Posted on Authorea 27 Apr 2020 | CC BY 4.0 | https://doi.org/10.22541/au.158801934.43964147 | This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. nti td,Iivsiaetepten fdvrec nteErpa inw( minnow European the in divergence of more patterns generally the the forage body for investigate to deeper searching I a beneficial when contrast, study, as habitat In this seen stream habitat. In complex be lake 21). structurally the can (20, in a morphology prey areas in benthic this larger maneuverability cryptic as cover to higher to body, three-spined adaptations a and streamlined in Often, supports speed more example, 16). high For a (15, relatively (17). have at polymorphism partitioning ecotypes trophic niche lake as trophic the to with referred found, intertwined ( often been are stickleback has use, which types resource (13), habitat shape fish on different body in based streamlined divergence more be a trigger can reduce have To may ( often (12). 11). pumpkinseeds fishes water traits in stream (10, standing behavioral e.g. current, conditions or or the developmental, in hydrodynamic running physiological, drag include different freshwater by morphological, the may to or In either regard populations (9), (6). characterized the with in occurrence speciation is populations to patterns parasite initiate that lead diversifying even 8), environment can for might (7, An which responsible and regimes (1-3), factors 5), predation (4, ecological populations different ecotypes underlying of or species, divergence populations fish phenotypic distinct adaptive of evoke formation can selection Natural respective Introduction the in interactions morphology inter-specific in contrasting morphological pattern promote and divergence may gut habitat-specific which the the fish, highlight freshwater in study webs. ubiquitous stream pointed zooplankton this food was this whereas of of that in snout, results snout proportion use a The facing resource the with minnows. upward and body of lake an deeper the relationship a with in positive had present shape and significant features degree body a higher streamlined showed a to more Correlations adults) down. a and (larvae and the macroinvertebrates in zooplankton on analyses) the fed on content minnows minnow but stomach reliance of using habitats, strong patterns stream the (i.e. a studied niches versus showed therefore trophic lake I and in morphometrics) partitioning. adaptions geometric niche lake using phenotypic trophic to show (i.e. many related morphology populations to In is fish in found native pattern divergence the distribution. divergence recently to this large were threats be if its pose Minnows remained could to despite question found overlap. this attention were European and dietary little but invasive the paid to being shape, of as has due pattern considered body divergence that are the of they fish studied lakes, variation freshwater I mountain Scandinavian common a Herein, a promote mode. phoxinus), foraging may habitats. (Phoxinus specific stream habitats minnow a versus contrasting to lakes adaptions of the morphological inhabiting species in with individual in intertwined regimes between phenomenon common pronounced hydrodynamic a often different is is The environments differentiation between Intraspecific selection natural fishes. divergent freshwater to response in divergence Phenotypic Abstract 2020 27, April 1 Scharnweber Kristin minnows stream and phoxinus) lake (Phoxinus of divergence trophic and Morphological psl Universitet Uppsala ns¨nadistiuaist iktecagsi oymrhlg otefeigo pcfi eore.Lk minnows Lake resources. specific on feeding the to morphology body in changes the link to tributaries its Annsj¨on and ˚ atrsesaculeatus Gasterosteus eoi gibbosus Lepomis 1 eg 8 n ueiesceeslo ( salmon sockeye juvenile and 18) (e.g. ) rrc as( bass rock or ) 1 mlpie rupestris Ambloplites 1) utemr,divergence Furthermore, (14). ) nohnhsnerka Oncorhynchus hxnsphoxinus Phoxinus (19), ) ,a ), Posted on Authorea 27 Apr 2020 | CC BY 4.0 | https://doi.org/10.22541/au.158801934.43964147 | This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. 