SPECIAL SCIENTIFIC REPORT- FISHERIES No
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
. CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE STUDY OF SUBPOPULATIONS OF FISHES MarineLIBRARYBiological Laboratory 0C T 1 6 1957 WOODS HOLE, MASS. SPECIAL SCIENTIFIC REPORT- FISHERIES No. 208 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE . EXPLANATORY NOTE The series embodies results of investigations, usually of restricted scope, intended to aid or direct management or utilization practices .and as guides for administrative or legislative action. It is issued in limited quantities for official use of Federal, State or cooperating agencies and in processed form for economy and to avoid delay in publication The following collection of papers entitled "Contributions to the Study of Subpopulations of Fishes" is a written symposium by members and former members of the Branch of Fishery Biology. It is a substitute for a conference, thus lacking the discussion which is so often stimulating and which contributes to the development of a general consensus which did not exist among the group when the papers were written. The advantage of more leisurely preparation, of not having to meet a deadline, such as a meeting date, may outweigh the lack of debate, however, for although all of the men were engaged in active research, the subjects of some of the papers were collateral to the principal lines of work of some of them at the time of preparation. The papers were written voluntarily on invitation, rather than by assignment as an official function, and thus partake of the nature of contributions to some journal of marine fishery biology (now non- existent). If there is a spontaneous demand for a written symposium upon timely subjects in the future, the Special Scientific Report: --Fisheries, being of a less permanent or formal nature than the older printed publica- tions of the Service, may offer its pages again under a rotating editorship for the symposium issues. United States Department of the Interior, Fred A. Seaton, Secretary Fish and Wildlife Service CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE STUDY OF SUBPOPULATIONS OF FISHES Coordinated by John C . Marr Fishery Research Biologist Special Scientific Report--Fisheries No. 208 Washington, D. C. April 1957 . CONTENTS Page The problem of defining and recognizing subpopulations of fishes. John C . Marr 1 Statistical comparison of morphological data. William F . Royce 7 Measurement of population movement by observation of meristic or morphometric characters. T . M . Widrig and Bruce A . Taft 29 A review of paper chromatography as used in systematics. David A . Farris 35 The use of immunological techniques in racial studies. George J . Ridgway 39 A review of recent studies of subpopulations of Pacific fishes. Elbert H . Ahlstrom 44 Races of cutthroat trout in Yellowstone Lake. Oliver B . Cope 74 Populations of the striped bass, Roccus saxatilis (Walbaum) in tributaries of Chesapeake Bay. Edward C . Raney 85 The subpopulation problem in the Pacific sardine, Sardinops caerulea . John C . Marr 108 Disease resistant and susceptible populations of broorc trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) S . F . SnieszKO 126 Note on the subpopulations of lake trout in the Great Lax;es. Paul H. Eschmeyer 129 . THE PROBLEM OF DEFINING AND RECOGNIZING SUBPOPULATIONS OF FISHES By John C . Marr— INTRODUCTION Stock: A stock is a population or a por- tion of a population, all members of which are In trying to identify and measure the characterized by similarities which are not causes of fluctuations in the abundance and dis- heritable, but are induced by the environment. tribution of a species of fish, it is essential A stock may or may not include members of that the number and identity of subpopulations, several different subpopulations if any, within the species be established, since each subpopulation may have its own character- Group: A group is a fraction of a popula- istic distribution, fecundity, natural mortality tion with distinctive characteristics, the nature rate, growth rate. etc. This statement (or of which (phenotypic or genotypic) has not yet others li.<e it) is practically axiomatic in the been determined. field of fishery biology, and yet, there is some misunderstanding arising in part from semantic Race: I prefer not to use this term, difficulties and in part from the lacK of agreed since in other fields (ornithology, for example) definitions of problems. it is a synonym of subspecies. The categories involved in fishery problems are generally of The semantic difficulties are those of the lesser rank than a subspecies; if not, they should same term being used with different meanings be recognized as such . by different workers, different terms being used with the same meaning, etc., often with no defin- Although it might be desirable to stand- itions given. The terms which I will use may be ardize on this or some other set of terms, this defined as follows: is not essential so long as everyone defines whatever terms he does use. Population : A population of fish includes all individuals of a given species when there The important distinction to keep in mind are no subspecies or, if there are subspecies, between subpopulation and stock is that members when their distributions are not discrete. It in- of a subpopulation segregate at spawning time, cludes only all individuals of a subspecies when whereas members of a stock need not. It is also the distributions of the subspecies are discrete. important to remember that members of a group Obviously, there is gene flow, or opportunity actually are members of either a subpopulation for such, throughout a population. or a stock, but cannot be assigned to one or the other category because of lack of information. Subpopulation : A subpopulation is a frac- The partial barriers to gene flow between sub- tion of a population that is itself genetically populations are of the same nature as those be- self-sustaining. It is the smallest natural self- tween subspecies and include isolation in space, perpetuating unit and is synonymous with the isolation in time and ecological isolation. term "deme" as used by systematists (Huxley, Evolution the modern synthesis, New York, 1942: The "subpopulation problem, " then, in- 203). Although differences between subpopula- volves first, the recognition and definition of tions may be small, they are heritable each subpopulation and second, the planning of biological observations such that the data accrue 1/ Chief, South Pacific Fishery Investigations, discretely for each subpopulation rather than by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 271, groups of subpopulations. If observations are La Jolla, California planned in such a manner that data accrue . discretely for each stock, little if anything will The use of anatomical characteristics in be learned about subpopulations and, in fact, if defining and describing subpopulations has at the concepts of stock and subpopulation are con- least two limitations. First, it is well known fused the investigator may be very seriously from both empirical and experimental evidence misled. On the other hand, the characteristics that body form, numbers of vertebrae, etc., of a stock may well serve as natural tags and be are influenced by environmental variables (such of great value in the study of availability phenom- as food and temperature, for example) . Ob- ena . It is a fair generality to state that whereas viously, then, in using such characteristics the most fishery biologists have been interested in risk exists of studying the effects of environ- defining subpopulations, they have, in fact, most mental conditions rather than the effects of frequently idefined stocks or groups. This may genetic isolation. Second, even if the character- be avoided only by using characteristics Known istics used are genotypic, their frequency to be genotypic or by using a more direct ex- distributions generally overlap, often to a large perimental method such as tagging. degree. If significant differences are found be- tween the samples, these have usually been METHODS interpreted as indicating that the two samples were drawn from two distinct subpopulations. A number of diverse methods have been, Actually, this indicates only that they were not or could be, used in subpopulation studies. Any both drawn from the identical population; the classification or listing of the various methods possibility of considerable intermixing still must, perforce, be somewhat arbitrary rather exists. than natural, since many of the categories over- lap. The order in the following listing is II . Tagging or marking experiments suggested somewhat, but not entirely, by the historical order of their development. Tagging or marning experiments have usually been carried out in order to learn about I. Anatomical studies migrations or to maice estimates of population size. They can also be used to learn something Various anatomical characteristics have about subpopulations, provided that the tagging frequently been used in an effort to distinguish and recapturing are done on the spawning grounds. subpopulations, much as they have been used to distinguish subspecies, species and higher cate- III. Physiological characteristics. gories. The types of characters used may be included in the following groups: Subpopulations may have distinctive physiological as well as anatomical characteris- A. Morphometric: These include (1) tics. These might include, for example, inherent external features such as the proportions of growth characteristics. various body parts, (2) internal features such as the proportions of the various parts of the IV. Life history