Evolution of growth in Gulf of St Lawrence cod?

Abstract

Open AccessMoreSectionsView PDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack Citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmail Cite this article Heino Mikko, Baulier Loïc, Boukal David S, Dunlop Erin S, Eliassen Sigrunn, Enberg Katja, Jørgensen Christian and Varpe Øystein 2008Evolution of growth in Gulf of St Lawrence cod?Proc. R. Soc. B.2751111–1112http://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2007.1429SectionOpen AccessEvolution of growth in Gulf of St Lawrence cod? Mikko Heino Mikko Heino Institute of Marine ResearchPO Box 1870, Nordnes, 5817 Bergen, Norway Department of Biology, University of BergenPO Box 7800, 5020 Bergen, Norway International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis2361 Laxenburg, Austria [email protected] Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for more papers by this author , Loïc Baulier Loïc Baulier Institute of Marine ResearchPO Box 1870, Nordnes, 5817 Bergen, Norway Department of Biology, University of BergenPO Box 7800, 5020 Bergen, Norway Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for more papers by this author , David S Boukal David S Boukal Institute of Marine ResearchPO Box 1870, Nordnes, 5817 Bergen, Norway Department of Biology, University of BergenPO Box 7800, 5020 Bergen, Norway Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for more papers by this author , Erin S Dunlop Erin S Dunlop Institute of Marine ResearchPO Box 1870, Nordnes, 5817 Bergen, Norway Department of Biology, University of BergenPO Box 7800, 5020 Bergen, Norway Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for more papers by this author , Sigrunn Eliassen Sigrunn Eliassen Department of Biology, University of BergenPO Box 7800, 5020 Bergen, Norway Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for more papers by this author , Katja Enberg Katja Enberg Institute of Marine ResearchPO Box 1870, Nordnes, 5817 Bergen, Norway Department of Biology, University of BergenPO Box 7800, 5020 Bergen, Norway Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for more papers by this author , Christian Jørgensen Christian Jørgensen Department of Biology, University of BergenPO Box 7800, 5020 Bergen, Norway Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for more papers by this author and Øystein Varpe Øystein Varpe Department of Biology, University of BergenPO Box 7800, 5020 Bergen, Norway The University Centre in SvalbardPO Box 156, 9171 Longyearbyen, Norway Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for more papers by this author Mikko Heino Mikko Heino Institute of Marine ResearchPO Box 1870, Nordnes, 5817 Bergen, Norway Department of Biology, University of BergenPO Box 7800, 5020 Bergen, Norway International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis2361 Laxenburg, Austria [email protected] Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for more papers by this author , Loïc Baulier Loïc Baulier Institute of Marine ResearchPO Box 1870, Nordnes, 5817 Bergen, Norway Department of Biology, University of BergenPO Box 7800, 5020 Bergen, Norway Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for more papers by this author , David S Boukal David S Boukal Institute of Marine ResearchPO Box 1870, Nordnes, 5817 Bergen, Norway Department of Biology, University of BergenPO Box 7800, 5020 Bergen, Norway Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for more papers by this author , Erin S Dunlop Erin S Dunlop Institute of Marine ResearchPO Box 1870, Nordnes, 5817 Bergen, Norway Department of Biology, University of BergenPO Box 7800, 5020 Bergen, Norway Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for more papers by this author , Sigrunn Eliassen Sigrunn Eliassen Department of Biology, University of BergenPO Box 7800, 5020 Bergen, Norway Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for more papers by this author , Katja Enberg Katja Enberg Institute of Marine ResearchPO Box 1870, Nordnes, 5817 Bergen, Norway Department of Biology, University of BergenPO Box 7800, 5020 Bergen, Norway Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for more papers by this author , Christian Jørgensen Christian Jørgensen Department of Biology, University of BergenPO Box 7800, 5020 