3) inw r h otcmo s pce n h s omnt sfrhrcmoe ybrown by composed further is community fish the and species fish common most the trout are km Minnows 57 (34). approximately the (63.261212 of Sweden Central in located Annsj¨on is ˚ area a study indicating and preference, Sampling dietary and Methods distance and morphological stream Furthermore,Material prey. between in minnows. specific relationship lake that consuming to a are predict when compared Streams is I morphology lower habitats. Therefore, there specific be respective 33). that would the (e.g. zooplankton predict in zooplankton of I By use contribution of resource 32). dietary abundance individual (31, the lower to the minnows, resolution aimed a to I taxonomic lake by morphology morphometrics, characterized high the geometric body generally a by in in analyses with minnows changes into morphological the prey insight of with direct link assessment niches ingested a use on trophic provide resource to information the the advantage combining proving understand the ecology, has to foraging method contents This the stomach tributaries. ex- analyzed its missing. for have and is known, Sweden Annsj¨on, I habitats Central ˚ is study, stream it versus this lake as due In inhabiting foraging, be minnows Ramler, of might in contrast, This modes adaptations minnows. different In morphological stream to ( current. to incorporating to linked perch compared the compared minnows European structures in lake heads from head in ample drag larger in pronounced had the changes more also habitat-induced reduce was minnows being to form to lake minnows body and beneficial stream streamlined the minnows found is a stream and (27) minnow that that Fumagalli Italy reported studied form and Northern (28) (27) Collin body Palandacic in Fumagalli results: a minnows and opposing found streamlined, investigated un- found Collin recently (28) more studies an were habitats: can Palandacic The Minnows is stream it Ramler, basin. (24-26). where It versus and Danube ecosystems areas, lake 23). Switzerland, native new in in (22, modify to adaptions populations distribution to introduced phenotypic large potential when show its the impact to ecological has despite profound and attention invasive its little become despite paid species, has fish that derstudied fish freshwater common u otn a unie rmteetr u ftemnosuigadsetn irsoe u fullness Gut microscope. dissecting a using minnows the of gut entire the from quantified was content Gut (39). a 2) using (Figure analyses structures analyzed content between was Gut and distances homologous locations proportional 18 on stream TPS- including based to determined, and semi-landmarks transferred were lake were 17 landmarks photographs 35 in lateral and caught Digital (https://life.bio.sunysb.edu/morph/) (38). dig2 minnows method and individual morphometric collected geometric of was landmark-based gut morphology entire body The the a The out. (to analyses, stretched the length morphometric fins in geometric individual with 121 For morphometrics subsequently fish and Geometric measured. the and 54) were of thawed L3: -20 side g) were 52, at left 0.01 fish L2: frozen the nearest kept lab, 52, on the (L1: the taken (to was locations In weight photograph lake S3:21). and the 50, mm) from S2: mm nearest 158 50, 6 analyzed, an (S1: were with using streams minnows m caught 279 -20 10 were total, to frozen x minnows In slow University. were different m Uppsala Fish streams, at benzocaine. three (1 the of lab overdose from nets the In an to collected with gill 1). killed were using (Figure and minnows approach Sj¨oviksb¨acken 1) S3) electrofishing Furthermore, S2), downstream Kvarnb¨acken overnight. Figure (location (location S1), downstream Klockb¨acken hours L3; (location and Stor 12 L2, downstream to minnows (L1, tributaries: 2018, up flowing locations August for In lake (37). size) only three mesh species from one to caught belong Sweden were and Norway inhabiting minnows However, fontinalis Salvelinus am trutta Salmo ° rtccharr Arctic , o usqetgtcnetanalyses. content gut subsequent for C 3) nSuhr Europe, Southern In (34). 2 ec fluviatilis Perca aei eaieysalw(eo ep,bttedeetpiti 39.5m is point deepest the but deep), m 2 (below shallow relatively is lake avlnsalpinus Salvelinus eg 9 0.Hwvr vdneo rpi ih divergence, niche trophic on evidence However, 30). 29, (e.g. ) ° ,12.567719 N, .phoxinus P. 2 aetrout lake , ° eog oaseiscmlx(3 5 36). 