Environmental Biology of Fishes

, Volume 58, Issue 1, pp 61–73 | Cite as

Evidence for Morphometric Differentiation of Wild and Captively Reared Adult Coho Salmon: A Geometric Analysis

  • Jeffrey J. Hard
  • Barry A. Berejikian
  • Eugene P. Tezak
  • Steven L. Schroder
  • Curtis M. Knudsen
  • L. Ted Parker


As part of a comprehensive genetic evaluation of reproduction in naturally spawning coho salmon, Oncorhynchus kisutch, we examined morphometric variation in captively reared and wild adults from Hood Canal, Washington (U.S.A.) for evidence of differentiation between these groups. We collected captively reared fish as parr from two stocks and reared to adulthood at a freshwater hatchery, maturing in 1995 and 1996; we sampled closely size-matched wild fish as they returned to a neighboring stream in both years. Multivariate analysis of shape variation by Procrustes coordinates, visualized by thin-plate splines, indicated that the captively reared adults were differentiated from the wild fish by sharply reduced sexual dimorphism as well as smaller heads and less hooked snouts, increased trunk depth, larger caudal peduncles, shorter dorsal fins, larger hindbodies and a reduction in body streamlining. The differences between the captively reared and wild fish were similar to but more pronounced than some differences previously reported between hatchery and wild coho salmon. The magnitude and pattern of differences suggested that at least some of them were environmentally induced. Shape variation showed an allometric relationship with variation in body (measured as centroid) size. Morphometric variation was a poor correlate of most spawning behaviors. Nevertheless, our results suggest that the morphometric consequences of captive rearing for mate selection and reproductive activity of spawning fish may limit its effectiveness as a restorative tool.

relative warps thin-plate spline domestication reproductive behavior salmonid fish 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References cited

