Salmon can adapt to warmer environment, study says

Derby

Crew Member
Salmon can adapt to warmer environment, study says
Mark Hume
VANCOUVER — The Globe and Mail
• AA
With climate change heating up British Columbia’s rivers, there are growing concerns about the vulnerability of cold-water species such as salmon.
But a new study shows salmon may have the ability to adapt to a warming world because Chinook that lay larger eggs produce offspring that have greater heat tolerance.
“What jumped out [of the data] was that the mothers with big eggs tended to have indicators the offspring were more temperature tolerant,” said Tony Farrell, who holds the Canadian Research Chair in fish physiology at the University of British Columbia.
Dr. Farrell’s lab helped Nicolas Munoz, a master’s student at the University of Western Ontario, in a research project that measured the heat tolerance of juvenile salmon by tracking their heart rates as they were exposed to increasingly warm water.
Mr. Munoz worked with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to capture spawning Chinook salmon at the Big Qualicum River on Vancouver Island.
Some 25 different “families” of offspring were produced for testing by mixing the eggs and sperm of several salmon.
“When you warm a fish up it primarily responds by raising its heart rate to deliver more oxygen to its tissues … then it reaches a maximum and sometimes the heart can go into arrhythmia,” Dr. Farrell said.
He said Mr. Munoz’s research showed the offspring that were best at dealing with warmer water came from females that produced larger eggs.
“That was unexpected and quite exciting because what we do know from the [science] literature is that egg size can be genetically determined,” Dr. Farrell said. “And so egg size is heritable. So what you’ve got is a kind of indirect genetic effect which is being manifest through the mother. That was a highly novel finding.”
He said the study could point to ways in which fisheries managers could adapt to climate change by selecting fish for breeding that produce the largest eggs.
“It’s a heritable trait,” he said of heat tolerance. “We can breed it into the stocks as opposed to just taking whatever random assortment nature gives us.”
Mr. Munoz, lead author on a paper about the study just published by the Royal Society, said he undertook the project because he wanted to know whether or not salmon could adapt to high temperatures. “We basically did cardiac performance measures, basically looking at when the heart starts to collapse,” he said. “Mothers with the largest eggs had the most thermally tolerant offspring.”
Mr. Munoz said the finding fits with a general principle that when the environment gets harsh, mothers can compensate by producing fewer, but more robust offspring.
“There’s this classic tradeoff in evolutionary biology that mothers can basically have many offspring of a lower quality or fewer offspring of a higher quality,” he said. “What our data suggests is that in higher temperatures the way these populations can adapt … would be for selection for mothers to have larger eggs.”
High water temperatures in the Fraser River, which is currently running about 1.5 degrees higher than normal, have been blamed for large die-offs of salmon in recent years.
Follow Mark Hume on Twitter: @markhumeglobe
 
Farrell has a fairly myoptic view. There is an upper limit to temperature tolerance (generally 22C or so) irrespective of egg size - and the length of time that any fish is subjected to warm temperatures also has an effect. Many fish can tolerate short passages/time frames through watersheds or sections of watersheds that have elevated temperatures if they have a colder-water refugia like a cold lake or a groundwater-fed trib. to hold in while awaiting temps to drop. This is particularly important for early-summer-run fish. Extending that warm water exposure can impact mortality/survival and timing of spawn.

To bad Farrell couldn't grow politicians with a larger brain - and a heart - while he is growing larger fish hearts.
 
Who funded the study?
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/281/1789/20141082.abstract

Indirect genetic effects underlie oxygen-limited thermal tolerance within a coastal population of chinook salmon
Nicolas J. Muñoz1, Katja Anttila2, Zhongqi Chen2, John W. Heath4, Anthony P. Farrell2,3 and Bryan D. Neff1⇑
- Author Affiliations

1Department of Biology, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada
2Department of Zoology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
3Faculty of Land and Food Systems, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
4Yellow Island Aquaculture Limited, Heriot Bay, British Columbia, Canada
e-mail: bneff@uwo.ca
Abstract

