Temporal variation in selection on body length and date of return in a wild population of coho salmon, Oncorhynchus kisutch

BMC Evolutionary Biology

Kerry A Naish²  Jeffrey J Hard¹  Miyako Kodama² 

[1] National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, WA, 98112, USA;School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, 98105, USA

关键词: Oncorhynchus kisutch;    Lifetime reproductive success;    Environmental variation;    Evolution;    Temporal variation;    Selection;   

Others  :  1140878
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2148-12-116

 received in 2012-05-03, accepted in 2012-06-20,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

Background

A number of studies have measured selection in nature to understand how populations adapt to their environment; however, the temporal dynamics of selection are rarely investigated. The aim of this study was to assess the temporal variation in selection by comparing the mode, direction and strength of selection on fitness-related traits between two cohorts of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). Specifically, we quantified individual reproductive success and examined selection on date of return and body length in a wild population at Big Beef Creek, Washington (USA).

Results

Reproductive success and the mode, direction and strength of selection on date of return and body length differed between two cohorts sampled in 2006 and 2007. Adults of the first brood year had greater success over those of the second. In 2006, disruptive selection favored early and late returning individuals in 2-year-old males, and earlier returning 3-year-old males had higher fitness. No evidence of selection on date of return was detected in females. In 2007, selection on date of return was not observed in males of either age class, but stabilizing selection on date of return was observed in females. No selection on body length was detected in males of both age classes in 2006, and large size was associated with higher fitness in females. In 2007, selection favored larger size in 3-year-old males and intermediate size in females. Correlational selection between date of return and body length was observed only in 2-year-old males in 2006.

Conclusions

We found evidence of selection on body length and date of return to the spawning ground, both of which are important fitness-related traits in salmonid species, but this selection varied over time. Fluctuation in the mode, direction and strength of selection between two cohorts was likely to be due to factors such as changes in precipitation, occurrence of catastrophic events (flooding), the proportion of younger- versus older-maturing males, sex ratio and densities of spawners.

