Seasonal growth patterns of wild juvenile fish: partitioning variation among explanatory variables, based on individual growth trajectories of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) parr

P.J. Bacon, William Gurney, W. Jones, I.S. McLaren, A.F. Youngson

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

77 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

We present an empirical, analytical model that estimates both temperature and seasonal response functions for the growth of wild juvenile fish without the need for costly tank experiments in less realistic conditions. 2. Analysis of monthly recapture data on the lengths and weights of individual wild juvenile fish demonstrates that simple temperature-driven models of growth can be less informative than more realistic, empirical, models. 3. A case study of wild Atlantic salmon parr (Salmo salar) showed that: most growth took place in a 10-week period in spring, at temperatures below those that previous published models report as necessary for rapid growth and at faster rates than the maximum that previous models predicted. 4. Temperature and fish size allometry explained 45% of growth variation, but the effects of temperature were significantly and markedly different at different seasons. 5. Seasonal effects explained an additional 18% of the variation and were strongly associated with the abundance of potential 'drift' food. 6. The seasonal patterns for growth in length and weight were different, implying differential allocation of resources to structural and reserve tissues. 7. The growth patterns of sexually maturing male parr and emigrants also differed in comparison to other parr. 8. Condition factor, length at first capture and seasonal interactions with both early maturity and smolting explained another 7% of the variation. 9. However, individual fish did not grow consistently better, or worse, than the 'average' fish. 10. This study emphasizes the necessity to test the adequacy of laboratory-based physiological models with suitably detailed field data and to focus model refinement by identifying processes which otherwise confound interpretation.
LanguageEnglish
Pages1-11
Number of pages11
JournalJournal of Animal Ecology
Volume74
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jan 2005

Fingerprint

seasonal growth
parr
Salmo salar
trajectories
partitioning
trajectory
fish
temperature
smoltification
resource allocation
allometry
condition factor
growth models
early development
seasonal variation
case studies
food
resource

Keywords

  • growth
  • vertebrata
  • Salmo salar
  • seasonal variation
  • defended energy reserves
  • temperature
  • process-models

Cite this

@article{447b725cb6744ba484be51e7f0b50a80,
title = "Seasonal growth patterns of wild juvenile fish: partitioning variation among explanatory variables, based on individual growth trajectories of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) parr",
abstract = "We present an empirical, analytical model that estimates both temperature and seasonal response functions for the growth of wild juvenile fish without the need for costly tank experiments in less realistic conditions. 2. Analysis of monthly recapture data on the lengths and weights of individual wild juvenile fish demonstrates that simple temperature-driven models of growth can be less informative than more realistic, empirical, models. 3. A case study of wild Atlantic salmon parr (Salmo salar) showed that: most growth took place in a 10-week period in spring, at temperatures below those that previous published models report as necessary for rapid growth and at faster rates than the maximum that previous models predicted. 4. Temperature and fish size allometry explained 45{\%} of growth variation, but the effects of temperature were significantly and markedly different at different seasons. 5. Seasonal effects explained an additional 18{\%} of the variation and were strongly associated with the abundance of potential 'drift' food. 6. The seasonal patterns for growth in length and weight were different, implying differential allocation of resources to structural and reserve tissues. 7. The growth patterns of sexually maturing male parr and emigrants also differed in comparison to other parr. 8. Condition factor, length at first capture and seasonal interactions with both early maturity and smolting explained another 7{\%} of the variation. 9. However, individual fish did not grow consistently better, or worse, than the 'average' fish. 10. This study emphasizes the necessity to test the adequacy of laboratory-based physiological models with suitably detailed field data and to focus model refinement by identifying processes which otherwise confound interpretation.",
keywords = "growth, vertebrata, Salmo salar, seasonal variation, defended energy reserves, temperature, process-models",
author = "P.J. Bacon and William Gurney and W. Jones and I.S. McLaren and A.F. Youngson",
year = "2005",
month = "1",
doi = "10.1111/j.1365-2656.2004.00875.x",
language = "English",
volume = "74",
pages = "1--11",
journal = "Journal of Animal Ecology",
issn = "0021-8790",
number = "1",

}

Seasonal growth patterns of wild juvenile fish: partitioning variation among explanatory variables, based on individual growth trajectories of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) parr. / Bacon, P.J.; Gurney, William; Jones, W.; McLaren, I.S.; Youngson, A.F.

In: Journal of Animal Ecology, Vol. 74, No. 1, 01.2005, p. 1-11.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Seasonal growth patterns of wild juvenile fish: partitioning variation among explanatory variables, based on individual growth trajectories of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) parr

AU - Bacon, P.J.

AU - Gurney, William

AU - Jones, W.

AU - McLaren, I.S.

AU - Youngson, A.F.

PY - 2005/1

Y1 - 2005/1

N2 - We present an empirical, analytical model that estimates both temperature and seasonal response functions for the growth of wild juvenile fish without the need for costly tank experiments in less realistic conditions. 2. Analysis of monthly recapture data on the lengths and weights of individual wild juvenile fish demonstrates that simple temperature-driven models of growth can be less informative than more realistic, empirical, models. 3. A case study of wild Atlantic salmon parr (Salmo salar) showed that: most growth took place in a 10-week period in spring, at temperatures below those that previous published models report as necessary for rapid growth and at faster rates than the maximum that previous models predicted. 4. Temperature and fish size allometry explained 45% of growth variation, but the effects of temperature were significantly and markedly different at different seasons. 5. Seasonal effects explained an additional 18% of the variation and were strongly associated with the abundance of potential 'drift' food. 6. The seasonal patterns for growth in length and weight were different, implying differential allocation of resources to structural and reserve tissues. 7. The growth patterns of sexually maturing male parr and emigrants also differed in comparison to other parr. 8. Condition factor, length at first capture and seasonal interactions with both early maturity and smolting explained another 7% of the variation. 9. However, individual fish did not grow consistently better, or worse, than the 'average' fish. 10. This study emphasizes the necessity to test the adequacy of laboratory-based physiological models with suitably detailed field data and to focus model refinement by identifying processes which otherwise confound interpretation.

AB - We present an empirical, analytical model that estimates both temperature and seasonal response functions for the growth of wild juvenile fish without the need for costly tank experiments in less realistic conditions. 2. Analysis of monthly recapture data on the lengths and weights of individual wild juvenile fish demonstrates that simple temperature-driven models of growth can be less informative than more realistic, empirical, models. 3. A case study of wild Atlantic salmon parr (Salmo salar) showed that: most growth took place in a 10-week period in spring, at temperatures below those that previous published models report as necessary for rapid growth and at faster rates than the maximum that previous models predicted. 4. Temperature and fish size allometry explained 45% of growth variation, but the effects of temperature were significantly and markedly different at different seasons. 5. Seasonal effects explained an additional 18% of the variation and were strongly associated with the abundance of potential 'drift' food. 6. The seasonal patterns for growth in length and weight were different, implying differential allocation of resources to structural and reserve tissues. 7. The growth patterns of sexually maturing male parr and emigrants also differed in comparison to other parr. 8. Condition factor, length at first capture and seasonal interactions with both early maturity and smolting explained another 7% of the variation. 9. However, individual fish did not grow consistently better, or worse, than the 'average' fish. 10. This study emphasizes the necessity to test the adequacy of laboratory-based physiological models with suitably detailed field data and to focus model refinement by identifying processes which otherwise confound interpretation.

KW - growth

KW - vertebrata

KW - Salmo salar

KW - seasonal variation

KW - defended energy reserves

KW - temperature

KW - process-models

UR - http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=16436026

U2 - 10.1111/j.1365-2656.2004.00875.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1365-2656.2004.00875.x

M3 - Article

VL - 74

SP - 1

EP - 11

JO - Journal of Animal Ecology

T2 - Journal of Animal Ecology

JF - Journal of Animal Ecology

SN - 0021-8790

IS - 1

ER -