Advertisement

Fluctuating asymmetry of adult Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) otoliths from wild and hatchery origins

  • Alex L. Koeberle
  • Ivan ArismendiEmail author
  • Whitney Crittenden
  • David Leer
  • David L. G. Noakes
Article

Abstract

Fluctuating asymmetry is the non-directional deviations from bilateral symmetry and occurs across organisms. Fish otoliths are often used to test for differences in symmetry as otoliths aid in hearing, homing, and balance. Here, we evaluated the symmetry of otolith pairs in adult Chinook Salmon between wild and hatchery-origin stocks. Pacific salmon are economically and ecologically important to the Pacific Northwest, USA. Chinook Salmon are widely distributed throughout the North Pacific Ocean, yet several wild populations are federally listed as endangered or threatened due to depleted stocks, loss of genetic diversity, and hatchery contribution to wild stocks. As such, fishery managers are concerned with the health and condition of hatchery-origin fish and their impacts on wild populations. We included both hatchery and wild-origin Chinook Salmon from the Coast Mountain and Willamette regions in Oregon as well as hatchery populations from southeast Alaska. We evaluated several metrics to test shape variation and symmetry between the left and right sagittal otoliths. We found consistently more asymmetry in otoliths from hatchery origin than wild Chinook Salmon within seven out of eight total metrics. These results could have conservation and management implications as hatchery-origin Chinook Salmon can reduce pressure from wild stocks while continuing to support commercial and recreational industries.

Keywords

Chinook Salmon Otolith shape Symmetry Wild Hatchery 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank members of the Freshwater Ecology and Conservation Lab for their feedback and laboratory assistance. We thank Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife for their help with hatchery samples including C. Sharpe, S. Richardson, K. Kremers, B. Boyd, D. Peck, and R. Couture. At Oregon State University, P. Konstantinidis B. Gerth, and C. Herron-Seeley provided further laboratory support and B. Jarvis for wild-caught Chinook Salmon. We also thank C. Di Prinzio for help in collecting samples at Willamette Basin hatcheries and a small network of local anglers for wild-caught Chinook Salmon in the Coast Range, Oregon. Undergraduate laboratory assistants M. Fisher, S. Fox, and A. Ehrke provided their time and help with imaging otolith samples. Lastly, we thank J. Miller and K. Puettmann for their feedback on this manuscript. Two anonymous reviewers provided useful comments that improved our manuscript.

References

  1. Aguirre WE (2003) Allometric growth of the sulcus in Cynoscion spp. (Sciaenidae). J Fish Biol 63(5):1341–1346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allenbach DM, Sullivan KB, Lydy MJ (1999) Higher fluctuating asymmetry as a measure of susceptibility to pesticides in fishes. Environ Toxicol Chem 18(5):899–905CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anken RH, Werner K, Ibsch M, Rahmann H (1998) Fish inner ear otolith size and bilateral asymmetry during development. Hear Res 121(1–2):77–83PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blacker RW (1974) Recent advances in otolith studies. Sea Fish Res 67–90Google Scholar
  5. Campana SE (1999) Chemistry and composition of fish otoliths: pathways, mechanisms and applications. Mar Ecol Progr Ser 188:263–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Campana SE (2005) Otolith science entering the 21st century. Mar Freshw Res 56(5):485–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Campana SE, Casselman JM (1993) Stock discrimination using otolith shape analysis. Canad J Fish Aquat Sci 50(5):1062–1083CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Campana SE, Neilson JD (1985) Microstructure of fish otoliths. Canad J Fish Aquat Sci 42(5):1014–1032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Campana SE, Thorrold SR (2001) Otoliths, increments, and elements: keys to a comprehensive understanding of fish populations? Canad J Fish Aquat Sci 58(1):30–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chilcote MW, Goodson KW, Falcy MR (2011) Reduced recruitment performance in natural populations of anadromous salmonids associated with hatchery-reared fish. Canad J Fish Aquat Sci 68(3):511–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cogliati KM, Unrein JR, Schreck CB, Noakes DL (2019) Rearing environment affects spatial learning in juvenile Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha. J Fish Biol 95(3):870–880PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Davidson FA, Hutchinson SJ (1938) The geographic distribution and environmental limitations of the Pacific Salmon (genus Oncorhynchus). US Government Printing OfficeGoogle Scholar
  13. El-Mahdy SM, Osman YA, Mohammad AS, Mehanna SF (2019) Fluctuating asymmetry in otolith morphology of sabre squirrelfish, Sargocentron spiniferum (Forsskål, 1775) from the red sea. Egypt. Int J Fish Aquat Stud 7(3):188–191Google Scholar
  14. Eriksen MS, Espmark ÅM, Poppe T, Braastad BO, Salte R, Bakken M (2008) Fluctuating asymmetry in farmed Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) juveniles: also a maternal matter? Environ Biol Fish 81(1):87–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fagerlund UHM, McBride JR, Stone ET (1981) Stress-related effects of hatchery rearing density on Coho salmon. Trans Am Fish Soc 110(5):644–649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gauldie RW (1996) Effects of temperature and vaterite replacement on the chemistry of metal ions in the otoliths of Oncorhynchus tshawytscha. Canad J Fish Aquat Sci 53(9):2015–2026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gauldie RW, Nelson DGA (1990) Otolith growth in fishes. Comp Biochem Physiol Part A Physiol 97(2):119–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gustafson RG, Waples RS, Myers JM, Weitkamp LA, Bryant GJ, Johnson OW, Hard JJ (2007) Pacific salmon extinctions: quantifying lost and remaining diversity. Conserv Biol 21(4):1009–1020PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Healey M (1991) Life history of Chinook salmon. In: Groot C, Margolis L (eds) Pacific salmon life histories. UBC Press, VancouverGoogle Scholar
  20. Kareiva P, Marvier M, McClure M (2000) Recovery and management options for spring/summer Chinook salmon in the Columbia River Basin. Science 290(5493):977–979PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Kostow KE, Zhou S (2006) The effect of an introduced summer steelhead hatchery stock on the productivity of a wild winter Steelhead population. Trans Am Fish Soc 135(3):825–841CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. L'Abée-Lund JH (1988) Otolith shape discriminates between juvenile Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L., and Brown trout, Salmo trutta L. J Fish Biol 33(6):899–903CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Leary RF, Allendorf FW (1989) Fluctuating asymmetry as an indicator of stress: implications for conservation biology. Trends Ecol Evol 4(7):214–217PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Libungan LA, Pálsson S (2015) ShapeR: an R package to study otolith shape variation among fish populations. PLoS ONE 10(3):e0121102PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lombarte A, Lleonart J (1993) Otolith size changes related with body growth, habitat depth and temperature. Environ Biol Fish 37(3):297–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lychakov DV, Rebane YT (2005) Fish otolith mass asymmetry: morphometry and influence on acoustic functionality. Hear Res 201(1–2):55–69PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. Lychakov DV, Rebane YT, Lombarte A, Fuiman LA, Takabayashi A (2006) Fish otolith asymmetry: morphometry and modeling. Hear Res 219(1–2):1–11PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. McClure MM, Anderson JH, Pess GR, Cooney TD, Carmichael RW, Baldwin CM, Hesse JA, Weitkamp LA, Holzer DM, Sheer MB, Lindley ST (2018) Anadromous salmonid reintroductions: general planning principles for long-term viability and recovery. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS NWFSC-141Google Scholar
  29. McElhany P, Rucklelshaus MH, Ford MJ, Wainwright TC, Bjorkstedt EP (2000) Viable salmonid populations and the recovery of evolutionarily significant units. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-42Google Scholar
  30. Merilä J, Björklund M (1995) Fluctuating asymmetry and measurement error. Syst Biol 44(1):97–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Miller JA, Simestad CA (1994) Otolith microstructure preparation, analysis, and interpretation: procedures for a potential habitat assessment methodology. Fisheries Research Institute, School of Fisheries, University of Washington, SeattleGoogle Scholar
  32. Miller JA, Bellinger MR, Golden JT, Fujishin L, Banks MA (2010) Integration of natural and artificial markers in a mixed stock analysis of Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Fish Res 102(1–2):152–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Moran P, Teel DJ, Banks MA, Beacham TD, Bellinger MR, Blankenship SM, Candy JR, Garza JC, Hess JE, Narum SR, Seeb LW (2012) Divergent life-history races do not represent Chinook salmon coast-wide: the importance of scale in Quaternary biogeography. Canad J Fish Aquat Sci 70(3):415–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Morat F, Betoulle S, Robert M, Thailly AF, Biagianti-Risbourg S, Lecomte Finiger R (2008) What can otolith examination tell us about the level of perturbations of Salmonid fish from the Kerguelen Islands? Ecol Freshw Fish 17(4):617–627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Murphy CA, Arismendi I, Taylor GA, Johnson SL (2019) Evidence for lasting alterations to aquatic food webs with short-duration reservoir draining. PLoS ONE 14(2):e0211870PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Myers JM, Kope RG, Bryant GJ, Teel D, Leirheimer LJ, Wainwright TC, Grant WS, Waknitz FW, Neely K, Lindley ST, Waples RS (1998) Status review of chinook salmon from Washington, Idaho, Oregon and California, 443. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-35Google Scholar
  37. Olla BL, Davis MW, Ryer CH (1998) Understanding how the hatchery environment represses or promotes the development of behavioral survival skills. Bull Mar Sci 62(2):531–550Google Scholar
  38. Oxman DS, Barnett-Johnson R, Smith ME, Coffin A, Miller DL, Josephson R, Popper AN (2007) The effect of vaterite deposition on sound reception, otolith morphology, and inner ear sensory epithelia in hatchery-reared Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Canad J Fish Aquat Sci 64(11):1469–1478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Palmer AR, Strobeck C (1986) Fluctuating asymmetry: measurement, analysis, patterns. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 17(1):391–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pannella G (1971) Fish otoliths: daily growth layers and periodical patterns. Science 173(4002):1124–1127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Platt C, Popper AN (1981) Fine structure and function of the ear. Hearing and sound communication in fishes. Springer, New York, pp 3–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pollock AM, Kamran M, Dittman AH, Johnson MA, Noakes DL (2019) Within-river straying: sex and size influence recovery location of hatchery Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Canad J Fish Aquat Sci.  https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfas-2018-0384 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Popper AN, Coombs S (1980) Auditory mechanisms in teleost fishes: significant variations in both hearing capabilities and auditory structures are found among species of bony fishes. Am Sci 68(4):429–440Google Scholar
  44. Popper AN, Fay RR, Platt C, Sand O (2003) Sound detection mechanisms and capabilities of teleost fishes. Sensory processing in aquatic environments. Springer, New York, pp 3–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Quinn TP (2018) The behavior and ecology of Pacific salmon and trout. University of Washington Press, SeattleGoogle Scholar
  46. Quinn TP, Fresh K (1984) Homing and straying in chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) from Cowlitz River Hatchery. Washington. Canad J Fish Aquat Sci 41(7):1078–1082CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Reimer T, Dempster T, Warren-Myers F, Jensen AJ, Swearer SE (2016) High prevalence of vaterite in sagittal otoliths causes hearing impairment in farmed fish. Sci Rep 6:25249PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Schreck CB (1982) Stress and rearing of salmonids. Aquaculture 28(1–2):241–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Schulz-Mirbach T, Ladich F, Plath M, Heß M (2019) Enigmatic ear stones: what we know about the functional role and evolution of fish otoliths. Biol Rev 94(2):457–482PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Secor DH, Dean JM, Laban EH (1992) Otolith removal and preparation for microstructural examination. Otolith microstructure examination and analysis. Canad Spec Publ Fish Aquat Sci 117:19–57Google Scholar
  51. Seeb LW, Antonovich A, Banks MA, Beacham TD, Bellinger MR, Blankenship SM, Campbell MR, Decovich NA, Garza JC, Guthrie CMI, Lundrigan TA (2007) Development of a standardized DNA database for Chinook salmon. Fisheries 32(11):540–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sheer MB, Steel EA (2006) Lost watersheds: barriers, aquatic habitat connectivity, and salmon persistence in the Willamette and Lower Columbia River basins. Trans Am Fish Soc 135(6):1654–1669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Somarakis S, Kostikas I, Tsimenides N (1997) Fluctuating asymmetry in the otoliths of larval fish as an indicator of condition: conceptual and methodological aspects. J Fish Biol 51:30–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sweeting RM, Beamish RJ, Neville CM (2004) Crystalline otoliths in teleosts: comparisons between hatchery and wild coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) in the Strait of Georgia. Rev Fish Biol Fish 14(3):361–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Tuset VM, Imondi R, Aguado G, Otero-Ferrer JL, Santschi L, Lombarte A, Love M (2015) Otolith patterns of rockfishes from the Northeastern Pacific. J Morphol 276(4):458–469PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Valen LV (1962) A study of fluctuating asymmetry. Evolution 16(2):125–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Volpedo A, Echeverría DD (2003) Ecomorphological patterns of the sagitta in fish on the continental shelf off Argentine. Fish Res 60(2–3):551–560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wessel ML, Smoker WW, Joyce JE (2006) Variation of morphology among juvenile Chinook salmon of hatchery, hybrid, and wild origin. Trans Am Fish Soc 135(2):333–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Woodward CC, Strange RJ (1987) Physiological stress responses in wild and hatchery reared Rainbow trout. Trans Am Fish Soc 116(45):574–579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Yoshiyama RM, Fisher FW, Moyle PB (1998) Historical abundance and decline of Chinook salmon in the Central Valley region of California. N A J Fish Manag 18(3):487–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Zhang Z, Beamish RJ, Riddell BE (1995) Differences in otolith microstructure between hatchery-reared and wild Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Canad J Fish Aquat Sci 52(2):344–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Fisheries and WildlifeOregon State UniversityCorvallisUSA
  2. 2.Southern Southeast Regional Aquaculture AssociationKetchikanUSA
  3. 3.Oregon Hatchery Research CenterAlseaUSA

Personalised recommendations