Abstract

This study investigated whether compensatory growth causes long-term effects in relative brain- or intestine size in a wild, predominantly anadromous, population of brown trout (Salmo trutta). The subject fish belonged to two treatment groups; one group had undergone starvation and subsequent growth compensation, while the other were unrestricted controls. The main hypothesis that compensatory growth would negatively affect brain and intestinal size, as a consequence of growth trade-offs during the compensatory phase, could not be supported as no significant differences were detected between the treatment groups. Further exploratory analyses suggested that males and females started to diverge in both brain and intestine size at around 130 mm fork length, with females developing relatively smaller brains and larger intestines. The size at which the differences appear is a typical size for smoltification (saltwater preadaptation), and females tend to smoltify to a higher proportion than males. Smoltification is known to cause a more elongated morphology and relatively smaller heads in salmonids, and the marine lifestyle is associated with rapid growth, which could require relatively larger intestines. Hence, these emerging sex differences could be a consequence of sex-biased smoltification rates. An investigation of wild smolts of both sexes indicated no differences in brain or intestine mass between male and female smolts.

Highlights

  • Given a finite supply of energy, different body parts must compete for the resources required to grow [1]

  • The results suggest that there are no long-term effects of induced compensatory growth on brain or intestine size in juvenile brown trout

  • While the results suggest that there are no detectable differences in brain size between the sexes in individuals smaller than ≈130 mm, it should be noted that differences in specific brain substructures may still be present without affecting total brain size

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Given a finite supply of energy, different body parts must compete for the resources required to grow [1]. The expensive-tissue hypothesis has been put forward as a potential explanation for the exceptional increase in brain size in the human evolutionary lineage, where the increased energetic investment in brain tissue is balanced through a reduced investment in the gut [9]. In relation to their size, both the brain and the gut consume large amounts of energy compared to many other tissues and are rightly labelled as metabolically expensive tissues [9,10,11,12,13].

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call