【 授权许可】

   
2012 Kodama et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 3.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Siepielski AM, DiBattista JD, Carlson SM: It’s about time: the temporal dynamics of phenotypic selection in the wild. Ecol Lett 2009, 12:1261-1276.
• [2]Kingsolver JG, Diamond SE: Phenotypic selection in natural populations: what limits directional selection? Am Nat 2011, 177:346-357.
• [3]Conner JK: How strong is natural selection? Trends Ecol Evol 2001, 16:215-217.
• [4]Hoekstra HE, Hoekstra JM, Berrigan D, Vignieri SN, Hoang A, Hill CE, Beerli P, Kingsolver JG: Strength and tempo of directional selection in the wild. P Natl Acad Sci USA 2001, 98:9157-9160.
• [5]Kingsolver JG, Hoekstra HE, Hoekstra JM, et al.: The strength of phenotypic selection in natural populations. Am Nat 2001, 157:245-261.
• [6]Hereford J, Hansen TF, Houle D: Comparing strengths of directional selection: how strong is strong? Evolution 2004, 58:2133-2143.
• [7]Kingsolver JG, Pfennig DW: Patterns and power of phenotypic selection in nature. Bioscience 2007, 57:561-572.
• [8]Bell G: Fluctuating selection: the perpetual renewal of adaptation in variable environments. Philos T Roy Soc B 2010, 365:87-97.
• [9]Siepielski AM, DiBattista JD, Evans JA, Carlson SM: Differences in the temporal dynamics of phenotypic selection among fitness components in the wild. P Roy Soc B-Biol Sci 2010, 12:1572-1580.
• [10]Hendry AP, Letcher BH, Gries G: Estimating natural selection acting on stream-dwelling Atlantic salmon: implications for the restoration of extirpated populations. Conserv Biol 2003, 17:795-805.
• [11]Stockwell CA, Hendry AP, Kinnison MT: Contemporary evolution meets conservation biology. Trends Ecol Evol 2003, 18:94-101.
• [12]Carlson SM, Seamons TR: A review of quantitative genetic components of fitness in salmonids: implications for adaptation to future change. Evol Appl 2008, 1:222-238.
• [13]Waples RS, Hendry AP: Special Issue: Evolutionary perspectives on salmonid conservation and management. Evol Appl 2008, 1:183-188.
• [14]Sandercock FK: Life history of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). Vancouver. University of British Columbia Press; 1991.
• [15]Quinn TP: The behavior and ecology of Pacific salmon and trout. Seattle. University of Washington Press; 2005.
• [16]van den Berghe EP, Gross MR: Natural selection resulting from female breeding competition in a Pacific salmon (Coho: Oncorhynchus kisutch). Evolution 1989, 43:125-140.
• [17]Seamons TR, Bentzen P, Quinn TP: The effects of adult length and arrival date on individual reproductive success in wild steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Can J Fish Aquat Sci 2004, 61:193-204.
• [18]Seamons TR, Bentzen P, Quinn TP: DNA parentage analysis reveals inter-annual variation in selection: results from 19 consecutive brood years in steelhead trout. Evol Ecol Res 2007, 9:409-431.
• [19]Ford MJ, Hard JJ, Boelts B, Lahood E, Miller J: Estimates of natural selection in a salmon population in captive and natural environments. Conserv Biol 2008, 22:783-794.
• [20]Anderson JH, Faulds PL, Atlas WI, Pess GR, Quinn TP: Selection on breeding date and body size in colonizing coho salmon, Oncorhynchus kisutch. Mol Ecol 2010, 19:2562-2573.
• [21]Serbezov D, Bernatchez L, Olsen EM, Vøllestad LA: Mating patterns and determinants of individual reproductive success in brown trout (Salmo trutta) revealed by parentage analysis of an entire stream living population. Mol Ecol 2010, 19:3193-3205.
• [22]Morbey Y: Protandry in Pacific salmon. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 2000, 57:1252-1257.
• [23]Morbey YE, Abrams PA: The interaction between reproductive lifespan and protandry in seasonal breeders. J Evolution Biol 2004, 17:768-778.
• [24]Fleming IA: Pattern and variability in the breeding system of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar), with comparisons to other salmonids. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 1998, 55:59-76.
• [25]Garant D, Dodson JJ, Bernatchez L: A genetic evaluation of mating system and determinants of individual reproductive success in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.). J Hered 2001, 92:137-145.
• [26]Theriault V, Bernatchez L, Dodson JJ: Mating system and individual reproductive success of sympatric anadromous and resident brook charr, Salvelinus fontinalis, under natural conditions. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 2007, 62:51-65.
• [27]Gross MR: Disruptive selction for alternative life histories in salmon. Nature 1985, 313:47-48.
• [28]Holtby LB, Healey MC: Sex-specific life history tactics and risk-taking in coho salmon. Ecology 1990, 71:678-690.
• [29]Gross MR: Salmon breeding behavior and life history evolution in changing environments. Ecology 1991, 72:1180-1186.
• [30]Foote CJ, Brown GS, Wood CC: Spawning success of males using alternative mating tactics in sockeye salmon, Oncorhynchus nerka. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 1997, 54:1785-1795.
• [31]Koseki Y, Fleming IA: Large-scale frequency dynamics of alternative male phenotypes in natural populations of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch): patterns, processes, and implications. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 2007, 64:743-753.
• [32]Beacham TD, Murray CB: Fecundity and egg size variation in North American Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus). J Fish Biol 1993, 42:485-508.
• [33]Fleming IA: Reproductive strategies of Atlantic salmon: ecology and evolution. Rev Fish Biol Fisher 1996, 6:379-416.
• [34]Andersson M: Sexual selection. Princeton. Princeton University Press; 1994.
• [35]Steen RP, Quinn TP: Egg burial depth by sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka): implications for survival of embryos and natural selection on female body size. Can J Zool 1999, 77:836-841.
• [36]Dickerson BR, Quinn TP, Willson MF: Body size, arrival date, and reproductive success of pink salmon, Oncorhynchus gorbuscha. Ethol Ecol Evol 2002, 14:29-44.
• [37]van den Berghe EP, Gross MR: Female size and nest depth in coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). Can J Fish Aquat Sci 1984, 41:204-206.
