Abstract
Charrs, Salvelinus species, are characteristic fishes of northern freshwater lakes and rivers. They are highly variable in almost every aspect of their behaviour, morphology and life history. Several possible explanations have been proposed to account for this variability and resolve the taxonomic confusion in this genus. I propose that sympatric trophic polymorphism, in the ecological context of these species, can make sense of this variability. I use examples from charr in Canada and Iceland to construct an evolutionary scenario for this genus.
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
A great deal of attention continues to be directed to the question of sympatric speciation, after an extended period of time when the subject was almost universally dismissed. Mayr (1963) gave perhaps the most detailed and forceful rejection of sympatric speciation as either a theoretical or empirical possibility. Since then the concept has been revisited and a number of credible theoretical models (e.g., Maynard Smith 1966; Wimberger 1994; Foster et al. 1998; Dieckmann and Doebeli 1999; Bolnick 2004) and empirical examples (e.g., Taylor and McPhail 1985; Swain and Holtby 1989; Schluter 1994, 1995; Dynes et al. 1999; Wilson 1999) have been published. I will not review those studies nor do I intend to test any of those models with experimental data. Rather I will summarize my comparative approach and present a model to stress the importance of sympatric process rather than pattern in the evolution of Salvelinus species. The interesting matter is not how many species there might be, but how those species arise.
Charrs are enigmatic fishes. They have long plagued taxonomists as the “charr problem” because of the high degree of variability within species (Kawanabe et al. 1989). They are the focus of the continuing series of international charr conferences (Johnson and Burns 1984; Kawanabe et al. 1989; Magnan et al. 2002). They are important as food for aboriginal peoples (Power 2002), as the favoured species of recreational anglers (Curry et al. 1995, 1997), and as indicators of environmental quality (Gunn and Noakes 1987; Gunn et al. 1987). They are native to north temperate and arctic environments (Gunn and Keller 1985), most are landlocked but some are anadromous (Kawanabe et al. 1989). The two features that initially attracted me to them as research subjects were the high degree of variability within and between species (Fig. 1), combined with the virtually unlimited fertility of artificially produced crosses between different species (Noakes 1986, 1989).
Salmonids have commonly been used in studies of physiology, endocrinology, ecology, nutrition and genetics (e.g., Brett 1965; Beamish 1978; Carl and Healey 1984; Ferguson 1986; Leatherland 1994) so there is a wealth of data available on these aspects of their biology. There is also a long history of laboratory and field studies on salmonids as their native ranges coincide with the north temperate distribution of universities, research institutions and management agencies (Scott and Crossman 1973; Magnan at el. 2002). Populations of many species are readily accessible for studies within their native habitats (Magnan 1988). Many species attract significant research support as a consequence of their economic importance to aboriginal, recreational or commercial harvest.
My research interests have always been in development and social behaviour (Noakes 1978a, b, c). My initial choice of charrs as study species was motivated by all these considerations, plus some added features of three key species available to me. Brook, S. fontinalis, lake, S. namaycush, and arctic, S. alpinus, charr differ strikingly in their native habitats, biology and behaviour (Noakes 1989, 1994; Noakes et al. 1989). However, they are all characterized by a number of features that I believe are important for their evolution. They are native to northern lakes & rivers, including many that have been recently deglaciated, on a geological time scale. They are native to areas with few species, particularly few competitor species. They appear to be suited as recent invaders to habitats created by melting of glaciers (Fig. 2). As mentioned, they are known to be highly variable species, but the basis for that variability has seldom gone beyond speculation and description of the various morphs, or forms, or subspecies encountered (Frost and Kipling 1980; Partington and Mills 1988). Certainly one possibility is that these fishes are examples of pure phenotypic plasticity. I will argue that a more likely hypothesis to account for their variability is resource polymorphism (Fig. 1).
The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources conducted a management program with hybrids between brook and lake charr for a number of years (Berst and Spangler 1970; Berst et al. 1980; 1981). That program regularly produced large numbers of hybrids, and backcrosses up to the F-9 backcross generation. We utilized those in a productive series of studies of behavior genetics (Ferguson and Noakes 1981, 1983a, b, c). Our studies showed a significant genetic basis for the behavioral differences between these species. Those and subsequent studies of these species elaborated on the adaptive nature of the behavior of the species, including the differences between the species in their responses to environmental factors (Ferguson et al. 1983; McNicol and Noakes 1984; Noakes and Grant 1986, 1992; Noakes and Curry 1995; Biro et al. 1997).