Bergen, Norway Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for more papers by this author and Øystein Varpe Øystein Varpe Department of Biology, University of BergenPO Box 7800, 5020 Bergen, Norway The University Centre in SvalbardPO Box 156, 9171 Longyearbyen, Norway Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for more papers by this author Published:26 February 2008https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2007.1429Fishing is often size selective such that the likelihood of capture increases with body size. It has therefore been postulated that fishing could favour evolution of slower growth because smaller size would reduce exposure to fishing gear (e.g. Ricker 1981). A recent study by Swain et al. (2007; hereafter referred to as SSH) makes a valuable attempt to demonstrate such an effect on length-at-age of southern Gulf of St Lawrence cod (Gadus morhua). The strength of their study lies in an innovative combination of three elements. First, as the evolving trait, they used length-at-age 4 years, an age at which cod are representatively sampled but have experienced little fishing mortality. Confounding demographic effects of size-selective fishing were therefore avoided. Second, they had time series of temperature and population density, both possibly affecting length-at-age through phenotypic plasticity. Finally, and as the most innovative element, they linked their approach to quantitative genetics theory. Using a modified breeder's equation, they modelled changes in length-at-age 4 as a function of genetic and environmental components: ΔL4=h2S+βΔE+ϵ. Here ΔL4 and ΔE are differences in length-at-age 4 and environment, respectively, between the focal cohort and its parent generation. S is the selection differential (difference in mean length-at-age 4 between fish observed at age 4 and those observed at reproducing ages). Estimated heritability h2 and parameter β are regression coefficients, and ϵ is a normally distributed error term with zero mean. SSH assumed that the environment can be described by changes in population density Δd and temperature Δt. The key point is that a significant effect of S on ΔL4 would indicate an evolutionary response in length-at-age 4.SSH's statistically favoured regression model was one including both S and Δd; they concluded that the data suggested an evolutionary response to fishing. Of course, as SSH readily pointed out, one cannot rule out the existence of alternative and untested factors. Here, we comment on some caveats in the analysis by SSH. We do not challenge their novel approach, but question some key assumptions and the strength of their conclusions.1. Length-at-age is influenced by reproductionSSH analysed changes in the mean length of 4-year-old cod and concluded that their results support the hypothesis of a genetic decline in growth. The transition from length-at-age to growth is, however, non-trivial. An individual's length-at-age depends on the environment and at least three life-history traits: growth capacity, maturation schedule and reproductive investment. The growth capacity reflects an individual's propensity to forage and the efficiency with which it turns food into body mass. Growth capacity is a quantitative trait under genetic control that can respond to harvest-induced selection (Conover & Munch 2002). Individuals with different growth capacities would have different length-at-age trajectories before maturation even in the same environment. After maturation, growth slows down or even stops, because reproductive investment channels energy away from growth. Length-at-age measured at or after first reproduction hence depends on all three traits. Only changes in growth capacity equate to what is strictly meant by evolving growth rate.Data on southern Gulf of St Lawrence cod reveal that from 1990 to 1995, 35–60% of males and 10–50% females were mature at age 4; maturation data outside this 6-year window are unfortunately unreliable and cannot unravel temporal trends (Trippel et al. 1997). To reduce the confounding effects of changes in reproductive investment or the proportion of mature fish, we thus recommend that lengths-at-ages before maturation be used as the evolving trait. For southern Gulf of St Lawrence cod, age 3 data are available for the entire time series (Sinclair et al. 2002), and the lower