Growth reaction norms of domesticated, wild and hybrid Atlantic salmon families in response to differing social and physical environments

BMC Evolutionary Biology

Kevin Alan Glover³  Frank Nilsen¹  Zhiwei Zhang²  Monica Favnebøe Solberg¹ 

[1] Department of Biology, University of Bergen, P.O. Box 7800 N-5020 Bergen, Norway;Jiangsu Institute of Marine Fisheries, NanTong City, PR China;Section of Population Genetics and Ecology, Institute of Marine Research, P.O. Box 1870, Nordnes, NO-5817 Bergen, Norway

关键词: Heritability;    Inter-strain competition;    Reaction norm;    Common-garden;    Introgression;    Hybridization;    Farmed escapees;   

Others  :  1085471
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2148-13-234

 received in 2013-04-26, accepted in 2013-10-11,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Directional selection for growth has resulted in the 9-10th generation of domesticated Atlantic salmon Salmo salar L. outgrowing wild salmon by a ratio of approximately 3:1 when reared under standard hatchery conditions. In the wild however, growth of domesticated and wild salmon is more similar, and seems to differ at the most by a ratio of 1.25:1. Comparative studies of quantitative traits in farmed and wild salmon are often performed by the use of common-garden experiments where salmon of all origins are reared together to avoid origin-specific environmental differences. As social interaction may influence growth, the large observed difference in growth between wild and domesticated salmon in the hatchery may not be entirely genetically based, but inflated by inter-strain competition. This study had two primary aims: (i) investigate the effect of social interaction and inter-strain competition in common-garden experiments, by comparing the relative growth of farmed, hybrid and wild salmon when reared together and separately; (ii) investigate the competitive balance between wild and farmed salmon by comparing their norm of reaction for survival and growth along an environmental gradient ranging from standard hatchery conditions to a semi-natural environment with restricted feed.

Results

The main results of this study, which are based upon the analysis of more than 6000 juvenile salmon, can be summarised as; (i) there was no difference in relative growth between wild and farmed salmon when reared together and separately; (ii) the relative difference in body weight at termination between wild and farmed salmon decreased as mortality increased along the environmental gradient approaching natural conditions.

Conclusions

This study demonstrates that potential social interactions between wild and farmed salmon when reared communally are not likely to cause an overestimation of the genetic growth differences between them. Therefore, common-garden experiments represent a valid methodological approach to investigate genetic differences between wild and farmed salmon. As growth of surviving salmon of all origins became more similar as mortality increased along the environmental gradient approaching natural conditions, a hypothesis is presented suggesting that size-selective mortality is a possible factor reducing growth differences between these groups in the wild.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Solberg et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

Figure 6.

Figure 7.

Figure 8.

