| Literature DB >> 28861260 |
Jennifer L Kelley1, Peter M Davies2, Shaun P Collin1,3, Pauline F Grierson1.
Abstract
In fishes, alterations to the natural flow regime are associated with divergence in body shape morphology compared with individuals from unaltered habitats. However, it is unclear whether this morphological divergence is attributable to evolutionary responses to modified flows, or is a result of phenotypic plasticity. Fishes inhabiting arid regions are ideal candidates for studying morphological plasticity as they are frequently exposed to extreme natural hydrological variability. We examined the effect of early exposure to flows on the development of body shape morphology in the western rainbowfish (Melanotaenia australis), a freshwater fish that is native to semiarid northwest Australia. Wild fish were collected from a region (the Hamersley Ranges) where fish in some habitats are subject to altered water flows due to mining activity. The offspring of wild-caught fish were reared in replicated fast-flow or slow-flow channels, and geometric morphometric analyses were used to evaluate variation in fish body shape following 3, 6, 9, and 12 months of exposure. Water flows influenced fish morphology after 6 and 9 months of flow exposure, with fish in fast-flow environments displaying a more robust body shape than those in slow-flow habitats. No effect of flow exposure was observed at 3 and 12 months. Fishes also showed significant morphological variation within flow treatments, perhaps due to subtle differences in water flow among the replicate channels. Our findings suggest that early exposure to water flows can induce shifts in body shape morphology in arid zone freshwater fishes. Morphological plasticity may act to buffer arid zone populations from the impacts of anthropogenic activities, but further studies are required to link body shape plasticity with behavioral performance in habitats with modified flows.Entities:
Keywords: altered water flows; arid zone fauna; group phenotypic composition; morphological divergence; phenotypic plasticity; phenotypic trait change
Year: 2017 PMID: 28861260 PMCID: PMC5574804 DOI: 10.1002/ece3.3167
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ecol Evol ISSN: 2045-7758 Impact factor: 2.912
Figure 1Example of the extreme morphological variation that can be exhibited by the study species, the western rainbowfish (Melanotaenia australis). Individuals were collected from Flat Pool in Karijini National Park (a; latitude −22.4776, longitude 118.5567) and Crossing Pool in Millstream National Park (b; latitude −21.5813, longitude 117.5813) in the Pilbara region of northwest Australia. Photographs by Sam Lostrom. Note that these images are for illustrative purposes and the observed morphologies did not arise from the flow treatments used in this study. (c) Morphological variation observed in the current study for fish exposed to 9 months of fast‐flow (left) or slow‐flow (right) rearing treatment
Figure 2Diagram of apparatus used in this experiment. Aquarium water from each sump was recirculated and directed into one of four flow channels (S: slow flow; F: fast flow). The inflow pipes for each channel were fitted with a tap (indicated by arrows), allowing us to control the water flow speed in each channel. A series of narrow (diameter = 11 mm, length = 22 cm) pipes were placed 10 cm behind the outlet pipe to create laminar flow in each channel (L)
Figure 3Location of fixed (white) and semisliding (red) landmarks used for geometric morphometric analysis of body shape in juvenile western rainbowfish (Melanotaenia australis). Image shows a fish from the slow‐flow treatment, photographed after 3 months of flow exposure
Percentage variation and cumulative percentage of variation in body shape explained by relative warps 1–5 for each developmental stage
