Advertisement

Comparison of growth plasticity in the laboratory and field, and implications for the onset of juvenile development in sofie, Chondrostoma toxostoma

  • Rodolphe E. Gozlan
  • Gordon H. Copp
  • Jean-Noel Tourenq
Part of the Developments in environmental biology of fishes book series (DEBF, volume 19)

Synopsis

The aim of the present study was to determine the effect of environmental conditions (controlled and natural) on the duration and sequence of developmental steps in sofie, Chondrostoma toxostoma, early ontogeny. Few previous studies on the early development of fishes have included relative growth and none have compared relative growth in the laboratory and the field. Such comparison is important to quantify the morphological development of different parts of fish during their early ontogeny, to determine potential variations in growth that may occur under laboratory conditions and to understand better the plastic nature of relative growth. Early development and relative growth of 23 characters were examined in specimens of sofie reared under both laboratory and natural conditions in tributaries of the River Garonne basin (France). The sofie is still present in this basin despite progressive localised extinction in the rivers of south western Europe over the last 30 years. Growth of field and laboratory embryos (in degree days,°days) was the same up to larva step 1 (9 mm SL), but thereafter was markedly slower in the laboratory than in the field. Ontogenetic rate in the field was twice that in the laboratory, suggesting a precocial (specialist) form under natural conditions and an altricial (generalist) form under laboratory conditions. Stabilisation of relative growth, i.e. end of the remodelling process (metamorphosis), occurred well after all larval characteristics (remnants of finfold, rapid allometric growth) had disappeared and all the juvenile structures had appeared (nasal septa, complete scale cover). In the field, this stabilisation occurred in specimens of approximately 50 mm SL, suggesting that metamorphosis ends and the juvenile period begins at the end of the sofie’s first (0+) year of life.

Key words

ontogeny metamorphosis metabiosis cyprinids River Garonne 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References cited