The foraging and social behavior of juvenile brook charr is particularly interesting and we have devoted considerable study to the details of that system (Grant and Noakes 1986, 1987a, b, c, 1988; Grant et al. 1989; Imre et al. 2001; McLaughlin 2001; McLaughlin and Grant 1994, 2001; McLaughlin et al. 1992, 1994; 1995a, b, 1999, 2000; McLaughlin and Noakes 1998). The important conclusion that I want to note from these studies is that young brook charr in streams tend to behave in one of two alternate tactics. We labeled those as “movers” or “stayers”, respectively. Individual fish behaving as movers show low levels of agonistic behavior. They move relatively frequently and forage mostly on prey taken from the water surface or on the substrate. Individual fish behaving as stayers move much less frequently. They show high levels of agonistic behavior and forage primarily on prey carried to them as drift by the water current (Noakes 1994). A good deal of earlier literature of the behavior of juvenile salmonids in streams had described similar differences in behavior and had assumed that stayers represented the only successful tactic. Movers were generally assumed to be making the best of a bad lot, as a consequence of their smaller size, failure to obtain or hold a territory or late emergence from the redd after all suitable territories had been taken (Noakes 1978a). Detailed studies of foraging activities, growth rates and social interactions of these juvenile brook charr clearly showed that this is not the case. We used a combination of observations and measurements of behavior and growth in both the field and the laboratory to compare growth rates of individual fish showing a range of social and foraging activities. Juvenile stream salmonids must grow rapidly and accumulate somatic energy resources or they will not survive their first winter (McNicol and Noakes 1981, 1984). The fitness payoffs of the behavioral tactics are such that movers and stayers have comparable high fitness, as estimated by growth rate (McLaughlin et al 1999). Individual fish showing other behavioral tactics, or some combination of moving and staying, have significantly lower growth rates, and hence lower fitness.
Furthermore, there is a significant correlation between these behavioral tactics and morphology of the young brook charr, and the microhabitats characteristic for the individuals (McLaughlin et al 1992; McLaughlin and Grant 1994; McLaughlin 2001). Stayers tend to hold position in faster water current and they have significantly narrower caudal peduncles and larger caudal fins. Both of these features are associated with higher swimming efficiency in fast water current (Brett 1965). Young brook charr reared in faster water currents develop some of these morphological differences (Imre et al. 2002), showing that at least of the differences are the result of phenotypic plasticity. We have used this evidence as an important part of the more general hypothesis of evolution within the genus, as I will elaborate below.
Our concurrent studies of the details of social and foraging behavior in juvenile lake charr showed a striking contrast to the situation with juvenile brook char. In general, juvenile lake charr behave as movers. They rarely show any agonistic behavior, they move frequently and they forage opportunistically on prey they encounter during their movements. All individuals are consistent in their social and foraging behavior, and variations in water current velocity have no significant effect on social or foraging behavior (Ferguson et al. 1983). There is a strong genetic basis for the differences in species–typical behavior (Ferguson and Noakes 1981), including a significant maternal effect on inheritance (Ferguson and Noakes 1983a). The differences between the species correspond to the typical habitats of these species (Noakes 1989), juvenile brook charr most commonly live in the flowing waters of streams and juvenile lake charr most commonly live in the lentic waters of lakes. We can understand the behavior of these two species as a consequence of the adaptive nature of the species–typical behavior, including the degree of plasticity of that behavior in response to environmental variability. The most important environmental factor is water current, both directly as a physical factor and indirectly through its effects on spatial and temporal predictability of food supply for the fish. The predictable, directional flow of water in streams ensures that potential food items will be delivered predictably in time and space as drift from the upstream direction, and is an increasing function of current velocity. Consequently a central place foraging territory becomes increasingly profitable (net benefit increases), given limitations of competitor density and extreme water current velocity (Grant and Noakes 1987c). Juvenile brook charr respond adaptively to water current velocity, the faster the current the more likely the fish will behave as stayers. Juvenile brook charr exposed to low water current velocity are more likely to behave as movers, since the net benefit (food delivered as drift by the water current) from the territory decreases. In contrast, juvenile lake charr do not show any consistent change in behavior across the same range of water current velocities (Ferguson et al. 1983). Juvenile charr in lakes will rarely if ever encounter the consistent, directional water current found in streams, so there is no advantage to defend a fixed, central place foraging territory, or to evolve plasticity in their response to water current velocity (Noakes 1989). In contrast, juvenile brook charr will certainly encounter a range of water current velocities in streams, so it is not surprising that they show plasticity in their response to water current.
Interestingly, the behavior of juvenile brook charr in lakes confirms the generality of these findings. Juvenile brook charr in lakes, where directional water currents do not exist, behave as movers (Biro et al. 1997). They behave essentially as juvenile lake charr would in that situation. Thus we concluded that the species–typical behavior of each species, including the plasticity of that behavior, can be understood as adaptive to the characteristic habitat of the species.
We extended this background to the behavior and ecology of Arctic char, through our studies of that species in Iceland (Skulason et al. 1996). This species, particularly in Iceland, epitomizes the “charr problem” in terms of the bewildering range of variability in morphology, behavior, life history and ecology (Fig. 1). We demonstrated that those differences are genetically based (Perrault et al. 1990; Skulason et al. 1989a, b, 1993, 1996, 1999; Snorrason et al. 1994). Individuals produced by artificial crosses between adults of different morphs develop intermediate phenotypes in common garden experiments (Skulason et al. 1996; Eiríksson et al. 1999). The genetic differences between sympatric morphs are small (Danzmann et al. 1991; Ferguson et al. 1990; Noakes et al. 1989) but they correspond well with ecological and morphological differences (Gislason et al. 1999). Furthermore, and most importantly, it is clear that these differences have arisen sympatrically, almost certainly as a result of resource polymorphism (Skulason and Smith 1995; Skulason et al. 1999; Snorrason and Skulason 2004). It is clear that morphologically similar morphs have evolved repeatedly and independently in different lakes (Gislason et al. 1999). For example, small benthic Arctic charr are found in a number of locations throughout Iceland (Sigursteinsdottir and Kristjansson 2005), most likely in response to specific lava habitats (Fig. 3). This evidence discounts the most likely alternative hypothesis, which proposes repeated invasions of genetically different arctic charr populations into the lakes. Differentiation within the species is sympatric (intralacustrine), and occurs repeatedly, independently and (probably) convergently in different lakes. Phenotypic plasticity certainly seems to be a part of this process (Riddell and Leggett 1981; Wimberger 1994; DeWitt et al. 1998; Price et al. 2003; Sih et al. 2004a, b), but the extent of that is yet to be determined.
We have proposed a model (DeKerckove et al. 2006) with a mechanism for sympatric differentiation, based on initial behavioral differences. Those behavioral differences reinforce morphological (and other) differences, leading eventually to reproductive isolation between morphs with alternative foraging and social tactics. A critical feature of the model is the pattern of fitness benefits (=growth) for juveniles. We have established by a series of laboratory and field studies that young brook charr behave in one of two ways, “movers” or “stayers”, based upon foraging and social behavior. Movers forage while swimming about and show low levels of agonistic behavior. Stayers are central place foragers and show high levels of agonistic behavior. The fitness distribution of these young brook charr is bimodal, in that fitness of movers and stayers appears to be about equal. The bimodal pattern we observed in young brook charr is produced by the model only if it incorporates the full set of variables, suggesting that this is a consequence of multiple, subtle mechanisms. We see the initial stages of this process in the alternative foraging and social tactics of juvenile brook char, with consequent benefits to the growth of the young behaving either as movers or stayers. Those differences do not progress beyond those initial stages in brook charr in streams (Imre et al. 2001, 2002), because the environmental conditions encountered by brook charr in streams are too variable and unpredictable from year to year (Curry et al. 1994, 1995, 1997, Noakes and Curry 1995; McLaughlin and Grant 2001). This means that the initial behavioral differences cannot be reinforced by reproductive isolation between those tactics selected to reproduce in unique spawning locations. Streams are inherently unstable in both space and time, with fluctuations in spawning site characteristics and locations as a result of changes in water flow, erosion, sediment transport and bedload changes (Curry et al. 1994; Clément 2003). Fish within a stream can encounter a wide range of water current velocities, temperature and prey availability over very small spatial and temporal scales.