  1. Beacham, T.D. 1985. Meristic and morphometric variation in pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) in southern British Columbia and Puget Sound. Can. J. Zool. 63: 366–372.Google Scholar
  2. Beacham, T.D. & C.B. Murray. 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: 312–319.Google Scholar
  3. Beacham, T.D. & R.E. Withler. 1985. Heterozygosity and morphological variability of pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) from southern British Columbia and Puget Sound. Can. J. Genet. Cytol. 27: 571–579.Google Scholar
  4. Beacham, T.D., R.E.Withler, C.B. Murray & L.W. Barner. 1988. Variation in body size, morphology, egg size, and biochemical genetics of pink salmon in British Columbia. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 117: 109–126.Google Scholar
  5. Beeman, J.W., D.W. Rondorf & M.E. Tilson. 1994. Assessing smoltification of juvenile spring chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) using changes in body morphology. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 51: 836–844.Google Scholar
  6. Beeman, J.W., D.W. Rondorf, M.E. Tilson & D.A. Venditti. 1995. Anonlethal measure of smolt status of juvenile steelhead based on body morphology. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 124: 764–769.Google Scholar
  7. Berejikian, B.A., E.P. Tezak, S.L. Schroder, C.M. Knudsen & J.J. Hard. 1997. Reproductive behavioral interactions between wild and captively reared coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). ICES J. Mar. Sci. 54: 1040–1050.Google Scholar
  8. Bookstein, F.L. 1989. Principal warps: thin-plate splines and the decomposition of deformations. I.E.E.E. Trans. Pattern Anal. Machine Intell. 11: 567–585.Google Scholar
  9. Bookstein, F.L. 1991. Morphometric tools for landmark data: geometry and biology. Cambridge University Press, NewYork. 435 pp.Google Scholar
  10. Bookstein, F.L. 1996. A standard formula for the uniform shape component. pp. 153–168. In: L. Marcus, M. Corti, A. Loy, G. Naylor & D. Slice (ed.) Advances in Morphometrics, Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
  11. Felsenstein, J. 1997. Population differentiation and evolutionary processes. pp. 31–43. In: W.S. Grant (ed.) Genetic Effects of Straying of Non-native Hatchery Fish Into Natural Populations: Proceedings of the Workshop, U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC 30, Seattle.Google Scholar
  12. Fleming, I.A. & S. Einum. 1997. Experimental tests of genetic divergence of farmed from wild Atlantic salmon due to domestication. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 54: 1051–1063.Google Scholar
  13. Fleming, I.A. & M. Gross. 1993. Breeding success of hatchery and wild coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) in competition. Ecol. Appl. 3: 230–245.Google Scholar
  14. Fleming, I.A. & M.R. Gross. 1989. Evolution of adult female life history and morphology in a Pacific salmon (coho: Oncorhynchus kisutch). Evolution 43: 141–157.Google Scholar
  15. Fleming, I.A. & M.R. Gross. 1992. Reproductive behavior of hatchery and wild coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch): does it differ? Aquaculture 103: 101–121.Google Scholar
  16. Fleming, I.A. & M.R. Gross. 1994. Breeding competition in a Pacific salmon (coho: Oncorhynchus kisutch): measures of natural and sexual selection. Evolution 48: 637–657.Google Scholar
  17. Fleming, I.A., B. Jonsson & M.R. Gross. 1994. Phenotypic divergence of sea-ranched, farmed, and wild salmon. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 51: 2808–2824.Google Scholar
  18. Fleming, I.A., B. Jonsson, M.R. Gross & A. Lamberg. 1996. An experimental study of the reproductive behaviour and success of farmed and wild Atlantic salmon (Salmon salar). J. Appl. Ecol. 33: 893–905.Google Scholar
  19. Foote, C.J. 1989. Female mate preference in Pacific salmon. Anim. Behav. 38: 721–723.Google Scholar
  20. Foote, C.J. & P.A. Larkin. 1988. The role of male choice in the assortative mating of anadromous and non-anadromous sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka). Behaviour 106: 43–61.Google Scholar
  21. Goodall, C.R. 1991. Procrustes methods in the statistical analysis of shape (with discussion and rejoinder). J. Roy. Stat. Soc. Ser. B 53: 285–330.Google Scholar
  22. Hard, J.J., G.A. Winans & J.C. Richardson. 1999. Phenotypic and genetic architecture of juvenile morphometry in chinook salmon. J. Hered. 90: 597–606.Google Scholar
  23. Kinnison, M., M. Unwin, N. Boustead & T. Quinn. 1998. Population-specific variation in body dimensions of adult chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) from New Zealand and their source population, 90 years after introduction. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 55: 554–563.Google Scholar
  24. Leider, S.A., P.L. Hulett, J.J. Loch & M.W. Chilcote. 1990. Electrophoretic comparison of the reproductive success of naturally spawning transplanted and wild steelhead trout through the returning adult stage. Aquaculture 88: 239–252.Google Scholar
  25. Levene, H. 1960. Robust tests for equality of variance. pp. 278–292. In: I. Olkin (ed.) Contributions to Probability and Statistics, Stanford University Press, Palo Alto.Google Scholar
  26. Lund, R.A., L.P. Hansen & T. Jarvi. 1989. Identification of reared and wild salmon by external morphology, size of fins and scale characteristics. NINA Forskningsrapp. 1: 1–54.Google Scholar
  27. Maynard, D.J., T.A. Flagg & C.V.W. Mahnken. 1995. A review of seminatural culture strategies for enhancing the postrelease survival of anadromous salmonids. Amer. Fish. Soc. Symp. 15: 307–314.Google Scholar
  28. McGinnity, P., C. Stone, J.B. Taggart, D. Cooke, D. Cotter, R. Hynes, C. McCamley, T. Cross & A. Ferguson. 1997. Genetic impact of escaped farmed Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) on native populations: use of DNA profiling to assess freshwater performance of wild, farmed and hybrid progeny in a natural river environment. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 54: 998–1008.Google Scholar
  29. Quinn, T.P. & C.J. Foote. 1994. The effects of body size and sexual dimorphism on the reproductive behaviour of sockeye salmon, Oncorhynchus nerka. Anim. Behav. 48: 751–761.Google Scholar
  30. Reisenbichler, R.R. 1997. Genetic factors contributing to declines of anadromous salmonids in the Pacific Northwest. pp. 223–244. In: D.J. Stouder, P.A. Bisson & R.J. Naiman (ed.) Pacific Salmon and Their Ecosystems: Status and Future Options, Chapman & Hall, New York.Google Scholar
  31. Rice, W.R. 1989. Analyzing tables of statistical tests. Evolution 43: 223–225.Google Scholar
  32. Rohlf, F.J. 1990. Morphometrics. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 21: 299–316.Google Scholar
  33. Rohlf, F.J. 1993. Relative warp analysis and an example of its application to mosquito wings. pp. 131–159. In: L.F. Marcus, E. Bello & A. Garcia-Valdecasas (ed.) Contributions to Morphometrics, Vol. 8, Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, Madrid.Google Scholar
  34. Rohlf, F.J., A. Loy & M. Corti. 1996. Morphometric analysis of Old World Talpidae (Mammalia, Insectivora) using partialwarp scores. Syst. Biol. 45: 344–362.Google Scholar
  35. Rohlf, F.J. & L.F. Marcus. 1993. A revolution in morphometrics. Trends Ecol. & Evol. 8: 129–132.Google Scholar
  36. Rohlf, F.J. & D. Slice. 1990. Extensions of the Procrustes method for the optimal superimposition of landmarks. Syst. Zool. 31: 40–59.Google Scholar
  37. Strauss, R.E. & F.L. Bookstein. 1982. The truss: body form reconstruction in morphometrics. Syst. Zool. 31: 113–135.Google Scholar
  38. Thompson, D.W. 1917. On growth and form. Cambridge University Press, London. 793 pp.Google Scholar
  39. Unwin, M.J., M.T. Kinnison & T.P. Quinn. 1999. Exceptions to semelparity: postmaturation survival, morphology, and energetics of male chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 56: 1172–1181.Google Scholar
  40. van den Berghe, E.P. & M.R. Gross. 1989. Natural selection resulting from female breeding competition in a Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). Evolution 43: 125–140.Google Scholar
  41. Winans, G.A. & R.S. Nishioka. 1987. A multivariate description of change in body shape of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) during smoltification. Aquaculture 66: 235–245.Google Scholar
  42. Yaroch, L.A. 1996. Shape analysis using the thin-plate spline: Neanderthal cranial shape as an example. Yearb. Phys. Anthropol. 39: 43–89.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jeffrey J. Hard
    • 1
  • Barry A. Berejikian
    • 2
  • Eugene P. Tezak
    • 2
  • Steven L. Schroder
    • 3
  • Curtis M. Knudsen
    • 3
  • L. Ted Parker
    • 4
  1. 1.National Marine Fisheries ServiceNorthwest Fisheries Science CenterSeattleU.S.A.
  2. 2.National Marine Fisheries ServiceManchester Marine Experimental StationManchesterU.S.A.
  3. 3.Washington Department of Fish and WildlifeOlympiaU.S.A.
  4. 4.Frank Orth and Associates, Inc.BellevueU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations