The Mac & Jack study: Size and domestication effects on minijack rates of summer Chinook salmon from McCall Fish Hatchery, Idaho.

Transcription

1 The Mac & Jack study: Size and domestication effects on minijack rates of summer Chinook salmon from McCall Fish Hatchery, Idaho. Deb Harstad 1 *, Don Larsen 1, Abby Fuhrman 1, Dina Spangenberg 1, Chris 1 Kozfkay 2, Brian Beckman 1 2

2 Spawning - Fall Fry Parr Microjack: age 1 males Age-5 (M & F) Age-4 (M & F) Minijack Maturation Jack (M) Smolting Spring Ocean Rearing Chinook Salmon Yearling Life History

3 Critical Periods in Maturation Decision S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M fry smolt Adapted from P. Swanson Silverstein et al. 1998, CJFAS Shearer and Swanson 2000, Aquaculture Campbell et al. 2003, Biol. Repro. Larsen et al. 2004, TAFS Shearer et al. 2006, Aquaculture. Swanson et al. unpublished.

4 Critical Periods in Maturation Decision Critical Period: Age 2 Maturation S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M fry smolt Adapted from P. Swanson Silverstein et al. 1998, CJFAS Shearer and Swanson 2000, Aquaculture Campbell et al. 2003, Biol. Repro. Larsen et al. 2004, TAFS Shearer et al. 2006, Aquaculture. Swanson et al. unpublished.

5 Critical Periods in Maturation Decision meiosis Critical Period: Age 2 Maturation S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M fry smolt Adapted from P. Swanson Sexually mature minijack Silverstein et al. 1998, CJFAS Shearer and Swanson 2000, Aquaculture Campbell et al. 2003, Biol. Repro. Larsen et al. 2004, TAFS Shearer et al. 2006, Aquaculture. Swanson et al. unpublished.

6 Critical Periods in Maturation Decision meiosis meiosis meiosis Critical Period: Age 2 Maturation Critical Period: Age 3 Maturation Critical Period: Age 4 Maturation S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M fry smolt Adapted from P. Swanson Sexually mature minijack Sexually mature jack Silverstein et al. 1998, CJFAS Shearer and Swanson 2000, Aquaculture Campbell et al. 2003, Biol. Repro. Larsen et al. 2004, TAFS Shearer et al. 2006, Aquaculture. Swanson et al. unpublished.

7 Minijack (MJ) rates from Columbia River and Snake River basins: WA & OR 12% 33% 23% 10% 56% 11% 21% 17% 41% 20% Mean MJ rates: Spring Chinook* = 32% (BYs ) Summer Chinook* = 19% (BYs ) 25% 60% 58% *Yearlings 36% Harstad et al. 2014

8 MJ rates from Snake River basin: ID 17% 35% 25% 23% 21 30% % 17% Brood Years : -Rapid River Hatchery -McCall Hatchery -Pahsimeroi Hatchery -Sawtooth Hatchery Spring/Summer Chinook Mean MJ rates = 24.6%

9 Minijack rate is related to growth/size: Integrated vs. Segregated Programs 100 Integrated programs (INT) 80 % Minijacks Length at release (mm) Harstad et al. 2014

10 Minijack rate is related to growth/size: Integrated vs. Segregated Programs 100 Integrated programs (INT) % Minijacks Segregated programs (SEG) Length at release (mm) Harstad et al. 2014

11 % Minijacks Minijack rate is related to growth/size: Integrated vs. Segregated Programs Harstad et al Integrated programs (INT) Segregated programs (SEG) Length at release (mm) % Minijacks **** INT SEG Length (mm) INT **** SEG

12 Threshold trait continuous distribution of factors that contribute to a trait (i.e. size, growth rate, lipid level)

13 Phenotype Threshold trait Yes XXXXXX XX X X XX X X X No X X X X X X X XXXX XXX Length

14 Phenotype Threshold trait Yes XXXXXX XX X X XX X X X No X X X X X X X XXXX XXX Length

15 Phenotype Threshold trait If you exceed a threshold, than you will develop the trait Yes XXXXXX XX X X XX X X X NO Yes! No X X X X X X X XXXX XXX Length

16 Phenotype Threshold trait Yes XXXXXX XX X X XX X X X The higher the threshold, the fewer Yeses you get No X X X X X X X XXXX XXX Length

17 Phenotype Threshold trait Yes XXXXXX XX X X XX X X X The higher the threshold, the fewer Yeses you get No X X X X X X X XXXX XXX Both genetics and environment can affect this (i.e. size, growth rate, lipid level) relationship

18 Probability Reaction Norm: Often this relationship is Response variable = binomial not just an on/off switch (Yes) 1 x x x x x x x x xxxx xx xx xx x xx x (No) 0 x x xxx x xx x xxxx xx xx xx x x Length

19 Probability Reaction Norm: Often this relationship is Response variable = binomial not just an on/off switch (Yes) 1 x x x x x x x x xxxx xx xx xx x xx x (No) 0 x x xxx x xx x xxxx xx xx xx x x Length

20 Probability Reaction Norm: Often this relationship is Response variable = binomial not just an on/off switch (Yes) 1 x x x x x x x x xxxx xx xx xx x xx x Midpoint = 50% probability of maturation (No) 0 x x xxx x xx x xxxx xx xx xx x x Length

21 Probability Reaction Norm: Often this relationship is Response variable = binomial not just an on/off switch (Yes) 1 x x x x x x x x xxxx xx xx xx x xx x The higher the threshold, the fewer Yeses you get (No) 0 x x xxx x xx x xxxx xx xx xx x x Length

22 Example: Reaction Norm Approach to Maturation

23 Example: Reaction Norm Approach to Maturation Atlantic Salmon and early male maturation (parr) Common garden experiment (controlled environment) 4 populations + hybrid crosses to test population differences in early male maturation

24 Male parr maturity Example: Reaction Norm Approach to Maturation Different populations had different reaction norms Hybrid populations were intermediate of their original populations

25 Male parr maturity Example: Reaction Norm Approach to Maturation Results = There is a genetic basis for this relationship

26 We wanted to apply this technique to studying Chinook Salmon: Mature males Age 2 precocious maturation closer to home Reaction Norms (via logistic regression analysis) is a tool that we can use to compare thresholds for different populations/genetic groups

27 Mac & Jack Study Objectives: 1. Can we demonstrate genetic difference in early male maturation (INT vs. SEG)

28 Mac & Jack Study Objectives: 1. Can we demonstrate genetic difference in early male maturation (INT vs. SEG) 2. Can we demonstrate environmental effects on early male maturation (Feed Treatments)

29 Mac & Jack Study Objectives: 1. Can we demonstrate genetic difference in early male maturation (INT vs. SEG) 2. Can we demonstrate environmental effects on early male maturation (Feed Treatments) 3. Does competition play a role (interaction between genetics and environment)

30 Mac & Jack Study Objectives: 1. Can we demonstrate genetic difference in early male maturation (INT vs. SEG) 2. Can we demonstrate environmental effects on early male maturation (Feed Treatments) 3. Does competition play a role (interaction between genetics and environment) Bonus: Can we use reaction norms to assess the critical period in maturation decision

31 McCall Hatchery Summer Chinook (Yearlings) segregated [(SEG), H x H] integrated [(INT); N x N; H x N] McCall

32 McCall Hatchery Summer Chinook (Yearlings) segregated [(SEG), H x H] integrated [(INT); N x N; H x N] Eyed-eggs were collected Fall 2014 Transported to Seattle, WA Incubated NOAA/NWFSC McCall

33 Rearing Facilities NOAA, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Seattle

34 Experiment Timeline: P 3 March, 2015 Total rearing time from ponding was 14 months T0 T1 Fish were reared on ambient photoperiod T2 TF 2-5 May, 2016

35 Ponding (P): 3 March P SEG SEG 4 8-ft recirculating tanks at 10 C T0 T1 2 replicates/g enetic line T2 INT INT 600+ fish/tank TF

36 26 August (T0): PIT tagging P T0 T1 T2 TF All fish were implanted with a PIT tag Length & Weight recorded

37 26 August (T0): Feed Treatments Began Low Feed = 33% of High Feed ration through winter solstice P T0 T1 T2 300 LOW FEED (600) HIGH FEED (600) LOW FEED (600) HIGH FEED (600) 2 replicate tanks/feed treatment SEG & INT fish mixed in each tank TF

38 9 Nov (T1) & 26 Jan (T2): Individual P Size checks T0 T1 T2 TF

39 2-5 May (TF): Assessing minijacks P T0 T1 T2 TF Gonads were visually inspected to determine maturation status All fish were scanned for PIT Individual size recorded

40 Growth rates of individual fish P Specific Growth Rate = ln(wt 2 - WT 1 )/(t 2 - t 1 )*100 T0 T1 T2 TF 1: Aug - Nov 2: Nov - Jan 3: Jan - May

41 Weight (g) Size & Condition Factor Aug Nov Jan May SEG LOW SEG HIGH INT LOW INT HIGH

42 Weight (g) Size & Condition Factor Aug Nov Jan May * SEG LOW SEG HIGH INT LOW INT HIGH

43 Weight (g) Condition Factor Size & Condition Factor * Aug Nov Jan May 0.9 Aug Nov Jan May SEG LOW SEG HIGH INT LOW INT HIGH

44 Weight (g) Condition Factor Size & Condition Factor High feed > Low feed during the fall * Aug Nov Jan May 0.9 Aug Nov Jan May SEG LOW SEG HIGH INT LOW INT HIGH

45 Weight (g) Condition Factor Size & Condition Factor High feed > Low feed during the fall INT fish had higher condition * Aug Nov Jan May 0.9 Aug Nov Jan May SEG LOW SEG HIGH INT LOW INT HIGH