The conditions found in lakes, in contrast, provide relatively greater long-term stability of the physical habitat. Charrs, like many salmonid fishes, are characterized by philopatry in their spawning behavior (Noakes and Curry 1995). Spawning habitats in lakes are often site-specific, with significant consequences for early development, including behavior (Gunn and Noakes 1986, 1987; Curry et al. 1995). For example, the presence and specific qualities of groundwater at spawning sites can produce particular physico-chemical conditions for the developing embryos. Those conditions will have significant effects on early development and emergence time of the young at each site. The spawning segregation of polymorphic charr to site-specific sites would lead to enhanced differentiation among the morphs within the lake, and eventually the increasing degrees of reproductive isolation seen in different Icelandic lakes (Skulason et al. 1989b; Gislason et al. 1999).
This would certainly lead us to predict that we should find sympatric trophic polymorphism in charr species living in lakes, but not in streams. Tests of this prediction are still very much in progress, but the results thus far are entirely in agreement with the prediction. Lake charr in Great Bear Lake, a large, relatively undisturbed lake in arctic Canada show clear evidence of sympatric trophic morphs (Fig. 4) (Blackie et al. 2003; Alfonso 2004). There is also evidence, although it is less clear as a consequence of human disturbances, of similar polymorphism of lake charr in Lake Superior in the Laurentian Great Lakes. The multitude of populations of various charr species in lakes and rivers provides a wealth of opportunities to further test the predictions of our model in these and other species.
References
Alfonso N (2004) Evidence for two morphotypes of lake charr, Salvelinus namaycush, from Great Bear Lake, Northwest Territories, Canada. Environ Biol Fishes 71:21–32, doi:10.1023/B:EBFI.0000043176.61258.3d
Beamish FWH (1978) Swimming capacity. In: Hoar WS, Randall DJ (eds) Fish Physiology, volume 7. Academic, New York, pp 101–187
Berst AH, Spangler GR (1970) Population dynamics of F1 splake (Salvelinus fontinalis x S. namaycush) in Lake Huron. J Fish Res Board Can 27:1017–1032
Berst AH, Ihssen PE, Spangler GR, Ayles B, Martin GW (1980) The splake, a hybrid charr Salvelinus namaycush x S. fontinalis. In: Balon EK (ed) Charrs, salmonid fishes of the genus salvelinus. Junk, The Hague, pp 841–887
Berst AH, Emery AR, Spangler GR (1981) Reproductive behaviour of hybrid char (Salvelinus fontinalis X S. namaycush). Can J Fish Aquat Sci 38:432–440
Biro PA, Ridgway MS, Noakes DLG (1997) The central—place territorial model does not apply to space—use by juvenile brook char Salvelinus fontinalis in lakes. J Anim Ecol 66:837–845, doi:10.2307/5999
Blackie CT, Weese DJ, Noakes DLG (2003) Evidence for resource polymorphism in the lake char (Salvelinus namaycush) population of Great Bear Lake, Northwest Territories, Canada. Écoscience 10:509–514
Bolnick DI (2004) Can intraspecific variation competition drive disruptive selection? An experimental test in natural populations of sticklebacks. Evolution 58:608–618
Brett JR (1965) The swimming energetics of salmon. Sci Am 213:80–85
Carl LM, Healey MC (1984) Differences in enzyme frequency and body morphology among three juvenile life history types of Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in the Nanaimo River, British Columbia. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 41:1070–1077
Clément M (2003) The feasibility of restoration of Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar, to Lake Ontario. PhD dissertation, University of Guelph, Guelph, Canada
Curry RA, Gehrels J, Noakes DLG (1994) Effects of river flow fluctuations on groundwater discharge through brook trout, Salvelinus fontinalis, spawning and incubation habitats. Hydrobiologia 277:121–134, doi:10.1007/BF00016759
Curry RA, Noakes DLG, Morgan GE (1995) Groundwater and the incubation and emergence of brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis). Can J Fish Aquat Sci 52:1741–1749
Curry RA, Brady C, Noakes DLG, Danzmann RG (1997) Use of small streams by young brook trout spawned in streams. Trans Am Fish Soc 126:77–83, doi:10.1577/1548-8659(1997)126<0077:UOSSBY>2.3.CO;2
Danzmann RG, Ferguson MM, Skulason S, Snorrason SS, Noakes DLG (1991) Mitochondrial DNA diversity among four sympatric morphs of Arctic charr, Salvelinus alpinus L., from Thingvallavatn, Iceland. J Fish Biol 39:649–659, doi:10.1111/j.1095-8649.1991.tb04395.x
DeKerckhove D, McLaughlin RL, Noakes DLG (2006) Ecological mechanisms favouring behavioural diversification in the absence of morphological diversification: a theoretical examination using brook char (Salvelinus fontinalis). J Anim Ecol 75:506–517, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2656.2006.01071.x
DeWitt TJ, Sih A, Wilson DS (1998) Costs and limits to phenotypic plasticity. Trends Ecol Evol 13:77–80, doi:10.1016/S0169-5347(97)01274-3
Dieckmann U, Doebeli M (1999) On the origin of species by sympatric speciation. Nature 400:354–357, doi:10.1038/22521
Dynes J, Magnan P, Bernatchez L, Rodriguez MA (1999) Genetic and morphological variation between two forms of lacustrine brook charr. J Fish Biol 54:955–972, doi:10.1111/j.1095-8649.1999.tb00850.x
Eiríksson GM, Skúlason S, Snorrason SS (1999) Heterochrony in skeletal development and body size in progeny of two morphs of Arctic charr from Thingvallavatn, Iceland. J Fish Biol 55:175–185
Ferguson MM (1986) Development stability of rainbow trout hybrids: genomic coadaptation or heterozygosity. Evol 40:232–240, doi:10.2307/2408812
Ferguson MM, Noakes DLG (1981) Behaviour genetic analysis of charrs, Salvelinus species (Pisces, Salmonidae). Anim Behav 30:128–134, doi:10.1016/S0003-3472(82)80247-9
Ferguson MM, Noakes DLG (1983a) Behavioural plasticity of lake char (Salvelinus namaycush) X brook char (S. fontinalis) hybrids in response to varying social environment. Behav Processes 8:147–156, doi:10.1016/0376-6357(83)90003-7
Ferguson MM, Noakes DLG (1983b) Behaviour genetics of lake char (Salvelinus namaycush) and brook char (S. fontinalis): observation of backcross and F - 1 generations. Z Tierpsychol 67:72–86
Ferguson MM, Noakes DLG (1983c) Movers and stayers: genetic analysis of mobility and positioning in hybrids of lake charr, Salvelinus namaycush and brook charr, S. fontinalis (Pisces, Salmonidae). Behav Genet 13:218–222, doi:10.1007/BF01065670
Ferguson MM, Noakes DLG, Romani D (1983) Restricted behavioural plasticity of juvenile lake char (Salvelinus namaycush). Environ Biol Fishes 8:151–156, doi:10.1007/BF00005181
Ferguson MM, Noakes DLG, Skulason S, Snorrason SS (1990) Life-history styles and somatic allocation in iteroparous arctic char and semelparous pink salmon. Environ Biol Fishes 28:267–272, doi:10.1007/BF00751040
Foster SA, Scott RJ, Cresko WA (1998) Nested biological variation and speciation. Philos Trans R Soc Lond, B 353:207–218, doi:10.1098/rstb.1998.0203
Frost WE, Kipling D (1980) The growth of charr, Salvelinus willughbii Guenther, in Windermere. J Fish Biol 16:279–289, doi:10.1111/j.1095-8649.1980.tb03705.x
Gislason D, Ferguson MM, Skulason S, Snorrason SS (1999) Rapid and coupled phenotypic and genetic divergence in Icelandic Arctic char (Salvelinus alpinus). Can J Fish Aquat Sci 56:2229–2234, doi:10.1139/cjfas-56-12-2229
Grant JWA, Noakes DLG (1986) A test of a size selective predation model with juvenile brook charr, Salvelinus fontinalis (Mitchill). J Fish Biol 29:15–23, doi:10.1111/j.1095-8649.1986.tb04995.x
Grant JWA, Noakes DLG (1987a) Escape behaviour and use of cover by young of the year brook trout, Salvelinus fontinalis. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 45:1390–1396, doi:10.1139/f87-167
Grant JWA, Noakes DLG (1987b) Movers and stayers: foraging tactics of young of the year brook charr, Salvelinus fontinalis. J Anim Ecol 56:1001–1013, doi:10.2307/4962
Grant JWA, Noakes DLG (1987c) A simple model of optimal territory size for drift feeding fish. Can J Zool 65:270–276
Grant JWA, Noakes DLG (1988) Aggressiveness and foraging mode of young of the year brook charr, Salvelinus fontinalis (Pisces, Salmonidae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 22:435–445, doi:10.1007/BF00294982
Grant JWA, Noakes DLG, Jonas K (1989) Spatial distribution of defense and foraging in young-of-the-year brook charr, Salvelinus fontinalis. J Anim Ecol 58:773–784, doi:10.2307/5123