proportion of mature individuals at that age would reduce the confounding effects of reproduction.2. Lack of intercept is not trivialNone of the regression models considered by SSH included an intercept. The logic is that if the environment does not change and the selection differential is zero, ΔL4 will not change and the intercept should be zero. Hidden assumptions are that all relevant environmental variables are included, the data are unbiased and ΔL4 is genetically uncorrelated with other traits under selection.To test whether these assumptions hold, we added an intercept to SSH's favoured model (Δd+S); it was significantly different from zero (−0.98; p=0.03) and S became insignificant (p=0.34). A model with Δd and an intercept C also has a lower AIC value than SSH's favoured model, and S is not significant for any other combination of variables. This challenges the conclusion of SSH that the selection differential S was driving the change in length-at-age 4. We argue that a significant C suggests a negative component to change in length that cannot be statistically ascribed to any of the three explanatory variables.3. Data make robust statistical inference difficultOur last point relates to the nature of the data that were available to SSH. The first and second half of the time series of S and ΔL4 differ qualitatively (figure 1a). To check robustness of the results presented by SSH, we estimated a range of alternative models for sliding windows of 10 successive cohorts (figure 1b; Δd and Δt are strongly correlated and we present only Δd as the results are similar). In the first sliding windows, a range of models can explain the data well (figure 1b). Ranked with AIC, SSH's favoured model is among the two best models, but only for the first window does it outperform the model where S is replaced by C. From the window beginning with cohort 1984, all models become non-significant and the observed change in length can best be interpreted as noise. At the same time, the estimated heritability dropped from between 0.5 and 0.7 to approximately 0 (figure 1c), which could be due to the erosion of additive genetic variance. However, it seems unlikely that such high levels of heritability could be purged in one to two cohorts and it does not explain why explanatory variables other than S lose significance at the same time (figure 1b).Figure 1 (a) Data from fig. 3 in Swain et al. (2007). (b) Ranking of models involving combinations of selection differential (S), change in density (Δd) and intercept (C) as explanatory variable(s) in sliding windows of 10 cohorts. ΔAICc is a small sample version of Akaike's information criterion of each model compared to the best model (the model with the lowest AICc of all the models considered). The null model, including only an intercept, is shown with a grey line. (c) Estimated regression coefficients in sliding windows of 10 cohorts (with 95% CIs) for selection differential and density effects in model 2 (ΔL4=βΔd+h2S) of Swain et al. (2007).Download figureOpen in new tabDownload PowerPointThese patterns illustrate how robust differentiation between alternative explanations is compromised when explanatory variables lack contrasts. The difficulty of partitioning statistical effects between correlated variables is well known. However, another difficulty is more specific to the present study, but may pose similar challenges to other studies of directional selection. This relates back to the question of whether to include an intercept. In a model without C, any patterns in the data must be ascribed to the explanatory variables of the model, or they end up in the residuals. Here it happens that the pattern is mostly absorbed by S. For much of the time series, S varies little and is always negative (figure 1a); S or C will therefore have similar effects. As for any explanatory variable, one would wish S to show more pronounced patterns, but as this is not the case, the problem appears statistically unresolvable.4. Concluding RemarksThe new approach of Swain et al. (2007) holds promise because it simultaneously accounts for the effects of the environment and selection on length-at-age. We look forward to seeing their methodology applied to other fish populations. However, it remains inconclusive as to whether fisheries have induced evolution