With global temperatures projected to surpass the limits of thermal tolerance for many species, evaluating the heritable variation underlying thermal tolerance is critical for understanding the potential for adaptation to climate change. We examined the evolutionary potential of thermal tolerance within a population of chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) by conducting a full-factorial breeding design and measuring the thermal performance of cardiac function and the critical thermal maximum (CTmax) of offspring from each family. Additive genetic variation in offspring phenotype was mostly negligible, although these direct genetic effects explained 53% of the variation in resting heart rate (fH). Conversely, maternal effects had a significant influence on resting fH, scope for fH, cardiac arrhythmia temperature and CTmax. These maternal effects were associated with egg size, as indicated by strong relationships between the mean egg diameter of mothers and offspring thermal tolerance. Because egg size can be highly heritable in chinook salmon, our finding indicates that the maternal effects of egg size constitute an indirect genetic effect contributing to thermal tolerance. Such indirect genetic effects could accelerate evolutionary responses to the selection imposed by rising temperatures and could contribute to the population-specific thermal tolerance that has recently been uncovered among Pacific salmon populations.

aerobic capacity climate change egg size evolutionary potential heart rate maternal effects
Received May 5, 2014.
Accepted June 11, 2014.
© 2014 The Author(s) Published by the Royal Society. All rights reserved.
 
Farrell has a fairly myoptic view. There is an upper limit to temperature tolerance (generally 22C or so) irrespective of egg size - and the length of time that any fish is subjected to warm temperatures also has an effect. Many fish can tolerate short passages/time frames through watersheds or sections of watersheds that have elevated temperatures if they have a colder-water refugia like a cold lake or a groundwater-fed trib. to hold in while awaiting temps to drop. This is particularly important for early-summer-run fish. Extending that warm water exposure can impact mortality/survival and timing of spawn.

To bad Farrell couldn't grow politicians with a larger brain - and a heart - while he is growing larger fish hearts.
Not sure I agree with your first sentence but I certainly do with your last. Hopefully sockeye will be next to be studied in this manner. For those not familiar with this quite brilliant man, check this out

http://people.landfood.ubc.ca/anthony.farrell/
 
dave - I was wondering if you come to the defense of your heros - Jones, farrell et al. - all the open net-cage advocates.

My issue with the quotes attributed to Farrell in this article is that there was no expansion or explanation of the rather serious implications of climate change and elevated water temperatures on the health and viability on fish populations and their life cycles - as I briefly described above.

Instead, Farrell was quoted as saying that it was "unexpected and quite exciting", and that "fisheries managers could adapt to climate change by selecting fish for breeding that produce the largest eggs".

I don't think ANYONE that knows about the subtle and long-term effects of hatcheries would ever recommend that using hatcheries as a viable way to keep wild stocks on life support during the next 1500 years of climate change. I think we should be working towards making hatcheries obsolete whenever we can. I think it is myopic not looking at the big picture and assuming hatcheries are the way of the future for our wild stocks, or that we have the ability or right to let wild stocks die or suffer and all we have to do is selectively use fish with big eggs in our broodstock takes - which is also an unrealistic suggestion.

Good luck defending that vision Dave.
 
I will always defend people I respect agent; you could have added several other names as well. Farrell did not need to expand on how warming water affects migrating salmon as most people, especially his audience, already understand that.
I agree that hatcheries are not the answer but they are todays reality ... without Columbia River hatcheries you saltchuckers would be selling your boats.
 
...Farrell did not need to expand on how warming water affects migrating salmon as most people, especially his audience, already understand that.
I agree that hatcheries are not the answer but they are todays reality ... without Columbia River hatcheries you saltchuckers would be selling your boats.
I think that if Farrell was advocating hatcheries - which he was - it would have been both responsible and professional to give caveats to their limitations and potential long-term genetic effects - not to mention - the long term effects of climate change as previously mentioned.

I think many of the general public - particularly outside of BC (but not those posting on this forum) - really don't understand very much about climate change effects on fish and fish habitat. Hell, many peoples 1st taste (and possibly all) of salmon is farmed Atlantic - outside of BC.