Gunn JM, Keller W (1985) Effects of ice and snow cover on the chemistry of nearshore lake water during spring melt. Ann Glaciol 7:208–212
Gunn JM, Noakes DLG (1986) Avoidance of low pH and elevated Al concentrated by brook char (Salvelinus fontinalis) alevins in laboratory tests. Soil Water Pollut 30:497–503, doi:10.1007/BF00305218
Gunn JM, Noakes DLG (1987) Latent effects of pulse exposure to aluminum and low pH on size, ionic composition and feeding efficiency of lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush). Can J Fish Aquat Sci 45:1418–1424, doi:10.1139/f87-170
Gunn JM, Noakes DLG, Westlake GF (1987) Behavioural responses of lake char (Salvelinus namaycush) embryos to simulated acidic runoff conditions. Can J Zool 65:2786–2792
Imre I, McLaughlin RL, Noakes DLG (2001) Temporal persistence of a resource polymorphism in brook char (Salvelinus fontinalis). Environ Biol Fishes 60:393–399, doi:10.1023/A:1011014209001
Imre I, McLaughlin RL, Noakes DLG (2002) Phenotypic plasticity in brook charr: changes in caudal fin induced by water flow. J Fish Biol 61:1171–1181, doi:10.1111/j.1095-8649.2002.tb02463.x
Johnson L, Burns BL (eds) (1984) Biology of the arctic charr, proceedings of the international symposium on arctic charr. University of Manitoba Press, Winnipeg
Kawanabe H, Yamazaki F, Noakes DLG (1989) Biology of charrs and masu salmon, vol. 1. Physiology and Ecology Japan, Kyoto, Japan
Leatherland JF (1994) Reflections on the thyroidology of fishes: from molecules to humankind. Guelph Ichthyol Rev 2:1–67
Magnan P (1988) Interactions between brook charr, Salvelinus fontinalis, and nonsalmonid species: ecological shift, morphological shift, and their impact on zooplankton communities. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 45:999–1009
Magnan P, Audet C, Glemet H, Legault M, Rodriguez MA, Taylor EB (2002) Ecology, behaviour and conservation of the charrs, genus Salvelinus: relevance for their management and conservation. Springer, Dordrecht, 360 p
Maynard Smith J (1966) Sympatric speciation. Am Nat 100:637–650, doi:10.1086/282457
Mayr E (1963) Animal species and evolution. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts
McLaughlin RL (2001) Behavioural diversification in brook charr: adaptive responses to local conditions. J Anim Ecol 70:325–337, doi:10.1046/j.1365-2656.2001.00491.x
McLaughlin RL, Grant JWA (1994) Morphological and behavioural differences among recently-emerged brook charr, Salvelinus fontinalis, foraging in slow- vs. fast-running water. Environ Biol Fishes 39:289–300, doi:10.1007/BF00005130
McLaughlin RL, Noakes DLG (1998) Going against the flow: an examination of the propulsive movements made by young brook trout in streams. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 55:853–860, doi:10.1139/cjfas-55-4-853
McLaughlin RL, Grant JWA (2001) Field examination of perceptual and energetic bases for intermittent locomotion by recently-emerged brook char in still-water pools. Behav 138:559–574, doi:10.1163/156853901316924476
McLaughlin RL, Grant JWA, Kramer DL (1992) Individual variation and alternative patterns of foraging movements in recently-emerged brook char (Salvelinus fontinalis). Behav 120:286–301, doi:10.1163/156853992X00642
McLaughlin RL, Grant JWA, Kramer DL (1994) Foraging movements in relation to morphology, water column use, and diet for recently emerged brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) in still-water pools. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 51:268–279
McLaughlin RL, Ferguson MM, Noakes DLG (1995a) Tissue concentrations of RNA and protein for juvenile brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis): lagged responses to fluctuations in food availability. Fish Physiol Biochem 14:459–469, doi:10.1007/BF00004346
McLaughlin RL, Ferguson MM, Noakes DLG (1995b) Concentrations of nucleic acids and protein as indicators of nutritional status for recently emerged brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis). Can J Fish Aquat Sci 52:848–854
McLaughlin RL, Ferguson MM, Noakes DLG (1999) Adaptive peaks and alternative foraging tactics in brook charr: evidence of short-term divergent selection for sitting-and-waiting and actively searching. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 45:386–395, doi:10.1007/s002650050575