of reduced growth capacity in the Gulf of St Lawrence cod. Nevertheless, there are changes in length-at-age that cannot be explained by the considered environmental variables. To determine the role of S, one would have to assess and control for other factors, such as observation error or unaccounted environmental trends. Neither S nor ΔL4 is directly observable; both are based on model-derived quantities and merge many sources of information. At the same time, the Gulf of St Lawrence has undergone large environmental changes, the effects of which might not be captured by density and temperature alone.We thank E.A. Trippel for discussion of maturation data, anonymous referees for comments and the Research Council of Norway, EU Marie Curie Research Training Network FishACE, and the Academy of Finland for funding.FootnotesThe accompanying reply can be viewed on page 1113 or at http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2007.1727.† Current address: Department of Biology, University of Bergen, PO Box 7800, 5020 Bergen, NorwayCopyright © 2008 The Royal SocietyThis is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.ReferencesConover D.O& Munch S.B. 2002Sustaining fisheries yields over evolutionary time scales. Science. 297, 94–96.doi:10.1126/science.1074085. . Crossref, PubMed, ISI, Google ScholarRicker W.E. 1981Changes in the average size and age of Pacific salmon. Can. J. Fish Aquat. Sci. 38, 1636–1656. Crossref, ISI, Google ScholarSinclair A.F, Swain D.P& Hanson J.M. 2002Disentangling the effects of size-selective mortality, density, and temperature on length-at-age. Can. J. Fish Aquat. Sci. 59, 372–382.doi:10.1139/f02-014. . Crossref, ISI, Google ScholarSwain D.P, Sinclair A.F& Hanson J.M. 2007Evolutionary response to size-selective mortality in an exploited fish population. Proc. R. Soc. B. 274, 1015–1022.doi:10.1098/rspb.2006.0275. . Link, ISI, Google ScholarTrippel, E. A., Morgan, M. J., Fréchet, A., Rollet, C., Sinclair, A., Annand, C., Beanlands, D. & Brown, L. 1997 Changes in age and length at sexual maturity of Northwest Atlantic cod, haddock, and pollock stocks, 1972–1995. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci.2157, 120. Google Scholar Next Article VIEW FULL TEXT DOWNLOAD PDF FiguresRelatedReferencesDetailsCited by Hutchings J and Kuparinen A (2019) Implications of fisheries‐induced evolution for population recovery: Refocusing the science and refining its communication, Fish and Fisheries, 10.1111/faf.12424, 21:2, (453-464), Online publication date: 1-Mar-2020. Yamamoto Y, Yoshiyama T, Kajiwara K, Nakatani T and Matsuishi T (2018) Long-term shifts in the growth and maturation size of Miyabe charr Salvelinus malma miyabei, Fisheries Science, 10.1007/s12562-018-1186-5, 84:3, (425-433), Online publication date: 1-May-2018. Gíslason D, McLaughlin R, Robinson B, Cook A and Dunlop E (2018) Rapid changes in age and size at maturity in Lake Erie yellow perch ( Perca flavescens ) are not explained by harvest , Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 10.1139/cjfas-2016-0211, 75:2, (211-223), Online publication date: 1-Feb-2018. Klefoth T, Skov C, Kuparinen A and Arlinghaus R (2017) Toward a mechanistic understanding of vulnerability to hook-and-line fishing: Boldness as the basic target of angling-induced selection, Evolutionary Applications, 10.1111/eva.12504, 10:10, (994-1006), Online publication date: 1-Dec-2017. Audzijonyte A, Fulton E and Kuparinen A (2014) The impacts of fish body size changes on stock recovery: a case study using an Australian marine ecosystem model, ICES Journal of Marine Science, 10.1093/icesjms/fsu185, 72:3, (782-792), Online publication date: 1-Mar-2015. Heino M, Díaz Pauli B and Dieckmann U (2015) Fisheries-Induced Evolution, Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-112414-054339, 46:1, (461-480), Online publication date: 4-Dec-2015. Mattos T, Costa M, Pinto B, Borges J and Araújo F (2013) To what extent are the fish compositions of a regulated river related to physico-chemical variables and habitat structure?, Environmental Biology of Fishes, 10.1007/s10641-013-0175-x, 97:6, (717-730), Online publication date: 1-Jun-2014. Enberg K, Jørgensen C, Dunlop E, Varpe Ø, Boukal D, Baulier L, Eliassen S and Heino M (2011) Fishing-induced evolution of growth: concepts, mechanisms and the