35, (23, complex species a to belongs )a neeaino 2m(iue1.Most 1). (Figure 526m of elevation an at E) avlnsnamaycush Salvelinus ° n ro charr brook and , n transported and C Posted on Authorea 27 Apr 2020 | CC BY 4.0 | https://doi.org/10.22541/au.158801934.43964147 | This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. niiul n 23%o l temidvdascretyit h epciegop ngnrl aeminnows lake general, In group. respective the streams into versus correctly lake individuals the stream all in of caught % minnow 92.3 between and morphology individuals distance body (Mahalonobis in significant differences were DFA, from revealed ANOVA revealed habitats. cm. As within 8.2 nested – locations 4.9 different between the morphometrics length of Geometric total length in minnow varied between locations difference different significant six no the locations in different caught the Minnows in caught minnows of length Total permit The L¨ansstyrelsen A21-2018. Results J¨amtlands from l¨an. number: received permit was with electrofishing Committee Ume˚a conducting Ethic the Animal for by approved was study (IBM The v.25 SPSS IBM statement using to Ethical conducted used 1). were was Kingdom) (CV USA). analyses CVA United NY, univariate the Plymouth, Armonk, whereas Ltd. of Corp., dataset, E axis multivariate (Primer first add-on the the PERMANOVA Spearman analyze and the used content with I 7.0.13 gut v shape, in PRIMER zooplankton body minnow of locations. and proportions different use individual six resource the the between on between relationship differed the categories test diet To three U-tests. the Mann-Whitney Dunn applied of –adjusted I contribution Bonferroni streams, terrestrial the with versus and test if lake tests To invertebrates, Kruskal-Wallis the benthic squares. conducted in of zooplankton, further caught (i.e. sums I individuals categories III the the diet between of type three significance differed with The the insects) permutations) location factor. of fixed (999 with contribution a PERMANOVA permutations the as unrestricted a habitat whether and with analyses. using factor tested the analyzed random was a from and and as model excluded similarities location items were setting Bray-Curtis habitat, unidentified individuals multivariate on within of these had nested based Ordination and analyses. solely was caught) statistical to composition individuals minnows prior diet all transformed many root of teeth arcsine-square % was pharyngeal data (37.5 location. Proportional using guts each their of food in individuals their mucus 30 crush of shape maximum minnows of a locations. significance As six to assess the restricted between to Discriminant was comparison A used pairwise each analysis (41). for for were shape conducted analyses (CVA) data size) was The CVA further (centroid analysis shape second all size Variate A the for on habitats. Canonical used between using correct coordinates) a differences was To (Procrustes examined regression and scores function. (DFA) this was shape of analysis outliers” the locations residuals Function “Find of the and regression the and as a stream), separately using used location habitat and outliers I within lake for size, checked body nested (i.e. for I habitats location (40). the and interpretations, v.1.06d between my variable MorphoJ on morphology dependent gear in as sampling Variation of length (i.e. effect habitats total size-selective between with differed potential variable. ANOVA minnows a independent of locations out an length lake rule the conducted total in to if size I thus test mesh To streams), one with locations). and gillnets stream lake (i.e. the used in was gear electrofishing of and kind different two sampling, mucus. minnow For and items unidentified d) and analyses Diptera), Statistical (adult insects terrestrial Food Arachnida, c) %. Odonata, Polychaeta), 5 Coleoptera, Oligochaeta, at nearest Gastropoda, Bivalvia, the Trichoptera, proportion ( Nematoda, to area Ephemeroptera, estimated (Cladocera ronomidae, to was zooplankton (equivalent which sample a) proportion the as Ceriodaphnia volume in classified the observed weight were category prey to items each used of and width) uniform categories) (5 estimated was sp., Leptodora sp., Chydorus D 5.3026, = p) n srcd,b eti netbae Apioa Chi- (Amphipoda, invertebrates benthic b) Ostracoda, and sp.), P 3 Eurycercus .0) ute,DAcasfid9. fallake all of % 90.0 classified DFA Further, 0.001). < sp., Bosmina ´ ariecmaiost analyze to comparisons pairwise s sp., Daphnia ´ akcorrelation rank s sp., Alona sp., Posted on Authorea 27 Apr 2020 | CC BY 4.0 | https://doi.org/10.22541/au.158801934.43964147 | This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. aito ocmlt n erdcieioain(,4) oee,rslso opooia iegne but divergence, adaptive morphological from of vary results could However, that 49). continuum (6, specification isolation the Future morpho- reproductive available. along the and of not Sweden become