Figure 9.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Allendorf FW, Leary RF, Spruell P, Wenburg JK: The problems with hybrids: setting conservation guidelines. Trends Ecol Evol 2001, 16(11):613-622.
• [2]Randi E: Detecting hybridization between wild species and their domesticated relatives. Mol Ecol 2008, 17(1):285-293.
• [3]Fiske P, Lund RA, Hansen LP: Relationships between the frequency of farmed Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L., in wild salmon populations and fish farming activity in Norway, 1989–2004. ICES J Mar Sci 2006, 63(7):1182-1189.
• [4]Glover KA, Quintela M, Wennevik V, Besnier F, Sørvik AGE, Skaala Ø: Three decades of farmed escapees in the wild: A spatio-temporal analysis of Atlantic salmon population genetic structure throughout Norway. PLoS One 2012, 7(8):e43129.
• [5]Glover KA, Pertoldi C, Besnier F, Wennevik V, Kent M, Skaala Ø: Atlantic salmon populations invaded by farmed escapees: quantifying genetic introgression with a Bayesian approach and SNPs. BMC Genet 2013, 14:74.
• [6]Crozier WW: Evidence of genetic interaction between escaped farmed salmon and wild Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) in a Northern Irish river. Aquaculture 1993, 113(1–2):19-29.
• [7]Clifford SL, McGinnity P, Ferguson A: Genetic changes in an Atlantic salmon population resulting from escaped juvenile farm salmon. J Fish Biol 1998, 52(1):118-127.
• [8]Crozier WW: Escaped farmed salmon, Salmo salar L., in the Glenarm River, Northern Ireland: genetic status of the wild population 7 years on. Fish Manag Ecol 2000, 7(5):437-446.
• [9]Clifford SL, McGinnity P, Ferguson A: Genetic changes in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) populations of Northwest Irish rivers resulting from escapes of adult farm salmon. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 1998, 55(2):358-363.
• [10]Bourret V, O’Reilly PT, Carr JW, Berg PR, Bernatchez L: Temporal change in genetic integrity suggests loss of local adaptation in a wild Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) population following introgression by farmed escapees. Heredity 2011, 106(3):500-510.
• [11]Skaala Ø, Wennevik V, Glover KA: Evidence of temporal genetic change in wild Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L., populations affected by farm escapees. ICES J Mar Sci 2006, 63(7):1224-1233.
• [12]Besnier F, Glover KA, Skaala Ø: Investigating genetic change in wild populations: modelling gene flow from farm escapees. Aquaculture Environment Interactions 2011, 2(1):75-86.
• [13]Glover KA, Otterå H, Olsen RE, Slinde E, Taranger GL, Skaala Ø: A comparison of farmed, wild and hybrid Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) reared under farming conditions. Aquaculture 2009, 286(3–4):203-210.
• [14]McGinnity P, Stone C, Taggart JB, Cooke D, Cotter D, Hynes R, McCamley C, Cross TF, Ferguson A: 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 1997, 54(6):998-1008.
• [15]Thodesen J, Grisdale-Helland B, Helland SJ, Gjerde B: Feed intake, growth and feed utilization of offspring from wild and selected Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Aquaculture 1999, 180(3–4):237-246.
• [16]Fleming IA, Einum S: Experimental tests of genetic divergence of farmed from wild Atlantic salmon due to domestication. ICES J Mar Sci 1997, 54(6):1051-1063.
• [17]Gross MR: One species with two biologies: Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) in the wild and in aquaculture. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 1998, 55:131-144.
• [18]McGinnity P, Prodohl P, Ferguson K, Hynes R, O’Maoileidigh N, Baker N, Cotter D, O’Hea B, Cooke D, Rogan G, et al.: Fitness reduction and potential extinction of wild populations of Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar, as a result of interactions with escaped farm salmon. P R Soc Lond B 2003, 270(1532):2443-2450.
• [19]Houde ALS, Fraser DJ, Hutchings JA: Fitness-related consequences of competitive interactions between farmed and wild Atlantic salmon at different proportional representations of wild-farmed hybrids. ICES J Mar Sci 2010, 67(4):657-667.
• [20]Einum S, Fleming IA: Genetic divergence and interactions in the wild among native, farmed and hybrid Atlantic salmon. J Fish Biol 1997, 50(3):634-651.