So, no - I disagree with your last statement that there wasn't a responsibility on Farrell to educate the audience. It was a opportunity lost - all we have to do is somehow only pick-out the females with the large eggs in our broodstock - and we are good-to-go apparently!.
 
So let me see if I have this right – you, an anonymous internet poster, are dissing an alpha male of the fish physiology world, a man with credentials as long as your arm whose research could produce more hatchery chinook salmon for future anglers and by extension, the resident orca population, interior and coastal bears, right down to stoneflies.
Why is that? I suspect it’s because although his main work revolves around Fraser River sockeye and their environmental challenges, his research also improves the aquaculture industry through his involvement with CAER.
http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/science/facilities-installations/caer-crae/index-eng.htm
I wonder how many anglers reading this are against these studies? I’m sure I will hear from them if so, lol! Sorry agent, it seems like good stuff to me so we are going to have to agree to disagree, again.
 
So let me see if I have this right – you, an anonymous internet poster, are dissing an alpha male of the fish physiology world, a man with credentials as long as your arm whose research could produce more hatchery chinook salmon for future anglers and by extension, the resident orca population, interior and coastal bears, right down to stoneflies.
Why is that? I suspect it’s because although his main work revolves around Fraser River sockeye and their environmental challenges, his research also improves the aquaculture industry through his involvement with CAER.
http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/science/facilities-installations/caer-crae/index-eng.htm
I wonder how many anglers reading this are against these studies? I’m sure I will hear from them if so, lol! Sorry agent, it seems like good stuff to me so we are going to have to agree to disagree, again.
The first thing I want to say dave is that I respect your dedication and fidelity to those who you respect.

The next is to caution that there is a difference between blind hero worship and demonstrating support. Having a PhD or any other initials after ones name - does not relieve us of being human, having bias, making mistakes or having an ego - or developing a fan club. It's interesting that you perceive Farrell as an "alpha male".

Not knowing my name does not invalidate my observations or comments, neither.

Obviously Farrell is intelligent and informed - which is why I suspect he knows the issues I described above about the effects of elevated water temperatures on salmon stocks. To me – there is an increased onus on so-called experts to educate the public when they are quoted in the media.

This forum is all about disagreeing, agreeing and arguing, informing, discussing and the like. I still don't think that expecting that hatchery Chinook is a viable alternative to the impacts from increasing water temperatures on fish from climate change - and is a myopic view. I notice you have not disagreed with that premise - just the word myopic.

my·op·ic
mīˈäpik
adjective: myopic
nearsighted.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I’ll give you the last word agent as I know that’s important to you.

How about others reading this … do you think this research regarding selecting chinook salmon for traits that may improve adult returns from hatchery programs is worth pursuing? Remember, think Columbia River tributary hatcheries as this will probably never happen in BC, at least under our present management protocols.
 
Farrell works with individuals such as Scott Hinch and his team of researchers at UBC as well as with Kristi Miller so to imply that he has a myoptic view is like putting a dingy up against a battleship, in my opinion. People like Farrell have been much involved in salmon physiology and adaptation to climate change. Research like this benefits all stakeholders. If people do not understand the effects of water temperature and flows on salmon physiology then one place to start looking is the long, long, long list of publications put out by people like Scott Hinch which includes co-authors like Tony Farrell.


http://www.forestry.ubc.ca/2011/05/...change-cover-story-in-april-issue-of-science/

http://faculty.forestry.ubc.ca/hinc...pbs-sbp/mgl-lgm/geno/func-fonc/index-eng.html
 
Farrell works with individuals such as Scott Hinch and his team of researchers at UBC as well as with Kristi Miller so to imply that he has a myoptic view is like putting a dingy up against a battleship, in my opinion. People like Farrell have been much involved in salmon physiology and adaptation to climate change. Research like this benefits all stakeholders. If people do not understand the effects of water temperature and flows on salmon physiology then one place to start looking is the long, long, long list of publications put out by people like Scott Hinch which includes co-authors like Tony Farrell.


http://www.forestry.ubc.ca/2011/05/...change-cover-story-in-april-issue-of-science/

http://faculty.forestry.ubc.ca/hinc...pbs-sbp/mgl-lgm/geno/func-fonc/index-eng.html
I respect what both you (Shuswap) and Dave have mentioned about Farrells academic credentials and scientific publishing. I have acknowledged once already that Farrell was both intelligent and informed - and now I find out that climate change and the effects on fish are one of the main focus of his and other co-authors research.