  1. Ali, M. & R.J. Wootton. 1998. Do random fluctuations in the intervals between feeding affect growth rate in juvenile threespined sticklebacks. J. Fish Biol. 53: 1006 - 1014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Atchley, W.R., C.T. Gaskins & D. Anderson. 1976. Statistical properties of ratios. I. Empirical results. Systemat. Zool. 25: 137-148.Google Scholar
  3. Balon, E.K. 1984. Reflections on some decisive events in the early life of fishes. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 113: 178-185.Google Scholar
  4. Balon, E.K. 1985. The theory of saltatory ontogeny and life history models revisited. pp. 13 - 30. In: E.K. Balon (ed.) Early Life Histories of Fishes, Dr W. Junk Publishers, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  5. Balon, E.K. 1986. Saltatory ontogeny and evolution. Rivista Biol.-Biol. Forum 79: 151-190.Google Scholar
  6. Balon, E.K. 1988. Tao of life: universality of dichotomy in biology. The epigenetic mechanisms. Rivista Biol.-Biol. Forum 81: 339-380.Google Scholar
  7. Baton, E.K. 1989. The Tao of life: from the dynamic unity of polar opposites to self organisation. pp. 7 - 40. In: M.N. Bruton (ed.) Alternative Life-history styles of Animals, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  8. Balon, E.K. 1990. Epigenesis of an epigeneticist: the development of some alternative concepts on early ontogeny and evolution of fishes. Guelph Ichthyol. Rev. 1: 1-48.Google Scholar
  9. Balon, E.K. 1999. Alternative ways to become a juvenile or a definitive phenotype (and on some persisting linguistic offenses). Env. Biol. Fish. 56: 17-38 (this volume).Google Scholar
  10. Baras, E. & J. Nindaba. 1999. Seasonal and diel utilisation of inshore microhabitats by larvae and juveniles of Leuciscus cephalus and Leuciscus leuciscus. Env. Biol. Fish. 56: 183197 (this volume).Google Scholar
  11. Beckman, B.R. & W.W. Dickhoff. 1998. Plasticity of smolting in spring chinook salmon: relation to growth and insulin-like growth factor-I. J. Fish Biol. 53: 808 - 826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bischoff, A. & J. Freyhof. 1999. Ontogenetic shifts in resource use of barbel, Barbus barbus, during the first year of 1 ife. Env. Biol. Fish. (this volume).Google Scholar
  13. Chessel, D. & S. Dolédec. 1993. ADE Version 3.1 HypercardC stacks and Quick Basic Microsoft° programme library for the analysis of environmental data. URA CNRS 1451, Universite de Lyon I, France.Google Scholar
  14. Copp, G.H. & M. Peiíâz. 1988. Ecology of fish spawning and nursery zones in the flood plain, using a new sampling approach. Hydrobiologia 169: 209 - 224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Copp, G.H. & P. Garner. 1995. Evaluating microhabitat use of fish larvae and juveniles with point abundance sampling. Folia Zool. 44: 145 - 158.Google Scholar
  16. Copp, G.H. & P. Jurajda. 1998. Size-structured diel use of banks by riverine fishes. Aquat. Sci. 60: 000-000 (in press).Google Scholar
  17. Copp, G.H. & V. Kovd6. 1996. When do fish with indirect development become juveniles? Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 53: 746-752.Google Scholar
  18. DeAngelis, D.L., K.A. Rose, L.B. Crowder, E.A. Marschall & D. Lika. 1993. Fish cohort dynamics: application of complementary modeling approaches. Amer. Natur. 142: 604-622.Google Scholar
  19. Finch, C.E. & M.R. Rose. 1995. Hormones and the physiological architecture of life history evolution. Quat. Rev. Biol. 70: 1-52, Fuiman, L.A. 1994. The interplay of ontogeny and scaling in the interactions of fish larvae and their predators. J. Fish Biol. 45: 55-79.Google Scholar
  20. Garner, P., S. Clough, S.W. Griffiths, D. Deans & A. Ibbotson. 1998. Use of shallow marginal habitat by Phoxinus phoxinus: a trade-off between temperature and food ? J. Fish Biol. 52: 600 - 609.Google Scholar
  21. Gozlan, R.E. 1998. Environmental biology of the sofie Chondrostoma toxostoma (Cypinidae), with emphasis on early development. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield. 210 pp.Google Scholar
  22. Gozlan, R.E., G.H. Copp & J.N. Tourenq. 1999. Early development of the sofie, Chondrostoma toxostoma. Env. Biol. Fish. 56: 67-77 (this volume).Google Scholar
  23. Holéík, J. 1989. General introductions to fishes. Acipenseriformes. Freshwater fishes of Europe, Volume I/II, AULA - Verlag, Wiesbaden. 469 pp.Google Scholar
  24. Holden, K.K. & M.N. Bruton. 1995. The early ontogeny of the southern mouth-brooder, Pseudocrenilabrus philander ( Pisces, Cichlidae). Env. Biol. Fish. 41: 311-329.Google Scholar
  25. Kacem, A., F.J. Meunier & J.L. Baglinière. 1998. A quantitative study of morphological and histological changes in the skeleton of Salmo salar during its anadromous migration. J. Fish Biol. 53: 1096 - 1109.Google Scholar
  26. Kawamura, G. & N. Washiyama. 1989. Ontogenic changes in behavior and sense organ morphogenesis in largemouth bass and Tilapia nilotica. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 118: 203-213.Google Scholar
  27. Kovâc. V. 1992. Early development of the yellow pope, Gymnocephalus schraetser. Folia Zool. 41: 365 - 377.Google Scholar
  28. Kovâè. V., G.H. Copp & M.P. Francis. 1999. Morphometry of the stone loach, Barbatula barbatula: do mensural characters reflect the species life history thresholds? Env. Biol. Fish. 56: 105-115 (this volume).Google Scholar
  29. Kovâè. V. & G.H. Copp. 1999. Prelude: looking at early development in fishes. Env. Biol. Fish. 56: 7-14 (this volume).Google Scholar
  30. Krupka, I. 1988. Early development of the barbel (Barbus barbus (L, 1758)). Prâce Ustavu Rybârstva Hydrobiol. 6: 115 - 138.Google Scholar
  31. Long, J.H. 1995. Morphology, mechanics, and locomotion: the relation between the notochord and swimming motions in sturgeon. Env. Biol. Fish. 44. 199 211Google Scholar
  32. Luczkovich, J.J., S.F. Norton & R.G. Gilmore. 1995. The influence of oral anatomy on prey selection during the ontogeny of two percoid fishes, Lagodon rhomboides and Centropomus undecimalis. Env. Biol. Fish. 44: 79-95.Google Scholar
  33. Marr, J.C. 1955. The use of morphometric data in systematic,Google Scholar
  34. racial and relative growth studies in fishes. Copeia 1955: 23-31. Meffe, G.K. 1986. Conservation genetics and the management ofGoogle Scholar
  35. endangered fishes. Fisheries 11: 14-22.Google Scholar
  36. Motta, P.J. & K.M. Kotrschal. 1992. Correlative, experimental, and comparative evolutionary approaches in ecomorphology. Netherl. J. Zool. 42: 400-415.Google Scholar
  37. Motta, P.J., S.F. Norton & J.J. Luczkovich. 1995. Perspectives on ecomorphology of bony fishes. Env. Biol. Fish. 44: 11-20.Google Scholar
  38. Norton, F., J.J. Luczkovich & P.J. Motta. 1995. The role of eco-morphological studies in the comparative biology of fishes. Env. Biol. Fish. 44: 287-304.Google Scholar
  39. Okamoto, M. 1972. Four techniques of principal component analysis. J. Japan. Stat. Soc. 2: 63-69.Google Scholar
  40. Pavlov, D.A. 1999. Features of transition from larva to juvenile in fishes with different types of early ontogeny. Env. Biol. Fish. 56: 41-52 (this volume).Google Scholar
  41. Roussel, J.-M. & A. Bardonnet. 1999. Ontogeny of diel pattern of stream-margin habitat use by emerging brown trout, Salmo trutta, in experimental channels: influence of food and predator presence. Env. Biol. Fish. 56: 253-262 (this volume).Google Scholar
  42. Sagnes, P., P. Gaudin & B. Statzner. 1997. Shifts in morphometrics and their relation to hydrodynamic potential and habitat use during grayling ontogenies. J. Fish Biol. 50: 846 - 858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Videler, J.J. 1994. Fish swimming. Fish & Fisheries, Chapman & Hall, London. 241 pp.Google Scholar
  44. Wainwright, P.C. & B.A. Richard. 1995. Predicting patterns of prey use from morphology of fishes. Env. Biol. Fish. 44: 97-113.Google Scholar
  45. Winemiller, K.O., L.C. Kelso-Winemiller & A.L. Brenkert. 1995. Ecomorphological diversification and convergence in fluvial cichlid fishes. Env. Biol. Fish. 44: 235-261.Google Scholar
  46. Yoccoz, N.G. 1988. Le rôle du modèle euclidien danalyse des données en biologie évolutive. Thèse de doctorat, Université Lyon I. 254 pp.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rodolphe E. Gozlan
    • 1
    • 2
  • Gordon H. Copp
    • 1
  • Jean-Noel Tourenq
    • 2
  1. 1.Landscape & Ecology Research Group, Department of Environmental SciencesUniversity of HertfordshireHertsUK
  2. 2.Centre d’Écologie des Systèmes Aquatiques ContinentauxUMR C5576 - CNRS/UPS, Université Paul SabatierToulouseFrance

Personalised recommendations