• [21]Houde ALS, Fraser DJ, Hutchings JA: Reduced anti-predator responses in multi-generational hybrids of farmed and wild Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.). Conservat Genet 2010, 11(3):785-794.
• [22]Skaala Ø, Taggart JB, Gunnes K: Genetic differences between five major domesticated strains of Atlantic salmon and wild salmon. J Fish Biol 2005, 67:118-128.
• [23]Skaala Ø, Høyheim B, Glover KA, Dahle G: Microsatellite analysis in domesticated and wild Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.): allelic diversity and identification of individuals. Aquaculture 2004, 240(1–4):131-143.
• [24]Karlsson S, Moen T, Lien S, Glover KA, Hindar K: Generic genetic differences between farmed and wild Atlantic salmon identified from a 7K SNP-chip. Mol Ecol Resour 2011, 11:247-253.
• [25]Roberge C, Normandeau E, Einum S, Guderley H, Bernatchez L: Genetic consequences of interbreeding between farmed and wild Atlantic salmon: insights from the transcriptome. Mol Ecol 2008, 17(1):314-324.
• [26]Roberge C, Einum S, Guderley H, Bernatchez L: Rapid parallel evolutionary changes of gene transcription profiles in farmed Atlantic salmon. Mol Ecol 2006, 15(1):9-20.
• [27]Solberg MF, Kvamme BO, Nilsen F, Glover KA: Effects of environmental stress on mRNA expression levels of seven genes related to oxidative stress and growth in Atlantic salmon Salmo salar L. of farmed, hybrid and wild origin. BMC Res Notes 2012, 5:672. BioMed Central Full Text
• [28]Solberg MF, Skaala Ø, Nilsen F, Glover KA: Does domestication cause changes in growth reaction norms? A study of farmed, wild and hybrid Atlantic salmon families exposed to environmental stress. PLoS One 2013, 8(1):e54469.
• [29]Hindar K, Ryman N, Utter F: Genetic-effects of aquaculture on natural fish populations. Aquaculture 1991, 98(1–3):259-261.
• [30]Naylor R, Hindar K, Fleming IA, Goldburg R, Williams S, Volpe J, Whoriskey F, Eagle J, Kelso D, Mangel M: Fugitive salmon: Assessing the risks of escaped fish from net-pen aquaculture. Bioscience 2005, 55(5):427-437.
• [31]Hindar K, Ryman N, Utter F: Genetic-effects of cultured fish on natural fish populations. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 1991, 48(5):945-957.
• [32]Ferguson A, Fleming IA, Hindar K, Skaala Ø, McGinnity P, Cross TF, Prodöhl P: Farm escapees. In The Atlantic salmon Genetics, Conservation and Management. Edited by Verspoor E, Stradmeyer L, Nielsen JL. Oxford, UK: Backwell; 2007:357-398.
• [33]Bentsen HB: Genetic effects of selection on polygenic traits with examples from Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L. Aquaculture and Fisheries Management 1994, 25(1):89-102.
• [34]Gjedrem T: Genetic improvement of cold-water fish species. Aquacult Res 2000, 31(1):25-33.
• [35]Thodesen J, Gjedrem T: Breeding programs on Atlantic salmon in Norway: lessons learned. In Development of aquatic animal genetic improvement and dissemination programs: current status and action plans. Edited by Ponzoni RW, Acosta BO, Ponniah AG. Penang, Malaysia: The WorldFish Center; 2006:22-26.
• [36]Gjedrem T, Gjøen HM, Gjerde B: Genetic-origin of Norwegian farmed Atlantic salmon. Aquaculture 1991, 98(1–3):41-50.
• [37]Gjerde B: Growth and reproduction in fish and shellfish. Aquaculture 1986, 57(1–4):37-55.
• [38]Gjedrem T: Selection for growth rate and domestication in Atlantic salmon. J Anim Breed Genet 1979, 96(1):56-59.
• [39]Fleming IA, Agustsson T, Finstad B, Johnsson JI, Björnsson BT: Effects of domestication on growth physiology and endocrinology of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Can J Fish Aquat Sci 2002, 59(8):1323-1330.
• [40]Glover KA, Bergh Ø, Rudra H, Skaala Ø: Juvenile growth and susceptibility to Aeromonas salmonicida subsp. salmonicida in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) of farmed, hybrid and wild parentage. Aquaculture 2006, 254(1–4):72-81.
• [41]Skaala Ø, Glover KA, Barlaup BT, Svåsand T, Besnier F, Hansen MM, Borgstrøm R: Performance of farmed, hybrid and wild Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) families in a natural river environment. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 2012, 69:1-13.