That still doesn't change my assertion that climate change and elevated water temperatures are a major impact on fish survival (as detailed over the past few postings) - and it gives me even more confirmation that Farrell should have spoken to these issues rather than the quotes attributed to him: that it was "unexpected and quite exciting", and that "fisheries managers could adapt to climate change by selecting fish for breeding that produce the largest eggs".

Admittedly, reporters cherry-pick sometimes the more memorable quotes while neglecting to print others. It may be that Farrell already spoke about the seriousness of the issues and it wasn't reported in that news article. But I think the news article left a mistaken impression on the public that there was an easy fix to the serious issue of climate change and elevated water temperatures - using females with larger eggs in broodstock and using hatcheries to maintain the wild populations. Both suggestions have serious limitations and complications - and those suggestions are logistically and financially unrealistic, as well as smacking of hubrus. It appeared Farrell agreed with those suggestions, without providing any caveats or cautions that I am sure he would have known about. I still take issue with that. He should have known better, and done a better job communicating these issues.

Both you and Dave come from a hatchery background, Shuswap. Correct?

I guess then I don't need to detail the obvious long-term impacts of using hatcheries? You already know the issues, right?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Some of the obvious problems with utilizing hatcheries long-term are:

1/ Operational and capital expenses,
2/ Availability and genetic composition of brood stock,
3/ introgression (breeding) into the natural population, causing a reduction in fitness in wild stocks,
4/ Large numbers of hatchery fish masking problems in habitat or water quality which can cause lack of focus to repair those conditions, and/or
5/ lack of "escape strategy" - how/when to determine/develop "success" and when to stop hatchery operations.

Yet - strangely enough - none of this was mentioned in the news article.

http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/content/56/4/459.full.pdf

ABSTRACT:
A number of published studies have shown genetic differences between hatchery and wild anadromous Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) Nevertheless, none of these studies has provided compelling evidence that artificial propagation poses a genetic threat to conservation of naturally spawning populations. Hence constructive debate and consensus on how to limit deleterious genetic effects from artificial propagation have been limited or ineffectual, often because participants don’t agree that a problem exists. When the published studies and three studies in progress are considered collectively, however, they provide strong evidence for a problem - evidence that the fitness for natural spawning and rearing can be rapidly and substantially reduced by artificial propagation. This issue takes on great importance in the Pacific Northwest where supplementation of wild salmon populations with hatchery fish has been identified as an important tool for restoring these populations. Recognition of negative aspects may lead to restricted use of supplementation, and better conservation, better evaluation, and greater benefits when supplementation is used.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3352443/pdf/eva0001-0356.pdf

Abstract
Most hatchery programs for anadromous salmonids have been initiated to increase the numbers of fish for harvest, to mitigate for habitat losses, or to increase abundance in populations at low abundance. However, the manner in which these programs are implemented can have significant impacts on the evolutionary trajectory and long-term viability of populations. In this paper, we review the potential benefits and risks of hatchery programs relative to the conservation of species listed under the US Endangered Species Act. To illustrate, we present the range of potential effects within a population as well as among populations of Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) where changes to major hatchery programs are being considered. We apply evolutionary considerations emerging from these examples to suggest broader principles for hatchery uses that are consistent with conservation goals. We conclude that because of the evolutionary risks posed by artificial propagation programs, they should not be viewed as a substitute for addressing other limiting factors that prevent achieving viability. At the population level, artificial propagation programs that are implemented as a short-term approach to avoid imminent extinction are more likely to achieve long-term population viability than approaches that rely on long-term supplementation. In addition, artificial propagation programs can have out-of-population impacts that should be considered in conservation planning.


