mäntysaari E, Eskelinen U (2003) Selection against early maturity in large rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss: the quantitative genetics of sexual dimorphism and genotype-by-environment interactions. Aquaculture 228:53–68. doi:10.1016/s0044-8486(03)00244-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kause A, Tobin D, Houlihan DF, Martin SAM, Mäntysaari EA, Ritola O, Ruohonen K (2006) Feed efficiency of rainbow trout can be improved through selection: different genetic potential on alternative diets. J Anim Sci 84:807–817

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Keeley ER, Parkinson EA, Taylor EB (2007) The origins of ecotypic variation of rainbow trout: a test of environmental vs. genetically based differences in morphology. J Evol Biol 20:725–736. doi:10.1111/j.1420-9101.2006.01240.x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Koricheva J, Gurevitch J, Mengersen K (2013) Handbook of meta-analysis in ecology and evolution. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Langerhans RB, Layman CA, Langerhans AK, Dewitt TJ (2003) Habitat-associated morphological divergence in two Neotropical fish species. Biol J Linn Soc 80:689–698

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latremouille DN (2003) Fin erosion in aquaculture and natural environments. Rev Fish Sci 11:315–335. doi:10.1080/10641260390255745

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liberati A et al (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. Ann Internal Med 151:W-65–W-94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marcil J, Swain DP, Hutchings JA (2006) Countergradient variation in body shape between two populations of Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua). Proc Biol Sci B 273:217–223. doi:10.1098/rspb.2005.3306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer I, Meager J, Skjæraasen JE, Rodewald P, Sverdrup G, Fernö A (2011) Domestication causes rapid changes in heart and brain morphology in Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua). Environ Biol Fish 92:181–186. doi:10.1007/S10641-011-9831-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonald DG et al (1998) Condition and performance of juvenile Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar): effects of rearing practices on hatchery fish and comparison with wild fish. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 55:1208–1219. doi:10.1139/Cjfas-55-5-1208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer A (1987) Phenotypic plasticity and heterochrony in Cichlasoma managuense (Pisces, Cichlidae) and their implications for speciation in cichlid fishes. Evolution 41:1357–1369. doi:10.2307/2409100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller LM, Close T, Kapuscinski AR (2004) Lower fitness of hatchery and hybrid rainbow trout compared to naturalized populations in Lake Superior tributaries. Mol Ecol 13:3379–3388. doi:10.1111/j.1365-294X.2004.02347.x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Grp P (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Plos Med. doi:10.1371/Journal.Pmed.1000097

    Google Scholar 

  • Myers JM, Hershberger WK, Saxton AM, Iwamoto RN (2001) Estimates of genetic and phenotypic parameters for length and weight of marine net-pen reared coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch Walbaum). Aquac Res 32:277–285. doi:10.1046/J.1365-2109.2001.00556.X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nichols KM, Bartholomew J, Thorgaard GH (2003) Mapping multiple genetic loci associated with Ceratomyxa shasta resistance in Oncorhynchus mykiss. Dis Aquat Org 56:145–154. doi:10.3354/dao056145

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pakkasmaa S, Piironen J (2000) Water velocity shapes juvenile salmonids. Evol Ecol 14:721–730. doi:10.1023/A:1011691810801

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pakkasmaa S, Ranta E, Piironen J (1998) A morphometric study on four land-locked salmonid species. Ann Zool Fenn 35:131–140

    Google Scholar 

  • Parsons KJ, Skúlason S, Ferguson M (2010) Morphological variation over ontogeny and environments in resource polymorphic arctic charr (Salvelinus alpinus). Evol Dev 12:246–257. doi:10.1111/j.1525-142X.2010.00410.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pulcini D, Wheeler PA, Cataudella S, Russo T, Thorgaard GH (2013) Domestication shapes morphology in rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss. J Fish Biol 82:390–407. doi:10.1111/jfb.12002

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pulcini D, Russo T, Reale P, Massa-Gallucci A, Brennan G, Cataudella S (2014) Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss, Walbaum) develop a more robust body shape under organic rearing. Aquac Res 45:397–409. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2109.2012.03236.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Purchase CF, Brown JA (2001) Stock-specific changes in growth rates, food conversion efficiencies, and energy allocation in response to temperature change in juvenile Atlantic cod. J Fish Biol 58:36–52. doi:10.1006/Jfbi.2000.1424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ridha MT (2006) Comparative study of growth performance of three strains of Nile tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus, L. at two stocking densities. Aquac Res 37:172–179. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2109.2005.01415.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skjæraasen JE, Meager JJ, Karlsen O (2008) The expression of secondary sexual characteristics in recruit- and repeat-spawning farmed and wild Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua). ICES J Mar Sci 65:1710–1716. doi:10.1093/Icesjms/Fsn147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Small BC (2006) Improvements in channel catfish growth after two generations of selection and comparison of performance traits among channel catfish, blue catfish, and hybrid catfish fingerlings in an aquarium rack system. N Am J Aquac 68:92–98. doi:10.1577/A05-042.1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solberg MF, Skaala O, Nilsen F, Glover KA (2013) Does domestication cause changes in growth reaction norms? A study of farmed, wild and hybrid Atlantic salmon families exposed to environmental stress. PLoS ONE 8:e54469. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0054469