46 SGR Specific Growth Rate (% change in WT/day) 3 Aug - Nov **** 2 *** 1 0 SEG_Low INT_Low SEG_High INT_High

47 SGR Specific Growth Rate (% change in WT/day) 3 Aug - Nov **** 3 Nov - Jan 2 2 * *** SEG_Low INT_Low SEG_High INT_High 0 SEG_Low INT_Low SEG_High INT_High

48 SGR Specific Growth Rate (% change in WT/day) 3 Aug - Nov **** 3 Nov - Jan 3 Jan - May **** 2 2 * 2 * *** SEG_Low INT_Low SEG_High INT_High 0 SEG_Low INT_Low SEG_High INT_High 0 SEG_Low INT_Low SEG_High INT_High

49 Environmental and genetic influences on early male maturation Minijack rate (%)50 Seg_Low 43% 44% 22% 13% INT_Low SEG_High INT_High

50 Environmental and genetic influences on early male maturation Logit [MATURITY] = FEED + GENETIC LINE Minijack rate (%)50 Seg_Low 43% 44% 22% 13% INT_Low SEG_High INT_High 1. FEED (Coef. = 1.27, P = 0.000) 2. GENETIC LINE (Coef. = 0.28, P = 0.037)

51 Environmental and genetic influences on early male maturation Logit [MATURITY] = FEED + GENETIC LINE Minijack rate (%)50 Seg_Low 43% 44% 22% 13% INT_Low SEG_High INT_High 1. FEED (Coef. = 1.27, P = 0.000) 2. GENETIC LINE (Coef. = 0.28, P = 0.037) FEED X GENETIC LINE is significant (P = 0.045)

52 Probability of Maturation Genetic effect on threshold? INT-line fish tended to have slightly lower threshold in both feed groups High Feed: INT SEG May Length (mm)

53 Probability of Maturation Genetic effect on threshold? INT-line fish tended to have slightly lower threshold in both feed groups High Feed: Low Feed: INT SEG INT SEG May Length (mm)

54 Probability of Maturation Within brood line comparison: High and Low Feed treatments have the same parents so why do they look different? e.g. Integrated: Low High May Length (mm)

55 Probability of Maturation Within brood line comparison: High and Low Feed treatments have the same parents so why do they look different? e.g. Integrated: Low High Differences in growth that happened after the critical window can affect this May Length (mm)

56 Probability of Maturation Within brood line comparison: High and Low Feed treatments have the same parents so why do they look different? e.g. Integrated: Low High Example: High feed fish had higher growth which shifted the apparent threshold to the right May Length (mm)

57 Probability of Maturation Within brood line comparison: High and Low Feed treatments have the same parents so why do they look different? e.g. Integrated: Low High Hypothesis: during the critical decision window, these two reaction norms should appear the same May Length (mm)

58 Probability of Maturation Timing of critical window for Maturation: e.g. Integrated: When LP50 High = LP50 Low AUGUST * High < Low LENGTH (mm)

59 Probability of Maturation Timing of critical window for Maturation: e.g. Integrated: When LP50 High = LP50 Low AUGUST NOVEMBER * High < Low NS Low = High LENGTH (mm)

60 Probability of Maturation Timing of critical window for Maturation: e.g. Integrated: When LP50 High = LP50 Low AUGUST NOVEMBER FEBRUARY * High < Low Low = High Low High NS NS LENGTH (mm)

61 Probability of Maturation Timing of critical window for Maturation: e.g. Integrated: When LP50 High = LP50 Low AUGUST NOVEMBER FEBRUARY * High < Low Low = High Low High NS NS LENGTH (mm)

62 Minijacks (%) Conclusions Objective 1: The level of domestication had an effect on minijack rate % 34% 0 SEG INT

63 Minijacks (%) Minijacks (%) Conclusions Objective 1: The level of domestication had an effect on minijack rate % 34% Objective 2: Feed treatment had the greatest influence on minijack rate SEG 18% INT 47% 10 0 LOW HIGH

64 Minijacks (%) Minijacks (%) Conclusions Objective 1: The level of domestication had an effect on minijack rate % 34% Objective 2: Feed treatment had the greatest influence on minijack rate SEG 18% INT 47% 10 LOW Objective 3: The INT line had higher growth rates that SEG line at low feed, suggesting a potential advantage to the INT line in competing for resources. 0 HIGH

65 Minijacks (%) Minijacks (%) Conclusions Objective 1: The level of domestication had an effect on minijack rate % 34% Objective 2: Feed treatment had the greatest influence on minijack rate SEG 18% INT 47% 10 LOW Objective 3: The INT line had higher growth rates that SEG line at low feed, suggesting a potential advantage to the INT line in competing for resources. Bonus: Tracking thresholds across time provides further evidence that the fall may be a critical window for initiation of minijack maturation. 0 HIGH

66 Cheers! Special thanks to: Shelly Nance, NOAA Meredith Journey, NOAA McCall Hatchery for donating eggs