Advertisement

A quantitative genetic analysis of life-history traits and lifetime reproductive success in reintroduced Chinook salmon

  • Melissa L. EvansEmail author
  • Jeffrey J. Hard
  • Andrew N. Black
  • Nicholas M. Sard
  • Kathleen G. O’Malley
Research Article

Abstract

Reintroductions are widely implemented as a means of reestablishing wild populations and genetic parentage methods can be used in concert with these efforts to monitor and evaluate efficacy. In addition to understanding demographic outcomes, reconstructed pedigrees, when combined with phenotypic data, can provide insight into the adaptive potential of reintroduced individuals. Here, we examined the heritability and evolvability of life-history traits and lifetime reproductive success in two threatened Chinook salmon populations undergoing reintroduction to historical habitats above dams in Oregon, USA, using previously-developed multigenerational genetic pedigrees. All of the examined life-history traits: length-at-maturity, age-at-maturity, and arrival timing to the spawning grounds, and lifetime reproductive success exhibited significant narrow-sense heritabilities and evolvabilities. There was also a detectable influence of parental effects (i.e., paternal or maternal effects) on life-history trait variation, suggesting that in addition to genetic effects, nongenetic inheritance mechanisms are influencing life-history diversity in the populations. Additionally, our analyses revealed evidence of natural selection on the date of reintroduction, although the form and intensity of selection differed between the two populations; the forms of selection also point to the potential for phenotype-environment mismatch under some conditions. Overall, our results suggest that these threatened Chinook salmon populations exhibit significant adaptive potential, a factor that should be important to the longer-term success of recovery efforts.

Keywords

Chinook salmon Life-history evolution Heritability Natural selection Parental effects Animal model 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Thanks to the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the collection of tissue samples, arrival timing, and body length data on reintroduced spring-run Chinook salmon in the Upper Willamette River Basin. We also thank Dave Jacobson for his assistance with microsatellite genotyping on the earlier genetic pedigree study and Mike Ford, Jim Myers, and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on the manuscript.

Supplementary material

10592_2019_1174_MOESM1_ESM.docx (34 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 33 KB)

References

  1. Abadia-Cardoso A, Anderson EC, Pearse DE, Garza J (2013) Large-scale parentage analysis reveals reproductive patterns and heritability of spawn timing in a hatchery population of steelhead. Mol Ecol 22:4733–4746.  https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.12426 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Araki H, Cooper B, Blouin MS (2009) Carry-over effect of captive breeding reduces reproductive fitness of wild-born descendants in the wild. Biol Lett 5:621–624.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2009.0315 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Armstrong DP, Seddon PJ (2008) Directions in reintroduction biology. Trends Ecol Evol 23:20–25.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2007.10.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Banks MA, Sard NM, O’Malley KG et al (2015) A genetics-based evaluation of the spring Chinook salmon reintroduction program above Cougar Dam, South Fork McKenzie River, 2007–2015. Portland, ORGoogle Scholar
  5. Brooks SP, Gelman A (1998) General methods for monitoring convergence of iterative simulations. J Comput Graph Stat 7:434–455.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10618600.1998.10474787 Google Scholar
  6. Carlson SM, Seamons TR (2008) SYNTHESIS: A review of quantitative genetic components of fitness in salmonids: implications for adaptation to future change. Evol Appl 1:222–238.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-4571.2008.00025.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Christie MR, Marine ML, French RA, Blouin MS (2012) Genetic adaptation to captivity can occur in a single generation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109:238–242.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1111073109 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edn. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, HillsdaleGoogle Scholar
  9. Dahl J, Dannewitz J, Karlsson L et al (2004) The timing of spawning migration: implications of environmental variation, life history, and sex. Can J Zool 82:1864–1870.  https://doi.org/10.1139/z04-184 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. de Villemereuil P, Schielzeth H, Nakagawa S, Morrissey M (2016) General methods for evolutionary quantitative genetic inference from generalized mixed models. Genetics 204:1281 LP–L1294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dickerson B, Willson MF, Bentzen P, Quinn TP (2005) Heritability of life history and morphological traits in a wild pink salmon population assessed by DNA parentage analysis. Trans Am Fish Soc 134:1323–1328.  https://doi.org/10.1577/T04-006.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Evans ML, Neff BD, Heath DD (2013) Behavioural and genetic analyses of mate choice and reproductive success in two Chinook salmon populations. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 270:263–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Evans ML, Johnson MA, Jacobson DP et al (2016) Evaluating a multi-generational reintroduction program for threatened salmon using genetic parentage analysis. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 73:844–852CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fox CW, Bush ML, Wallin WG (2003) Maternal age affects offspring lifespan of the seed beetle, Callosobruchus maculatus. Funct Ecol 17:811–820.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2435.2003.00799.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fraser DJ (2008) How well can captive breeding programs conserve biodiversity? A review of salmonids. Evol Appl 1:535–586.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-4571.2008.00036.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gillespie JH, Turelli M (1989) Genotype-environment interactions and the maintenance of polygenic variation. Genetics 121:129–138.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12441 Google Scholar
  17. Goodnight CJ (1987) Epistasis and the effect of founder events on the additive genetic variance. Evolution 42:441–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Griffith B, Scott J, Carpenter J, Reed C (1989) Translocation as a species conservation tool: status and strategy. Science 245:477–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gross MR (1985) Disruptive selection for alternative life histories in salmon. Nature 313:47–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gustafsson L (1986) Lifetime reproductive success and heritability: empirical support for Fisher’s Fundamental Theorem. Am Nat 128:761–764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hadfield JD (2010) MCMC methods for multi-response generalized linear mixed models: the MCMCglmm R package. J Stat Softw 33:1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hankin DG, Nicholas W, Downey TW (1993) Evidence for inheritance of age of maturity in Chinook salmon. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 50:347–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hankin DG, Fitzgibbons J, Chen Y (2009) Unnatural random mating policies select for younger age at maturity in hatchery Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) populations. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 66:1505–1521.  https://doi.org/10.1139/F09-085 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hansen TF, Pélabon C, Houle D (2011) Heritability is not evolvability. Evol Biol 38:258–277.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11692-011-9127-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hard JJ (2004) Evolution of Chinook salmon life history under size-selective harvest. In: Hendry AP, Stearns SC (eds) Evolution illuminated: Salmon and their relatives. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 315–337Google Scholar
  26. Hard JJ, Gross MR, Heino M, Synthesis et al (2008) Evolutionary consequences of fishing and their implications for salmon. Evol Appl 1:388–408.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-4571.2008.00020.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Heath DD, Fox CW, Heath JW (1999) Maternal effects on offspring size: variation through early development of Chinook salmon. Evolution 53:1605–1611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Heidelberger P, Welch PD (1983) Simulation run length control in the presence of an initial transient. Oper Res 31:1109–1144.  https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.31.6.1109 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Heino M, Díaz Pauli B, Dieckmann U (2015) Fisheries-induced evolution. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 46:461–480.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-112414-054339 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Henderson ACR (1975) Best linear unbiased estimation and prediction under a selection model. Biometrics 31:423–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Henderson CR (1984) Applications of linear models in animal breeding models. University of Guelph, GuelphGoogle Scholar
  32. Hicks JF, Rachlow JL, Rhodes OE et al (2007) Reintroduction and genetic structure: Rocky Mountain elk in Yellowstone and the western states. J Mammol 88:129–138.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.95.2469.427-b CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hoffmann AA, Merilä J, Kristensen TN (2016) Heritability and evolvability of fitness and nonfitness traits: lessons from livestock. Evolution 70:1770–1779.  https://doi.org/10.1111/evo.12992 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hughes A, Inouye BD, Johnson MTJ et al (2008) Ecological consequences of genetic diversity. Ecol Lett 11:609–623.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01179.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Johnson MA, Friesen TA (2013) Age at maturity, fork length, and sex ratio of Upper Willamette River hatchery spring Chinook salmon. North Am J Fish Manag 33:318–328.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02755947.2012.760503 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Johnson MA, Friesen TA (2014) Genetic diversity and population structure of spring Chinook salmon from the Upper Willamette River, Oregon. North Am J Fish Manag 34:853–862.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02755947.2014.920739 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jones OR, Wang J (2010) COLONY: a program for parentage and sibship inference from multilocus genotype data. Mol Ecol Resour 10:551–555.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-0998.2009.02787.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kalinowski ST, Taper ML, Marshall TC (2007) Revising how the computer program CERVUS accommodates genotyping error increases success in paternity assignment. Mol Ecol 16:1099–1106.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2007.03089.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kendall NW, Hard JJ, Quinn TP (2009) Quantifying six decades of fishery selection for size and age at maturity in sockeye salmon. Evol Appl 2:523–536.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-4571.2009.00086.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kettle C, Ennos R, Jaffré T et al (2008) Cryptic genetic bottlenecks during restoration of an endangered tropical conifer. Biol Conserv 141:1953–1961.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.05.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kinnison MT, Quinn TP, Unwin MJ (2011) Correlated contemporary evolution of life history traits in New Zealand Chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha. Heredity 106:448–459.  https://doi.org/10.1038/hdy.2010.162 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kodama M, Hard JJ, Naish KA (2012) Temporal variation in selection on body length and date of return in a wild population of coho salmon, Oncorhynchus kisutch. BMC Evol Biol 12:1–12.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2148-12-116 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kruuk LEB (2004) Estimating genetic parameters in natural populations using the “animal model”. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B 359:873–890.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2003.1437 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kruuk LEB, Hadfield JD (2007) How to separate genetic and environmental causes of similarity between relatives. J Evol Biol 20:1890–1903.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2007.01377.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kruuk LEB, Clutton-Brock TH, Slate J et al (2000) Heritability of fitness in a wild mammal population. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 97:698–703.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.97.2.698 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kruuk LEB, Slate J, Wilson AJ (2008) New answers for old questions: the evolutionary quantitative genetics of wild animal populations. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 39:525–548.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.39.110707.173542 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kuparinen A, Hutchings JA (2016) Genetic architecture of age at maturity can generate either directional or divergent and disruptive harvest-induced evolution. Philos Trans R Soc B 372:20160035.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2016.0035 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Le Luyer J, Laporte M, Beacham TD et al (2017) Parallel epigenetic modifications induced by hatchery rearing in a Pacific salmon. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 114:12964–12969.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1711229114 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Leberg PL (1993) Strategies for population reintroduction; effects of genetic variability on population growth and size. Conserv Biol 7:194–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lin JE, Hard JJ, Naish KA et al (2016) It’s a bear market: Evolutionary and ecological effects of predation on two wild sockeye salmon populations. Heredity 116:447–457.  https://doi.org/10.1038/hdy.2016.3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. McClure M, Anderson J, Pess G et al (2018) Anadromous salmonid reintroductions: general planning for long-term viability and recoveryGoogle Scholar
  52. Morbey YE (2002) Protandry models and their application to salmon. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 13:337–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Murphy AD, Goedert D, Morris MR (2014) Maternal effects are long-lasting and influence female offspring’s reproductive strategy in the swordtail fish Xiphophorus multilineatus. J Evol Biol 27:1613–1622.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jeb.12414 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. O’Malley KG, Evans ML, Johnson MA et al (2015) Genetic parentage analysis of spring Chinook salmon on the South Santiam River. Technical report submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineeers. Portland, ORGoogle Scholar
  55. Quinn TP, Unwin MJ, Kinnison MT (2000) Evolution of temporal isolation in the wild: genetic divergence in timing of migration and breeding by introduced Chinook salmon populations. Evolution 54:1372–1385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Quinn TP, Peterson J, Gallucci V et al (2002) Artificial selection and environmental change: countervailing factors affecting the timing of spawning by coho and Chinook salmon. Trans Am Fish Soc 131:591–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Quinn TP, Hodgson S, Flynn L et al (2007) Directional selection by fisheries and the timing of sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) migrations. Ecol Appl 17:731–739CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Radwan J, Babik W (2012) The genomics of adaptation. Proc R Soc London Ser B 279:5024–5028.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2012.2322 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Reed DH, Frankham R (2001) How closely correlated are molecular and quantitative measures of genetic variation? A meta-analysis. Evolution 55:1095–1103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Reed DH, Frankham R (2003) Correlation between fitness and genetic diversity. Conserv Biol 17:230–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Reid JM, Arcese P, Sardell RJ, Keller LF (2011) Additive genetic variance, heritability, and inbreeding depression in male extra-pair reproductive success. Am Nat 177:177–187.  https://doi.org/10.1086/657977 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Roff DA, Mousseau TA (1987) Quantitative genetics and fitness: lessons from drosophila. Heredity 58:103–118.  https://doi.org/10.1038/hdy.1987.15 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Sard NM, O’Malley KG, Jacobson DP et al (2015) Factors influencing spawner success in a spring Chinook salmon reintroduction program. Can J Fish Aquat Sci.  https://doi.org/10.1152/ajpendo.00061.2008 Google Scholar
  64. Sard NM, Johnson MA, Jacobson DP et al (2016) Genetic monitoring guides adaptive management of a migratory fish reintroduction program. Anim Conserv 19:570–577.  https://doi.org/10.1111/acv.12278 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Seamons TR, Bentzen P, Quinn TP (2004) The effects of adult length and arrival date on individual reproductive success in wild steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Can J Fish Aquat Sci 204:193–204.  https://doi.org/10.1139/F03-158 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Seddon PJ, Armstrong DP, Maloney RF (2007) Developing the science of reintroduction biology. Conserv Biol 21:303–312.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00627.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Shafer A, Wolf JBW, Alves PC et al (2015) Genomics and the challenging translation into conservation practice. Trends Ecol Evol 30:78–87.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2014.11.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Stockwell CA, Mulvey M, Vinyard GL (1996) Translocations and the preservation of allelic diversity. Conserv Biol 10:1133–1141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Walsh B, Blows M (2009) Abundant genetic variation + strong selection = multiple genetic constraints: a geometric view of adaptation. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 40:41–59.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.l CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Waples RS, Teel DJ, Myers JM, Marshall AR (2004) Life-history divergence in Chinook salmon: historic contingency and parallel evolution. Evolution 58:386–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Whitlock M, McCauley D (1990) Some population genetic consequences of colony formation and extinction: genetic correlations within founding groups. Evolution 44:1717–1724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Williams JE, Sada DW, Williams CD (1988) American Fisheries Society guidelines for introductions of threatened and endangered fishes. Fisheries 13:5–11.  https://doi.org/10.1577/1548-8446(1988)013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Williams R, Rhodes OE, Serfass TL (2000) Assessment of genetic variance among source and reintroduced fisher populations. J Mammol 81:895–907CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Williamson KS, Murdoch AR, Pearsons TN et al. Can (2010) Factors influencing the relative fitness of hatchery and wild spring Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in the Wenatchee River, Washington, USA. J Fish Aquat Sci 67:1840–1851.  https://doi.org/10.1139/F10-099 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Wilson AJ, Réale D (2006) Ontogeny of additive and maternal genetic effects: lessons from domestic mammals. Am Nat 167:E23–E38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Wilson AJ, Réale D, Clements MN et al (2010) An ecologist’s guide to the animal model. J Anim Ecol 79:13–26.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2656.2009.01639.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Zuur A, Ieno E, Walker N et al (2009) Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Fish and Wildlife DepartmentShoshone-Bannock TribesFort HallUSA
  2. 2.Conservation Biology Division, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries ServiceNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationSeattleUSA
  3. 3.Coastal Oregon Marine Experiment StationHatfield Marine Science Center, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Oregon State UniversityNewportUSA
  4. 4.Center for Genome Research and BiocomputingOregon State UniversityCorvallisUSA
  5. 5.Fisheries and Wildlife DepartmentMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA

Personalised recommendations