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Svåsand T, Jørstad KE, Otterå H, Kjesbu OS (1996) Differences in growth performance between Arcto-Norwegian and Norwegian coastal cod reared under identical conditions. J Fish Biol 49:108–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Svåsand T, Kristiansen TS, Pedersen T, Salvanes AGV, Engelsen R, Nævdal G, Nødtvedt M (2000) The enhancement of cod stocks. Fish Fish 1:173–205. doi:10.1046/j.1467-2979.2000.00017.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thorpe JE (2004) Life history responses of fishes to culture. J Fish Biol 65:263–285. doi:10.1111/J.1095-8649.2004.00556.X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thrower FP, Hard JJ, Joyce JE (2004) Genetic architecture of growth and early life-history transitions in anadromous and derived freshwater populations of steelhead. J Fish Biol 65:286–307. doi:10.1111/J.1095-8649.2004.00551.X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tiffan KF, Connor WP (2011) Distinguishing between natural and hatchery snake river fall Chinook salmon subyearlings in the field using body morphology. Trans Am Fish Soc 140:21–30. doi:10.1080/00028487.2011.545003

    Google Scholar 

  • Trenzado CE, Morales AE, de la Higuera M (2006) Physiological effects of crowding in rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss, selected for low and high stress responsiveness. Aquaculture 258:583–593. doi:10.1016/j.aquaculture.2006.03.045

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uglem I, Berg M, Varne R, Nilsen R, Mork J, Bjørn PA (2011) Discrimination of wild and farmed Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) based on morphology and scale-circuli pattern. ICES J Mar Sci 68:1928–1936. doi:10.1093/Icesjms/Fsr120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vasemagi A et al (2012) Screen for footprints of selection during domestication/captive breeding of Atlantic salmon. Comp Funct Genomics 2012:628204. doi:10.1155/2012/628204

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Vehanen T, Huusko A (2011) Brown trout Salmo trutta express different morphometrics due to divergence in the rearing environment. J Fish Biol 79:1167–1181. doi:10.1111/j.1095-8649.2011.03093.x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Viechtbauer W (2010) Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. J Stat Softw 36:1–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Cramon-Taubadel N, Ling EN, Cotter D, Wilkins NP (2005) Determination of body shape variation in Irish hatchery-reared and wild Atlantic salmon. J Fish Biol 66:1471–1482. doi:10.1111/J.1095-8649.2005.00698.X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wessel ML, Smoker WW, Joyce J (2006) Variation of morphology among juvenile Chinook salmon of hatchery, hybrid, and wild origin. Trans Am Fish Soc 135:333–340. doi:10.1577/T04-078.1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilke NF, O’Reilly PT, MacDonald D, Fleming IA (2015) Can conservation-oriented, captive breeding limit behavioural and growth divergence between offspring of wild and captive origin Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar)? Ecol Freshw Fish 24:293–304. doi:10.1111/eff.12148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wintzer AP, Motta PJ (2005) Diet-induced phenotypic plasticity in the skull morphology of hatchery-reared Florida largemouth bass, Micropterus salmoides floridanus. Ecol Freshw Fish 14:311–318. doi:10.1111/J.1600-0633.2005.00105.X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wringe BF, Devlin RH, Ferguson MM, Moghadam HK, Sakhrani D, Danzmann RG (2010) Growth-related quantitative trait loci in domestic and wild rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). BMC Genet 11:63. doi:10.1186/1471-2156-11-63

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Wringe BF, Fleming IA, Purchase CF (2015) Rapid morphological divergence of cultured cod of the northwest Atlantic from their source population. Aquac Env Interact 7:167–177. doi:10.3354/aei00145

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank P. Arechavala-Lopez, S. Blanchet, M. Jahunen, K. Tiffan and T. Vehanen for providing us with data. The Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada funded this research through a strategic grant to I.A.F. and C.F.P, and the Research and Development Corporation of Newfoundland provided additional support to B.F.W.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Fish Evolutionary Ecology Research Group, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s, NL, A1C 5S7, Canada

    Brendan F. Wringe, Craig F. Purchase & Ian A. Fleming

  2. Department of Biology, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s, NL, A1B 3X9, Canada

    Brendan F. Wringe & Craig F. Purchase

  3. Department of Ocean Sciences, Ocean Sciences Centre, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s, NL, A1C 5S7, Canada