• [38]Olsen EM, Vøllestad LA: Microgeographical variation in brown trout reproductive traits: possible effects of biotic interactions. Oikos 2003, 100:483-492.
• [39]van den Berghe EP, Gross MR: Length of breeding life of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). Can J Zool 1986, 64:1482-1486.
• [40]Morita K, Takashima Y: Effect of female size on fecundity and egg size in white-spotted charr: comparison between sea-run and resident forms. J Fish Biol 1998, 53:1140-1142.
• [41]Kitano S: Size-related factors causing individual variation in seasonal reproductive success of fluvial male Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma). Ecol Fresh Fish 1996, 5:59-67.
• [42]Foote CJ: An experimental comparison of male and female spawning territoriality in a Pacific salmon. Behaviour 1990, 115:283-313.
• [43]Araki H, Blouin MS: Unbiased estimation of relative reproductive success of different groups: evaluation and correction of bias caused by parentage assignment errors. Mol Ecol 2005, 14:4097-4109.
• [44]Lapointe M, Eaton B, Driscoll S, Latulippe C: Modelling the probability of salmonid egg pocket scour due to floods. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 2000, 57:1120-1130.
• [45]Kinsel C, Hanratty P, Zimmerman M, Glaser B, Gray S, Hillson T, Rawding D, VanderPloeg S: Intensively Monitored Watersheds:2008 Fish Population Studies in the Hood Canal and Lower Columbia Stream Complexes. Olympia. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife; 2009.
• [46]Fukushima M, Quinn TJ, Smoker WW: Estimation of eggs lost from superimposed pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) redds. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 1998, 55:618-625.
• [47]Essington TE, Quinn TP, Ewert VE: Intra- and inter-specific competition and the reproductive success of sympatric Pacific salmon. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 2000, 57:205-213.
• [48]Blanchfield PJ, Ridgway MS: The relative influence of breeding competition and habitat quality on female reproductive success in lacustrine brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis). Can J Fish Aquat Sci 2005, 62:2694-2705.
• [49]Fleming IA, Gross MR: Breeding competition in a Pacific salmon (Coho: Oncorhynchus kisutch): measures of natural and sexual selection. Evolution 1994, 48:637-657.
• [50]Quinn TP, Foote CJ: The effects of body size and sexual dimorphism on the reproductive behaviour of sockeye salmon, Oncorhynchus nerka. Anim Behav 1994, 48:751-761.
• [51]Quinn TP, Hendry AP, Buck GB: Balancing natural and sexual selection in sockeye salmon: interactions between body size, reproductive opportunity and vulnerability to predation by bears. Evol Ecol Res 2001, 3:917-937.
• [52]Healey MC: Optimum size and age at maturity in Pacific salmon and effects of size-selective fisheries. Can Spec Publ Fish Aquat Sci 1986, 89:29-52.
• [53]Holtby LB, Healey MC: Selection for adult size in female coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). Can J Fish Aquat Sci 1986, 43:1946-1959.
• [54]USGS Water Data for Washington. [ http://waterdata.usgs.gov/wa/nwis webcite]
• [55]Weitkamp LA, Wainwright TC, Bryant GJ, Milner GB, Teel DJ, Kope RG, Waples RS: Status review of coho salmon from Washington, Oregon, and California. U.S. Department of Commerce. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-24; 1995.
• [56]Van Oosterhout C, Hutchinson WF, Wills DPM, Shipley P: MICRO-CHECKER: software for identifying and correcting genotyping errors in microsatellite data. Mol Ecol Notes 2004, 4:535-538.
• [57]Raymond M, Rousset F: GENEPOP (Version 1.2): Population genetics software for exact tests and ecumenicism. J Hered 1995, 86:248-249.
• [58]Peakall R, Smouse PE: GENALEX 6: genetic analysis in Excel. Population genetic software for teaching and research. Mol Ecol Notes 2006, 6:288-295.
• [59]Riester M, Stadler PF, Klemm K: FRANz: reconstruction of wild multi-generation pedigrees. Bioinformatics 2009, 25:2134-2139.
• [60]Wang J: Sibship reconstruction from genetic data with typing errors. Genetics 2004, 166:1963-1979.
• [61]Jones OR, Wang J: COLONY: a program for parentage and sibship inference from multilocus genotype data. Mol Ecol Resour 2009, 10:551-555.
• [62]Wang J, Santure AW: Parentage and sibship inference from multilocus genotype data under polygamy. Genetics 2009, 181:1579-1594.
• [63]Zar JH: Biostatistical analysis. In Englewood Cliffs. Prentice Hall; 1999.
• [64]Brodie ED, Moore AJ, Janzen FJ: Visualizing and quantifying natural selection. Trends Ecol Evol 1995, 10:313-318.
• [65]Lande R, Arnold SJ: The measurement of selection on correlated characters. Evolution 1983, 37:1210-1226.
• [66]Zeileis A, Kleiber C, Jackman S: Regression models for count data in R. J Stat Softw 2008, 27:1-26.
• [67]Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Walker N, Saveliev AA, Smith GM: Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R. New York. Springer; 2009.
• [68]Schluter D: Estimating the form of natural selection on a quantitative trait. Evolution 1988, 42:849-861.
• [69]Hilborn R, Mangel M: The Ecological detective. Princeton. Princeton University Press; 1997.
• [70]Wood SN: mgcv: GAMs and generalized ridge regression for R. R News 2001, 1:20-25.
• [71]Condrey MJ, Bentzen P: Characterization of coastal cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki clarki) microsatellites and their conservation in other salmonids. Mol Ecol 1998, 7:787-789.
• [72]de Fromentel CC, Pakdel F, Chapus A, Baney C, May P, Soussi T: Rainbow trout p53: cDNA cloning and biochemical characterization. Gene 1992, 112:241-245.
• [73]Naish KA, Park LK: Linkage relationships for 35 new microsatellite loci in chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha. Anim Genet 2002, 33:316-318.
• [74]Rexroad CE, Coleman RL, Gustafson AL, Hershberger WK, Killefer J: Development of rainbow trout microsatellite markers from repeat enriched libraries. Mar Biotechnol 2002, 4:12-16.
• [75]Rexroad C, Palti Y: Development of ninety-seven polymorphic microsatellite markers for rainbow trout. T Am Fish Soc 2003, 132:1214-1221.
• [76]Scribner KT, Gust JR, Fields RL: Isolation and characterization of novel salmon microsatellite loci: cross-species amplification and population genetic applications. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 1996, 53:833-841.