• [42]Fleming IA, Hindar K, Mjølnerød IB, Jonsson B, Balstad T, Lamberg A: Lifetime success and interactions of farm salmon invading a native population. P R Soc Lond B 2000, 267(1452):1517-1523.
• [43]Huntingford FA: Implications of domestication and rearing conditions for the behaviour of cultivated fishes. J Fish Biol 2004, 65:122-142.
• [44]Ruzzante DE: Domestication effects on aggressive and schooling behavior in fish. Aquaculture 1994, 120(1–2):1-24.
• [45]Fraser DJ, Cook AM, Eddington JD, Bentzen P, Hutchings JA: Mixed evidence for reduced local adaptation in wild salmon resulting from interbreeding with escaped farmed salmon: complexities in hybrid fitness. Evol Appl 2008, 1(3):501-512.
• [46]Glover KA, Hamre LA, Skaala Ø, Nilsen F: A comparison of sea louse (Lepeophtheirus salmonis) infection levels in farmed and wild Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) stocks. Aquaculture 2004, 232(1–4):41-52.
• [47]Roff DA: The evolution of life-history parameters in teleosts. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 1984, 41(6):989-1000.
• [48]Anon: Regionalt tilsynsprosjekt 2011. Prosjekt overlevelse fisk. Report from the Norwegian Food Safety Authority 2011. (in Norwegian)
• [49]Brännäs E: First access to territorial space and exposure to strong predation pressure - a conflict in early emerging Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) fry. Evol Ecol 1995, 9(4):411-420.
• [50]Henderson JN, Letcher BH: Predation on stocked Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) fry. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 2003, 60(1):32-42.
• [51]Elliott JM: Spatial-distribution and behavioral movements of migratory trout Salmo trutta in a lake district stream. J Anim Ecol 1986, 55(3):907-922.
• [52]Hutchings JA: Fitness consequences of variation in egg size and food abundance in brook trout Salvelinus fontinalis. Evolution 1991, 45(5):1162-1168.
• [53]Einum S, Fleming IA: Selection against late emergence and small offspring in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Evolution 2000, 54(2):628-639.
• [54]Taylor EB, McPhail JD: Burst swimming and size-related predation of newly emerged coho salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch. Trans Am Fish Soc 1985, 114(4):546-551.
• [55]Boyce NPJ: Biology of Eubothrium salvelini (Cestoda: Pseudophyllidea), a parasite of juvenile sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) of Babine-lake, British Columbia. J Fish Res Board Can 1974, 31(11):1735-1742.
• [56]Berejikian BA: The effects of hatchery and wild ancestry and experience on the relative ability of steelhead trout fry (Oncorhynchus mykiss) to avoid a benthic predator. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 1995, 52(11):2476-2482.
• [57]Anon: Status for norske laksebestander i 2012. Report from the scientific council of salmon management 2012, 4:89-95. in Norwegian
• [58]Lund RA, Hansen LP, Jarvi T: Identifisering av oppdrettslaks og vill-laks ved ytre morfologi, finnestørrelse og skjellkarakterer. Research report from the Norwegian Institute for Nature Research 1989, 1:1-54. (in Norwegian)
• [59]Barlaup BT, Gabrielsen SE, Skoglund H, Wiers T: Addition of spawning gravel - A means to restore spawning habitat of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.), and anadromous and resident brown trout (Salmo trutta L.) in regulated rivers. River Res Appl 2008, 24(5):543-550.
• [60]Kilkenny C, Browne WJ, Cuthill IC, Emerson M, Altman DG: Improving bioscience research reporting: the ARRIVE guidelines for reporting animal research. PLoS Biol 2010, 8(6):e1000412.
• [61]Sánchez JA, Clabby C, Ramos D, Blanco G, Flavin F, Vazquez E, Powell R: Protein and microsatellite single locus variability in Salmo salar L. (Atlantic salmon). Heredity 1996, 77:423-432.
• [62]O’Reilly PT, Hamilton LC, McConnell SK, Wright JM: Rapid analysis of genetic variation in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) by PCR multiplexing of dinucleotide and tetranucleotide microsatellites. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 1996, 53(10):2292-2298.