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320709002341

Abstract
Efforts to conserve depleted populations of Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) often rely on hatchery programs to offset losses of fish from natural and anthropogenic causes, but their use has been contentious. We examined the impact of a large-scale reduction in hatchery stocking on 15 populations of wild coho salmon along the coast of Oregon (USA). Our analyses highlight four critical factors influencing the productivity of these populations: (1) negative density-dependent effects of hatchery-origin spawners were ∼5 times greater than those of wild spawners; (2) the productivity of wild salmon decreased as releases of hatchery juveniles increased; (3) salmon production was positively related to an index of freshwater habitat quality; and (4) ocean conditions strongly affect productivity at large spatial scales, potentially masking more localized drivers. These results suggest that hatchery programs’ unintended negative effects on wild salmon populations, and their role in salmon recovery, should be considered in the context of other ecological drivers.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1088721/

Abstract
Hatchery programmes for supplementing depleted populations of fish are undergoing a worldwide expansion and have provoked concern about their ramifications for populations of wild fish. In particular, Pacific salmon are artificially propagated in enormous numbers in order to compensate for numerous human insults to their populations, yet the ecological impacts of this massive hatchery effort are poorly understood. Here we test the hypothesis that massive numbers of hatchery-raised chinook salmon reduce the marine survival of wild Snake River spring chinook, a threatened species in the USA. Based on a unique 25-year time-series, we demonstrated a strong, negative relationship between the survival of chinook salmon and the number of hatchery fish released, particularly during years of poor ocean conditions. Our results suggest that hatchery programmes that produce increasingly higher numbers of fish may hinder the recovery of depleted wild populations.

Maybe you can understand my concerns a little better now? For a nearsighted person, close objects (i.e. large eggs) are clear, but distant objects (e.g. introgression) are blurred and difficult to distinguish.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well agent, you sucked me in again and for a man who once said you always do your homework you obviously missed a few courses. Neither of us had/have a hatchery background (shuswap may have worked in one as a student), although I have worked with the hatchery component of the Cultus Lake sockeye recovery program. Without it that stock would be extinct today.
We are however up to speed on their shortfalls but again I repeat they are often necessary in todays world. I suspect you are not an angler; I bet you couldn't find 5 people on this board that would like to see a curtailment or less production from Columbia River tributary chinook hatcheries.

The fact you were unaware of Farrell's work surprises me but explains a lot.
 
Well... - thanks, Dave. I always appreciate honest dialogue/debate - especially when that is backed-up with the available science.

As far as Farrell goes - I have to admit I could have done a Goggle search - but didn't. I was vaguely aware of his name - but not his background.

I do agree that hatcheries (i.e. stock assistance) are 1 component (and only but 1) - of a strategy to support/recover populations at risk. And like any tool - it needs to be used appropriately and only for as long as required - and honed. It is not a one-stop-shops-all response - which is why I was critical of the quotes attributed to Farrell, and the general "we got it all solved" assertions - w/o those caveats. I do agree with short-term stock assistance WHILE the other stressors are being worked on. In any "emergency" - you do what you have to do - but even in Hospitals - there is a recovery ward and a plan to rehabilitate the victim.

In the case of the Columbia River - there are many stressors (including elevation in water temperatures) - but most of that money (as far as I understand it) comes from the Bonnieville Power Corp - whose dams litter the Columbia. Fish passage is a major issue on the Columbia - as well as mortality in the turbines - or so I gather. I doubt if those dams are going anywheres soon. You may have more details/info to add to this assessment.

Another area of planned stock assessment - is called "strategic" stock assessment - where low abundance stocks are "temporarily" assisted for a limited # of life cycles (due to those genetic concerns detailed above) while spawning and/or rearing habitat and/or water quality is improved and made ready for increases in densities. Then there is a plan to rotate the assisted stocks through the newly improved habitats. This was the plan back in the days of Fisheries Renewal and HRSEP. It was a good plan - or so I thought.