McLaughlin RL, Grant JWA, Noakes DLG (2000) Living with failure: the prey capture success of young brook char in streams. Ecol Freshwat Fish 9:81–89, doi:10.1034/j.1600-0633.2000.90109.x
McNicol RE, Noakes DLG (1981) Territories and territory defense in juvenile brook charr, Salvelinus fontinalis (Pisces, Salmonidae). Can J Zool 59:22–28
McNicol RE, Noakes DLG (1984) Environmental influences on territoriality of juvenile brook char (Salvelinus fontinalis) in a stream environment. Environ Biol Fishes 10:29–42, doi:10.1007/BF00001660
Noakes DLG (1978a) Social behaviour as it influences fish production. In: Gerking SD (ed) Ecology of Freshwater Fish Production. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 360–382
Noakes DLG (1978b) Ontogeny of behaviour in fishes: a survey and suggestions. In: Burghardt GM, Bekoff M (eds) Ontogeny of behaviour, comparative and evolutionary aspects. Garland, New York, pp 103–125
Noakes DLG (1978c) Early behavior in fishes. Environ Biol Fishes 3:321–326, doi:10.1007/BF00001460
Noakes DLG (1986) Genetics of behaviour in teleost fishes. In: Pitcher TJ (ed) The behaviour of teleost fishes. Croom Helm, London, pp 3–22
Noakes DLG (1989) Early life history and behaviour of charrs. In: Kawanabe HF, Yamazaki F, Noakes DLG (eds) Biology of Charrs and Masu Salmon. Kyoto University Press, Kyoto, pp 173–186
Noakes DLG (1994) Salmonid fishes: styles, strategies and tactics in individual behaviour and social organization. In: Rossiter A, Jarman P (eds) Animal Societies. Kyoto University Press, Japan, pp 264–272
Noakes DLG, Curry RA (1995) Lessons to be learned from attempts to restore Salvelinus species other than S. namaycush: a review of reproductive behavior. J Great Lakes Res 21(Supplement 1):54–64
Noakes DLG, Grant JWA (1986) Behavioural ecology and production of riverine fishes. Pol Arch Hydrobiol 33:249–662
Noakes DLG, Grant JWA (1992) Feeding and social behaviour of brook and lake charr. In: Thorpe JE, Huntingford FA (eds) Feeding behavior and culture of Salmonid Fishes. World Aquaculture Society, Orlando, pp 13–20
Noakes DLG, Skulason S, Snorrason SS (1989) Alternative life history styles in salmonine fishes, with emphasis on arctic charr, Salvelinus alpinus. In: Bruton MN (ed) Alternative life history styles in fishes and other organisms. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 329–346
Partington JD, Mills CA (1988) An electrophoretic and biometric study of arctic charr, Salvelinus alpinus (L.), from ten British lakes. J Fish Biol 33:791–814, doi:10.1111/j.1095-8649.1988.tb05524.x
Perrault S, Ali MA, Skulason S, Noakes DLG (1990) Constancy of synaptic ribbon numbers in the retina of the arctic charr, Salvelinus alpinus. Environ Biol Fishes 27:131–138, doi:10.1007/BF00001942
Power G (2002) Charrs, glaciation and seasonal ice. In: Magnan P, Audet C, Glemet H, Legault M, Rodriguez MA, Taylor EB (eds) Developments in the ecology, evolution and behaviour of the charrs, genus Salvelinus: relevance for their management and conservation. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 17–35
Price TD, Qvarnström A, Irwin DE (2003) The role of phenotypic plasticity in driving genetic evolution. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 270:1433–1440, doi:10.1098/rspb.2003.2372
Riddell BE, Leggett WC (1981) Evidence of an adaptive basis for geographic variation in body morphology and time of downstream migration of juvenile Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Can J Fish Aquat Sci 38:308–320
Schluter D (1994) Experimental evidence that competition promotes divergence in adaptive radiation. Sci 266:798–801, doi:10.1126/science.266.5186.798
Schluter D (1995) Adaptive radiation in sticklebacks: trade-offs in feeding performance and growth. Ecol 76:82–90, doi:10.2307/1940633
Scott WB, Crossman EJ (1973) Freshwater fishes of Canada. Bulletin 184. Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Ottawa, 966 p
Sigursteinsdottir RJ, Kristjansson BK (2005) Parallel evolution, not always so parallel: comparison of small benthic charr, Salvelinus alpinus, from Grismnes and Thingvallavatn, Iceland. Environ Biol Fishes 74:239–244, doi:10.1007/s10641-005-0499-2