    Brendan F. Wringe & Ian A. Fleming

Authors
  1. Brendan F. Wringe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Craig F. Purchase
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ian A. Fleming
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brendan F. Wringe.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

11160_2016_9431_MOESM1_ESM.pdf

Table S1 Keywords used in the systematic review. These keywords, along with Boolean operators, were used in relevant combinations to search the electronic databases. (PDF 24 kb)

11160_2016_9431_MOESM2_ESM.pdf

Table S2 References screened during the systematic review, along with the results of four inclusion criteria. (PDF 207 kb)

11160_2016_9431_MOESM3_ESM.docx

Table S3 Summary of meta-analysis of qualitative morphological differences between cultured and wild fish. Heading abbreviations are as follows: LH is life history, Up is upper, Low is lower, K is Fulton’s condition factor, Caud Ped is caudal peduncle, Pec is pectoral, Pel is pelvic, L is length, D is depth, W is width, H is height, and F is fin. Within the table, Unk indicates that the data was not provided, or was ambiguous in the study. Comparisons of wild-caught fish to cultured are denoted WF, while CG indicates the fish were compared in a common garden. Different is abbreviated Diff. and Immature, Imm. C > W denotes studies in which the expression of the trait in cultured fish is greater than in the wild to which they were compared, C < W indicates the opposite and C = W indicates a trait was measured, but no difference was detected. Blank spaces signify that a trait was not measured in a given study. Species abbreviations and their corresponding common, and binomial names are listed. Where more than one comparison was conducted in a study, this is noted and the populations or comparison are noted. (DOCX 165 kb)

11160_2016_9431_MOESM4_ESM.docx

Table S4 Summary of the results of the vote-counting analysis. Results are presented for each category of each moderator. Morph. Feature is short for morphological feature. Diff. w/i stands for difference within category, and is the result of the test of the hypothesis that the proportion studies finding each of the three possible relative differences in morphological feature size between the cultured and wild fish (i.e. C < W = C > W = C = W) are equal for a given morphological feature and category of a moderator. Where significant differences were found, the results of all pairwise comparisons and adjusted p-values are given. Diff. b/w stands for difference between categories, and is the result of the test of the hypothesis that for each of the three possible relative differences in morphological feature size, the proportion of studies finding it did not differ between categories of a moderator. Where significant, and there are more than two categories of a moderator, the results of all pairwise comparisons, and adjusted p-values reported. NS indicates a given test was not significant, and Chi squared and p-values are given for each test. Lab is short for laboratory, CG is common garden, and WF indicates studies in which the cultured fish were compared to wild-caught fish. There were a number of cases in which the sample size was not sufficient for accurate statistical analysis, and these are marked with an asterisk (*). In these cases it was impossible to test for Diff. b/w and this is left blank. (DOCX 219 kb)

11160_2016_9431_MOESM5_ESM.docx

Table S5 Congruence of the results of the meta-analysis and the vote-counting analysis. For the meta-analysis the difference in size is what was indicated from the mean effect size as generated by the mixed-mixed effect model. For the vote-counting analysis, the relative difference found in the largest proportion of studies is used. Where the proportions of two possible differences did not differ, both are given, and where all three did not differ, this is denoted Aprx. Equal, or all proportions approximately equal. Significances are given for both the meta-analysis and the vote-counting results. Comp. is the comparison of the results of the vote-counting and meta-analysis. Where the results of the two analyses show the same relative difference in size for a morphological character between the cultured and wild fish the results are said to be congruent, where the two analyses show opposing differences, this is indicated as opposite, and where the they do not match, this is indicated as incongruent. A summary of the number of morphological features that were found to be congruent, incongruent or opposite are given for each moderator level. (DOCX 153 kb)

Table S6 References included in the vote-counting analysis and meta-analysis. (DOCX 156 kb)

11160_2016_9431_MOESM7_ESM.docx

Fig. S1 Forest-plots for each morphological feature examined. The points are the effect size for each study, and the error bars represent the 95% confidence interval around it. The size of the point is reflective of the weighting given to it by the linear-mixed effects function, and a unique colour is given to each genus. The morphological features are as described in Fig. 1/Table 1, and the species examined can be found in Table S3. S1a, Head depth; S1b, Head length; S1c, Eye size; S1d, Upper jaw length; S1e, Lower jaw length; S1f, Body depth; S1g, Condition factor; S1h, Caudle peduncle depth; S1i, Caudle peduncle length; S1j, Pectoral fin length; S1k, Pelvic fin length; S1l, Dorsal fin length; S1m, Dorsal fin width; S1n, Anal fin length; S1o, Anal fin width; S1p, Caudle fin length. (DOCX 3593 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wringe, B.F., Purchase, C.F. & Fleming, I.A. In search of a “cultured fish phenotype”: a systematic review, meta-analysis and vote-counting analysis. Rev Fish Biol Fisheries 26, 351–373 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-016-9431-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-016-9431-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation