| Literature DB >> 26069390 |
Alexander Kotrschal1, Susanne Trombley2, Björn Rogell3, Ioana Brannström4, Eric Foconi5, Monika Schmitz2, Niclas Kolm6.
Abstract
It has been suggested that mating behaviours require high levels of cognitive ability. However, since investment into mating and the brain both are costly features, their relationship is likely characterized by energetic trade-offs. Empirical data on the subject remains equivocal. We investigated if early sexual maturation was associated with brain development in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar), in which males can either stay in the river and sexually mature at a small size (sneaker males) or migrate to the sea and delay sexual maturation until they have grown much larger (anadromous males). Specifically, we tested how sexual maturation may induce plastic changes in brain development by rearing juveniles on either natural or ad libitum feeding levels. After their first season we compared brain size and brain region volumes across both types of male mating tactics and females. Body growth increased greatly across both male mating tactics and females during ad libitum feeding as compared to natural feeding levels. However, despite similar relative increases in body size, early maturing sneaker males maintained larger relative brain size during ad libitum feeding levels as compared to anadromous males and females. We also detected several differences in the relative size of separate brain regions across feeding treatments, sexes and mating strategies. For instance, the relative size of the cognitive centre of the brain, the telencephalon, was largest in sneaker males. Our data support that a large relative brain size is maintained in individuals that start reproduction early also during fast body growth. We propose that the cognitive demands during complex mating behaviours maintain a high level of investment into brain development in reproducing individuals.Entities:
Keywords: Atlantic salmon; Brain; Brain development; Mating strategy; Salmo salar; Sneaker; Trade-off
Year: 2014 PMID: 26069390 PMCID: PMC4459551 DOI: 10.1007/s10682-014-9715-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evol Ecol ISSN: 0269-7653 Impact factor: 2.717
Results from linear mixed effect models with body size as dependent variable (left), and for total brain weight as dependant variable and body size as covariate
| Body size | Brain size | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| χ2 |
|
| χ2 |
|
| |
| Fixed effect | ||||||
| Food treatment | 49.77 | 1 | *** | 25.62 | 1 | *** |
| Group | 146.57 | 2 | *** | 23.50 | 2 | *** |
| Body size | – | – | – | 813.49 | 1 | *** |
| Treatment × group | 4.27 | 2 | 0.118 | 8.57 | 2 | 0.014 |
| Random effect | Variance | Variance | ||||
| Tank | 0.14 | 8.49 × 10−6 | ||||
| Tank × group | 0 | 0 | ||||
| Residual | 1.67 | 6.23 × 10−4 | ||||
All variables were log10-transformed prior to analysis
*** P < 0.001
Fig. 1The effects of food availability and growth strategy on somatic and neural growth in male and female Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). a Body size [total length (cm) ± SE], b relative brain size [weight (g) ± SE], c–h relative brain structure sizes for fish fed unrestricted (hatchery level) or natural level diets. Open circles females, filled circles early maturing males, grey circles future anadromous males). Shown are the means of linear mixed-effect models controlling for rearing tank
Results from linear mixed effect models with separate brain structures as dependent variables
| Telencephalon | Optic tectum | Cerebellum | Dorsal medulla | Olfactory bulbs | Hypothalamus | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| χ2 |
|
| χ2 |
|
| χ2 |
|
| χ2 |
|
| χ2 |
|
| χ2 |
|
| |
| Fixed effect | ||||||||||||||||||
| Food treatment | 9.98 | 1 |
| 20.24 | 1 | *** | 15.43 | 1 | *** | 9.12 | 1 |
| 4.00 | 1 | 0.046 | 1.21 | 1 | 0.290 |
| Group | 23.44 | 2 | *** | 6.43 | 2 |
| 14.54 | 2 | *** | 25.93 | 2 | *** | 7.17 | 2 |
| 0.82 | 2 | 0.664 |
| Body size | 117.94 | 1 | *** | 491.22 | 1 | *** | 385.59 | 1 | *** | 352.79 | 1 | *** | 48.49 | 1 | *** | 45.91 | 1 | *** |
| Treatment × group | 1.37 | 2 | 0.504 | 0.691 | 2 | 0.691 | 0.40 | 2 | 0.817 | 4.21 | 2 | 0.122 | 2.69 | 2 | 0.260 | 0.01 | 2 | 0.998 |
| Random effect | Variance | Variance | Variance | Variance | Variance | Variance | ||||||||||||
| Tank | 1.18 × 10−4 | 1.12 × 10−4 | 2.68 × 10−4 | 1.60 × 10−4 | 1.06 × 10−4 | 1.55 × 10−3 | ||||||||||||
| Tank × group | 1.96 × 10−15 | 1.34 × 10−19 | 1.63 × 10−4 | 9.62 × 10−5 | 1.21 × 10−19 | 1.90 × 10−3 | ||||||||||||
| Residual | 2.72 × 10−3 | 1.11 × 10−3 | 1.88 × 10−3 | 1.94 × 10−3 | 9.26 × 10−3 | 1.08 × 10−2 | ||||||||||||
All variables were log-transformed prior to analysis
Bold values denote statistically significant effects at α = 0.05 after a controlling for false discovery rate (Benjamini and Hochberg 1995)
*** P < 0.001