| Developmental stage |
| RW | % | Cumm % | + RW scores | ‐ RW scores |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 months | 158 | RW1 | 30.16 | 30.16 |
|
|
| RW2 | 24.5 | 54.65 | ||||
| RW3 | 13.89 | 68.54 | ||||
| RW4 | 8.72 | 77.26 | ||||
| RW5 | 5.70 | 82.95 | ||||
| 6 months | 160 | RW1 | 35.2 | 35.2 |
|
|
| RW2 | 21.6 | 56.8 | ||||
| RW3 | 10.34 | 67.14 | ||||
| RW4 | 8.12 | 75.26 | ||||
| RW5 | 5.26 | 80.52 | ||||
| 9 months | 130 | RW1 | 40.4 | 40.4 |
|
|
| RW2 | 19.89 | 60.3 | ||||
| RW3 | 11.43 | 71.73 | ||||
| RW4 | 8.25 | 79.98 | ||||
| RW5 | 5.71 | 85.69 | ||||
| 12 months | 76 | RW1 | 33.84 | 33.84 |
|
|
| RW2 | 25.76 | 59.60 | ||||
| RW3 | 13.24 | 72.83 | ||||
| RW4 | 8.43 | 81.26 | ||||
| RW5 | 5.16 | 86.43 |
The number of individuals used to generate the relative warps (n) is also shown, along with the morphological variation associated with positive and negative scores for RW1
MANCOVA results displaying the overall effect of treatment (fast or slow water flow), lane (nested in treatment), centroid, and the interaction between lane (nested in treatment) and centroid on overall morphology (combined RW scores)
| Developmental stage (months) | Effect | Df | Wilks |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | Treat | 29, 123 | 0.748 | 1.43 | .094 |
| Treat (lane) | 58, 246 | 0.340 | 3.04 |
| |
| Centroid | 29, 123 | 0.309 | 9.49 |
| |
| Treat (lane) × Centroid | 29, 123 | 0.621 | 1.14 | .244 | |
| 6 | Treat | 29, 125 | 0.568 | 3.273 |
|
| Treat (lane) | 58, 250 | 0.506 | 1.751 |
| |
| Centroid | 29, 125 | 0.313 | 9.459 |
| |
| Treat (lane) × Centroid | 58, 250 | 0.511 | 1.719 |
| |
| 9 | Treat | 29, 95 | 0.635 | 1.886 |
|
| Treat (lane) | 58, 190 | 0.210 | 3.871 |
| |
| Centroid | 29, 95 | 0.397 | 4.978 |
| |
| Treat (lane) × Centroid | 58, 190 | 0.601 | 0.949 | .583 | |
| 12 | Treat | 29, 41 | 0.499 | 1.422 | .148 |
| Treat (lane) | 58, 82 | 0.169 | 2.021 |
| |
| Centroid | 29, 41 | 0.265 | 3.930 |
| |
| Treat (lane) × Centroid | 58, 82 | 0.275 | 1.282 | .150 |
A significant interaction between centroid and lane (nested in treatment) indicates that allometric growth differs among lanes within the same treatment. Significant effects are shown in bold. The interaction between lane and treatment did not have a significant effect in any of the models and was therefore removed.
Figure 4Plot of canonical variates (CV1 and CV2) for fish following 3 months (a), 6 months (b), 9 months (c), and 12 months (d) of exposure to fast or slow water flow speeds. Ellipses represent 95% confidence intervals of the mean for each treatment channel. Legend indicates lane numbers (even: fast flow; odd: slow flow). Changes in shape described by the CVs are illustrated for positive and negative scores (Mahalanobis distance scaled according to maximum and minimum on each axis). Note the large 95% CI for lane 8 at 12‐month development and that the 95% CI is missing for lane 4 due to small sample size (n = 2 fish)
Mahalanobis distances, describing the shape change per unit of within‐group variation, measured among channels and between flow treatments
| (a) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | 4 | 6 | 8 | 1 | 3 | 5 | |
| 4 | 4.14 | ||||||
| 6 | 3.16 | 4.1 | |||||
| 8 | 3.88 | 4.85 | 3.49 | ||||
| 1 |
|
|
|
| |||
| 3 |
|
|
|
| 3.08 | ||
| 5 |
|
|
|
| 2.72 | 4.29 | |
| 7 |
|
|
|
| 3.50 | 4.45 | 2.56 |
Variation in morphology was assessed following exposure to fast or slow water flows for 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. Shaded boxes represent high‐flow channels, and Mahalanobis distances in bold are between‐treatment comparisons in fish morphology (fast versus slow flow). All Mahalanobis distances were significantly different between channels (p < .05) with the exception of lane 4 and lane 8 to 12 months (marked with an asterisk).