Sih A, Bell A, Johnson JC (2004a) Behavioral syndromes: an ecological and evolutionary overview. Trends Ecol Evol 19:372–378, doi:10.1016/j.tree.2004.04.009
Sih A, Bell AM, Johnson JC, Ziemba RE (2004b) Behavioral syndromes: an integrative overview. Q Rev Biol 79:241–277, doi:10.1086/422893
Skulason S, Smith TB (1995) Resource polymorphisms in vertebrates. Trends Ecol Evol 10:366–370, doi:10.1016/S0169-5347(00)89135-1
Skulason S, Noakes DLG, Snorrason SS (1989a) Ontogeny of trophic morphology in four sympatric morphs of arctic char Salvelinus alpinus in Thingvallavatn, Iceland. Biol J Linn Soc 38:281–301, doi:10.1111/j.1095-8312.1989.tb01579.x
Skulason S, Snorrason SS, Noakes DLG, Ferguson MM, Malmquist HJ (1989b) Segregation in spawning and early life history among polymorphic arctic char Salvelinus alpinus in Thingvallavatn, Iceland. J Fish Biol 35A:225–232
Skulason S, Snorrason SS, Jonsson B (1999) Sympatric morphs, populations and speciation in freshwater fish with emphasis on arctic charr. In: AE Magurran AE, May R (eds) Evolution of biological diversity: from population to species. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 70–92
Skulason S, Snorrason SS, Ota D, Noakes DLG (1993) Genetically based differences in foraging behaviour among sympatric morphs of arctic char (Pisces: Salmonidae). Anim Behav 45:1179–1192, doi:10.1006/anbe.1993.1140
Skulason S, Snorrason SS, Noakes DLG, Ferguson MM (1996) Genetic basis of life history variations among sympatric morphs of Arctic charr, Salvelinus alpinus. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 53:1807–1813, doi:10.1139/cjfas-53-8-1807
Snorrason SS, Skúlason S (2004) Adaptive speciation in northern freshwater fish patterns and processes. In: Diekmann U, Metz H, Doebeli M, Tautz D (eds) Adaptive speciation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 210–228
Snorrason SS, Skulason S, Jonsson B, Malmquist HJ, Jonasson PM, Sandlund OT et al (1994) Trophic specialization in arctic char Salvelinus alpinus (Pisces, Salmonidae): morphological divergence and ontogenetic niche shifts. Biol J Linn Soc 52:1–18
Swain DP, Holtby LB (1989) Differences in morphology and behaviour between juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) rearing in a lake and in its tributary stream. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 46:1406–1414
Taylor EB, McPhail JD (1985) Variation in body morphology among British Columbia populations of coho salmon, Oncorhynchus kisutch. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 42:2020–2028
Wilson DS (1999) Adaptive individual differences within single populations. Philos Trans R Soc Lond, B 353:199–205, doi:10.1098/rstb.1998.0202
Wimberger PH (1994) Trophic polymorphisms, plasticity, and speciation in vertebrates. In: Stouder DJ, Fresh KL, Feller RJ (eds) Theory and application in fish feeding ecology. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, pp 19–43
Acknowledgements
Thanks to all who have contributed to the ongoing research program in my laboratory over the years—many are co-authors of references cited herein. My research has been supported by NSERC Canada, Fisheries & Oceans Canada, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, World Wildlife Fund of Canada, Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Ontario Hydro, Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, Rannis (Icelandic Science Foundation), the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and Oregon State University. Craig Blackie gave permission to use his photographs. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 2004 Annual Meeting of the American Fisheries Society, and I benefited from helpful comments and discussion at that occasion. Special thanks to Skuli Skulason, Siggi Snorrason and Bjarni Kristjansson for their comments on the latest version of this manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Noakes, D.L.G. Charr truth: sympatric differentiation in Salvelinus species. Environ Biol Fish 83, 7–15 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10641-008-9379-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10641-008-9379-x