• [63]Grimholt U, Drablos F, Jørgensen SM, Hoyheim B, Stet RJM: The major histocompatibility class I locus in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.): polymorphism, linkage analysis and protein modelling. Immunogenetics 2002, 54(8):570-581.
• [64]Stet RJM, de Vries B, Mudde K, Hermsen T, van Heerwaarden J, Shum BP, Grimholt U: Unique haplotypes of co-segregating major histocompatibility class II A and class II B alleles in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) give rise to diverse class II genotypes. Immunogenetics 2002, 54(5):320-331.
• [65]Slettan A, Olsaker I, Lie O: Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar, microsattelites at the SsOSL25, SsOSL85, SsOSL311, SsOSL417 loci. Anim Genet 1995, 26(4):281-282.
• [66]Taggart JB: FAP: an exclusion-based parental assignment program with enhanced predictive functions. Mol Ecol Notes 2007, 7(3):412-415.
• [67]Glover KA, Taggart JB, Skaala Ø, Teale AJ: Comparative performance of juvenile sea trout families in high and low feeding environments. J Fish Biol 2001, 59(1):105-115.
• [68]Glover KA, Taggart JB, Skaala Ø, Teale AJ: A study of inadvertent domestication selection during start-feeding of brown trout families. J Fish Biol 2004, 64(5):1168-1178.
• [69]Glover KA, Hansen MM, Lien S, Als TD, Hoyheim B, Skaala Ø: A comparison of SNP and STR loci for delineating population structure and performing individual genetic assignment. BMC Genet 2010, 11:2.
• [70]Glover KA: Forensic identification of fish farm escapees: the Norwegian experience. Aquaculture Environment Interactions 2010, 1(1):1-10.
• [71]Glover KA, Skilbrei OT, Skaala Ø: Genetic assignment identifies farm of origin for Atlantic salmon Salmo salar escapees in a Norwegian fjord. ICES J Mar Sci 2008, 65(6):912-920.
• [72]R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project.org/ webcite
• [73]lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R package version 0.999999-0. http://lme4.r-forge.r-project.org/ webcite
• [74]Keene ON: The log transformation is special. Stat Med 1995, 14(8):811-819.
• [75]Hairston NG, Holtmeier CL, Lampert W, Weider LJ, Post DM, Fischer JM, Caceres CE, Fox JA, Gaedke U: Natural selection for grazer resistance to toxic cyanobacteria: Evolution of phenotypic plasticity? Evolution 2001, 55(11):2203-2214.
• [76]Cole TJ: Sympercents: symmetric percentage differences on the 100 log(e) scale simplify the presentation of log transformed data. Stat Med 2000, 19(22):3109-3125.
• [77]Zuur A, Ieno EN, Walker NJ: DSaveliev AA, Smith GM: Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R New York. USA: Springer; 2009.
• [78]Bolker BM, Brooks ME, Clark CJ, Geange SW, Poulsen JR, Stevens MHH, White JSS: Generalized linear mixed models: a practical guide for ecology and evolution. Trends Ecol Evol 2009, 24(3):127-135.
• [79]Hadfield JD: MCMC Methods for multi-response generalized linear mixed models: the MCMCglmm R package. J Stat Software 2010, 33(2):1-22.
• [80]Wilson AJ, Reale D, Clements MN, Morrissey MM, Postma E, Walling CA, Kruuk LEB, Nussey DH: An ecologist’s guide to the animal model. J Anim Ecol 2009, 79(1):13-26.
• [81]Kruuk LEB: Estimating genetic parameters in natural populations using the ‘animal model’. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series B-Biological Sciences 2004, 359(1446):873-890.
• [82]Metcalfe NB, Valdimarsson SK, Morgan IJ: The relative roles of domestication, rearing environment, prior residence and body size in deciding territorial contests between hatchery and wild juvenile salmon. J Appl Ecol 2003, 40(3):535-544.
• [83]Koebele BP: Growth and the size hierarchy effect - an experimental assessment of three proposed mechanisms - activity differences, disproportional food acquisition, physiological stress. Environ Biol Fishes 1985, 12(3):181-188.
• [84]Woodward CC, Strange RJ: Physiological stress responses in wild and hatchery-reared rainbow-trout. Trans Am Fish Soc 1987, 116(4):574-579.
• [85]Basrur TV, Longland R, Wilkinson RJ: Effects of repeated crowding on the stress response and growth performance in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Fish Physiol Biochem 2010, 36(3):445-450.