Unfortunately the BC Liberals and the federal Conservatives yanked those funding sources shortly after getting into power. Having abundant fish stocks apparently gets in the way of what those parties determine to be progress, apparently. No fish - no worries about dams and water removals - or mines or pipelines.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thank you for the honest and respectful response.
I am negligent as well as I assumed you knew about Farrell’s involvement in this stuff. I agree with you that climate change leading to warming Fraser River (and of course all others) is a huge problem for fish, especially sockeye, and we may well see huge mortalities on the Fraser this summer. Water levels are dropping fast and temperatures are rising faster, already nearly 2° C higher than normal for this date. If this weather pattern continues, if there are no significant rainfall events in the Thompson area, and if the Chilko and Shuswap components, the largest expected this year, enter the river a bit earlier and temperatures are still high ie 19-20°, many will die before reaching their spawning areas. I know, lots of ifs but all indications are it will not favor upstream migrating sockeye.

Another example is my back yard river, the Chilliwack. It’s mid July and dropping like a stone as the snowpack is virtually gone; come September this river will be large creek and that will impact rearing wild salmonids. Thank god for some controlled flow off channel rearing areas on this system.
 
Well, to let a little slip - I do have hatchery experience. That is why I am cautious about what can be done, and maybe what shouldn't be tried with respect to stock assistance and introgression.

The assertion that we can choose the females with larger eggs to repopulate wild Chinook populations also has some serious logistical and biological issues besides expense, access and availability. You won't know ahead of time the size of the eggs contained within a female Chinook. You will know AFTER you bonk her, slit her gills and slice her open. Then what? Will you sit on the streambank and try to use a micrometer to measure the diameter? I doubt that. But if you did - and the eggs were too small - then what? Toss the eggs and the female carcass? I really doubt that. There are guidelines as to how many broodstock you can take - and if the population is threatened - every egg is precious. Even the smaller eggs. This is why I believe that the suggestion that all we need to do - is to use Chinook females with larger eggs - an "unrealistic suggestion".

Smaller eggs have a larger surface area to volume ratio. They breathe easier than larger eggs. That is why there are species-specific spawning gravel and groundwater flow requirements - e.g.: Pinks (small eggs) can spawn intertidally and sometimes their eggs can survive in dewatered channels if there is groundwater flow - Chinook (large eggs) need lots of water flow, often spawning on Lake-headed systems - while chum (larger eggs) mostly use groundwater flow often found where slides empty out in to larger rivers or in sidechannels.

see:
http:www.redpath-staff.mcgill.ca/hendry/KinnisonEvolution2001.pdf
http://www.glfc.org/research/reports/JohnstonEgg.PDF
www.int-res.com/articles/meps2002/233/m233p231.pdf
http://nativefishsociety.org/conser...b_salmonids_hatcheries/fitness/LocalAdapt.pdf
http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/z88-038#.U8P3kPldVRE

The larger surface-to-volume ratio may be very important in waters with elevated temperatures - when the oxygen is reduced. Colder water holds more O2 - warmer water less. As eggs (not necessarily as fry or adults) - larger eggs would therefore be subject to higher mortality in oxygen-reduced redds. These effects would be expected to be most severe for early-run fish like chum, and for eggs in streams that are dewatered in the winter.

You have to get past the egg stage, however - if you want to get to the "thermally tolerant offspring" stage. If you get rid of the small egg layers - you get rid of the ability of eggs (not fry) to last through periods of reduced oxygen. Even if you could pick females with larger eggs - using these eggs and scewing the genetics for larger eggs - may decrease the population numbers if the creeks suffer from a reduction in water flow and/or an increase in water temperatures - just the opposite of the effect you were looking for.

Yet - I don't need to review the quotes from Farrell about how to mitigate the effects of elevated water temperatures for Chinook above.

You can see why I took issue with that vision w/o the caveats that should be obvious. Last word to you Dave.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Gotcha, and thanks for the bit of info regarding your background ... really, how hard was that?
I think we are arguing about something that will probably never happen, at least in BC. As you stated US hatcheries are largely funded by power companies so the $$ are there if this is to be pursued.

Time for some new voices to chime in, hopefully.
 
Back
Top