4.4 Article

Energetics and morphology of sockeye salmon: effects of upriver migratory distance and elevation

Journal

JOURNAL OF FISH BIOLOGY
Volume 65, Issue 3, Pages 788-810

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.0022-1112.2004.00486.x

Keywords

energetics; local adaptation; migration; Oneorhynchus; reproductive trade-offs; sockeye salmon

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Depending on population, wild Fraser River sockeye salmon Oncorhynchus nerka travel distances of < 100 km to > 1100 km and ascend elevations ranging from near sea-level to 1200 m to reach spawning areas. Populations embarking on distant, high elevation migrations (i.e. Early Stuart, Chilko and Horsefly populations) began their upriver spawning migrations with higher densities of somatic energy (c. 9.2 to 9.8 MJ kg(-1)) and fewer eggs (c. 3200 to 3800) than populations making shorter, low elevation migrations (i.e. Weaver and Adams; c. 7.1 to 8.3 MJ kg(-1) gross somatic energy and c. 4300 to 4700 eggs). Populations making difficult upriver migrations also had morphologies that were smaller and more fusiform than populations making less difficult migrations, traits that may facilitate somatic energy conservation by reducing transport costs. Indeed, fish travelling long distances expended less somatic energy per unit of migratory difficulty than those travelling shorter distances (2.8 to 3.8 kJ v. 10-1400 MJ). Consistent with evolutionary theory, difficult migrations appear to select for energy efficiency but ultimately fish making more difficult migrations produce fewer eggs, even when differences in body length have been accounted for. Despite large among-population differences in somatic energy at the start of upriver migration, all populations completed migration and spawning, and subsequently died, with c. 4 MJ kg(-1) of energy remaining, a level which may reflect a threshold to sustain life. (C) 2004 The Fisheries Society of the British Isles.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available