• [86]Herbinger CM, O’Reilly PT, Doyle RW, Wright JM, O’Flynn F: Early growth performance of Atlantic salmon full-sib families reared in single family tanks versus in mixed family tanks. Aquaculture 1999, 173(1–4):105-116.
• [87]Vandeputte M, Dupont-Nivet M, Haffray P, Chavanne H, Cenadelli S, Parati K, Vidal MO, Vergnet A, Chatain B: Response to domestication and selection for growth in the European sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) in separate and mixed tanks. Aquaculture 2009, 286(1–2):20-27.
• [88]Wohlfarth GW, Moav R: Communal testing, a method of testing the growth of different genetic groups of common carp in earthen ponds. Aquaculture 1985, 48(2):143-157.
• [89]Thodesen J, Gjerde B, Grisdale-Helland B, Storebakken T: Genetic variation in feed intake, growth and feed utilization in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Aquaculture 2001, 194(3–4):273-281.
• [90]Einum S, Fleming IA: Highly fecund mothers sacrifice offspring survival to maximize fitness. Nature 2000, 405(6786):565-567.
• [91]Beacham TD, Withler FC, Morley RB: Effect of egg size on incubation-time and alevin and fry size in chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) and coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). Can J Zool 1985, 63(4):847-850.
• [92]Heath DD, Fox CW, Heath JW: Maternal effects on offspring size: variation through early development of chinook salmon. Evolution 1999, 53(5):1605-1611.
• [93]Beacham TD: Revisiting trends in the evolution of egg size in hatchery-enhanced populations of chinook salmon from British Columbia. Trans Am Fish Soc 2010, 139(2):579-585.
• [94]Fleming IA: Reproductive strategies of Atlantic salmon: Ecology and evolution. Rev Fish Biol Fish 1996, 6(4):379-416.
• [95]Gilbey J, McLay A, Houlihan D, Verspoor E: Individual-level analysis of pre- and post first-feed growth and development in Atlantic salmon. J Fish Biol 2005, 67(5):1359-1369.
• [96]Einum S, Fleming IA: Maternal effects of egg size in brown trout (Salmo trutta): norms of reaction to environmental quality. Proceedings of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences 1999, 266(1433):2095-2100.
• [97]Robertsen G, Skoglund H, Einum S: Offspring size effects vary over fine spatio-temporal scales in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Can J Fish Aquat Sci 2013, 70(1):5-12.
• [98]Gavrilets S, Scheiner SM: The genetics of phenotypic plasticity. 5. Evolution of reaction norm shape. J Evol Biol 1993, 6(1):31-48.
• [99]Hoffmann AA, Merilä J: Heritable variation and evolution under favourable and unfavourable conditions. Trends Ecol Evol 1999, 14(3):96-101.
• [100]Ghalambor CK, McKay JK, Carroll SP, Reznick DN: Adaptive versus non-adaptive phenotypic plasticity and the potential for contemporary adaptation in new environments. Funct Ecol 2007, 21(3):394-407.
• [101]Smith PJ, Francis R, McVeagh M: Loss of genetic diversity due to fishing pressure. Fish Res 1991, 10(3–4):309-316.
• [102]Law R: Fishing, selection, and phenotypic evolution. ICES J Mar Sci 2000, 57(3):659-668.
• [103]Feltham MJ: The diet of red-breasted mergansers (Mergus serrator) during the smolt run in ne scotland - the importance of salmon (Salmo salar) smolts and parr. J Zool 1990, 222:285-292.
• [104]West CJ, Larkin PA: Evidence for size-selective mortality of juvenile sockeye-salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) in babine lake, british-columbia. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 1987, 44(4):712-721.
• [105]Sogard SM: Size-selective mortality in the juvenile stage of teleost fishes: A review. Bulletin of Marine Science 1997, 60(3):1129-1157.
• [106]Jackson CD, Brown GE: Differences in antipredator behaviour between wild and hatchery-reared juvenile Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) under seminatural conditions. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 2011, 68(12):2157-2165.
• [107]Tymchuk WE, Biagi C, Withler R, Devlin RH: Growth and behavioral consequences of introgression of a domesticated aquaculture genotype into a native strain of Coho salmon. Trans Am Fish Soc 2006, 135(2):442-455.
• [108]Yamamoto T, Reinhardt UG: Dominance and predator avoidance in domesticated and wild masu salmon Oncorhynchus masou. Fish Sci 2003, 69(1):88-94.