empirical evidence, Marine Ecology, 10.1111/j.1439-0485.2011.00460.x, 33:1, (1-25), Online publication date: 1-Mar-2012. Nusslé S, Bréchon A and Wedekind C (2010) Change in individual growth rate and its link to gill-net fishing in two sympatric whitefish species, Evolutionary Ecology, 10.1007/s10682-010-9412-3, 25:3, (681-693), Online publication date: 1-May-2011. Kendall N and Quinn T (2011) Length and Age Trends of Chinook Salmon in the Nushagak River, Alaska, Related to Commercial and Recreational Fishery Selection and Exploitation, Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 10.1080/00028487.2011.585575, 140:3, (611-622), Online publication date: 21-May-2011. van Walraven L, Mollet F, van Damme C and Rijnsdorp A (2010) Fisheries-induced evolution in growth, maturation and reproductive investment of the sexually dimorphic North Sea plaice (Pleuronectes platessa L.), Journal of Sea Research, 10.1016/j.seares.2009.07.003, 64:1-2, (85-93), Online publication date: 1-Jul-2010. Neuheimer A and Taggart C (2010) Can changes in length-at-age and maturation timing in Scotian Shelf haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) be explained by fishing?, Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 10.1139/F10-025, 67:5, (854-865), Online publication date: 1-May-2010. Taylor E, Jørgensen C and Fiksen Ø (2010) Modelling fishing-induced adaptations and consequences for natural mortality, Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 10.1139/F10-049, 67:7, (1086-1097), Online publication date: 1-Jul-2010. Dunlop E, Enberg K, Jørgensen C and Heino M (2009) EDITORIAL: Toward Darwinian fisheries management, Evolutionary Applications, 10.1111/j.1752-4571.2009.00087.x, 2:3, (245-259), Online publication date: 1-Aug-2009. Nusslé S, Bornand C and Wedekind C (2008) Fishery-induced selection on an Alpine whitefish: quantifying genetic and environmental effects on individual growth rate, Evolutionary Applications, 10.1111/j.1752-4571.2008.00054.x, 2:2, (200-208), Online publication date: 1-May-2009. Arlinghaus R, Matsumura S and Dieckmann U (2009) ORIGINAL ARTICLE: Quantifying selection differentials caused by recreational fishing: development of modeling framework and application to reproductive investment in pike ( Esox lucius ) , Evolutionary Applications, 10.1111/j.1752-4571.2009.00081.x, 2:3, (335-355), Online publication date: 1-Aug-2009. Kuparinen A, Kuikka S and Merilä J (2009) Estimating fisheries-induced selection: traditional gear selectivity research meets fisheries-induced evolution, Evolutionary Applications, 10.1111/j.1752-4571.2009.00070.x, 2:2, (234-243), Online publication date: 1-May-2009. Marshall C, Pardoe H, Vainikka A, Thórdarson G, Marteinsdóttir G and Heino M (2009) Temporal trends in probabilistic maturation reaction norms and growth of Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) on the Icelandic shelf, Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 10.1139/F09-132, 66:10, (1719-1733), Online publication date: 1-Oct-2009. Dunlop E, Heino M and Dieckmann U (2009) Eco-genetic modeling of contemporary life-history evolution, Ecological Applications, 10.1890/08-1404.1, 19:7, (1815-1834), Online publication date: 1-Oct-2009. Swain D, Sinclair A and Hanson J (2008) Evolution of growth in Gulf of St Lawrence cod: reply to Heino et al., Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 275:1639, (1113-1115), Online publication date: 22-May-2008. Dutil J, Jabouin C, Larocque R, Desrosiers G and Blier P (2008) Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) from cold and warm environments differ in their maximum growth capacity at low temperatures, Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 10.1139/F08-159, 65:12, (2579-2591), Online publication date: 1-Dec-2008. This Issue22 May 2008Volume 275Issue 1639 Article InformationDOI:https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2007.1429PubMed:18303002Published by:Royal SocietyPrint ISSN:0962-8452Online ISSN:1471-2954History: Manuscript received17/10/2007Manuscript accepted20/11/2007Published online26/02/2008Published in print22/05/2008 License:Copyright © 2008 The Royal SocietyThis is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Citations and impact PDF Download Large datasets are available through Proceedings B's partnership with Dryad