4.5 Article

Laboratory captivity can affect scores of metabolic rates and activity in wild brown trout

Journal

JOURNAL OF ZOOLOGY
Volume 307, Issue 4, Pages 249-255

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jzo.12642

Keywords

phenotypic plasticity; sampling bias; phenotypic scoring; animal personality; oxygen consumption; salmonids

Categories

Funding

  1. BiodivERsA-project SalmoInvade - Swedish Research Council Formas [226-2013-1875]
  2. French Agence Nationale de la Recherche [ANR-EDIB-0002]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Phenotypic scoring of wild animals under standardized laboratory conditions is important as it allows field ecologists and evolutionary biologists to understand the development and maintenance of interindividual differences in plastic traits (e.g. behaviour and physiology). However, captivity is associated with a shift from a natural familiar environment to an unfamiliar and artificial environment, which may affect estimates of plastic phenotypic traits. In this study, we tested how previous experience with laboratory environments and time spent in captivity affects behavioural (i.e. activity) and metabolic (i.e. standard and maximum metabolic rates) scoring of our model species, wild brown trout Salmo trutta. We found that individuals with previous experience of laboratory captivity (10.5 months earlier) showed higher activity in an open field test than individuals with no prior experience of laboratory captivity. Previous experience with captivity had no significant effect on metabolic rates. However, metabolic rates seemed to increase with increasing time spent in captivity prior to the collection of measurements. Although there are benefits of keeping wild animals in captivity prior to scoring, our results suggest that while allowing for sufficient acclimatization researchers should aim at minimizing time in captivity of wild animals to increase accuracy and ecological relevance of the scoring of plastic phenotypic traits.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available