position complete is in may the to study minnow characterize phenotypes variation to this European needed divergent of the are regime, minnows differentiation of genetic the selective types of demonstrated for level the data the be investigate of genetic also to Unfortunately, stability studies could 48). the phenotypic pattern (47, from this on fixed emerge and initially depending genetically 44), may and differentiation (43, Intraspecific divergence (46), shared be (45). morphologically are plasticity theory, system can evolution items perch-roach and niche the prey from 16), in less predicted (15, empirically as As population (6). competition single speciation reduce a of will within stage early divergence an zooplankton intraspecific as to where seen feeding lead 21), help will (20, could habitat polymorphism that Resource stream body complex deep structurally environment, (33). a the uniform scarce a and in typically in maneuvering snout is swim while pointed a to downward prey advantage of While a an benthic use mode. as by on the foraging seen characterized specific with be were a associated can to minnows minnows was adaption stream lake an shape of is body between morphology morphology minnow differed streamlined habitat-specific that my morphology the This indicating Furthermore, Thus, resources, streams. 42). degree. of (22, and set higher diet lake specific minnow a the on to in findings insects caught previous minnows terrestrial with line and in invertebrates are benthic results ingested which streams, adjacent in caught (r Minnows 1) CV (Figure of -bodyshape values lake (i.e. the Discussion: distances to morphological associated the were and CV-values zooplankton positive of more 1) (CV CVA Spearman of 3b). axis first the location Along distance in morphological higher 4). and significantly Figure use was resource 3c, between insects (Table Relationship locations terrestrial respectively other of S3, all proportion and this to S2, the At compared and Furthermore, 4). L3 S3 4). Figure in the invertebrates 3a, Figure explains benthic (Table which 3b, of invertebrates, respectively (Table benthic proportion lower L1, from the significantly and contribution between had L2, higher differences L3 a non-significant to location by compared characterized at were guts caught minnows minnows variation their location, showed habitat: in it same zooplankton addition, the In of of 3). proportions locations (Table between streams and use lake resource between in differences overall the reflected locations Z U: % 18.2 (average (average streams locations in stream higher significantly was invertebrates P benthic of contribution % the 51.9 contrast, In 4). Figure Pseudo-F (PERMANOVA: % habitats 75.4 within Pseudo-F nested (PERMANOVA: locations streams between 5,278 significantly and differed of lake further ordination between but the 0.039), 3b). significantly from (Figure differed seen minnows content stream As Gut to 1). (Table similar most habitat were analyses lake L3 content the variation, in Gut in the caught versus L3 lake individuals of and between of % differences L1 morphology 18.3 significant between minnow showed CVA, explained Pairwise minnows also locations 3b). which between further the (Figure streams separation 2, between but different shape axis, streams, CV the in body this 3b). caught minnow along minnows (Figure of the and between comparisons occurred (CV shape morphospace CVA habitats of body the in axis stream variability in first indicated and The variation 3a). lake the (Figure in bulkier of was caught % body minnows 59.8 the stream and whereas explained down-ward streamlined, 1) pointed more was was shape that snout body and a showed snout facing upward an by characterized were .0,Tbe2 iue4.Frhroe h otiuino ersra net a infiatyhge in higher significantly was insects terrestrial of contribution the Furthermore, 4). Figure 2, Table 0.001, < 6.8904, : 1 -3.978, = ± ± 06S)cmae osras(98% (29.8 streams to compared SD) 40.6 63S)cmae olk oain aeae2. % 21.5 (average locations lake to compared SD) 46.3 P ´ .0) h otiuino opako a infiatyhge nlk oain (average locations lake in higher significantly was zooplankton of contribution The 0.001). = akcreainsoe infiatpstv eainhpbtentedeaycontribution dietary the between relationship positive significant a showed correlation rank s P .0,Tbe2 iue4.Piws oprsn ftetrede aeoisbtenthe between categories diet three the of comparisons Pairwise 4). Figure 2, Table 0.001, < ns¨ ngnrlyigse oezolntn oprdt inw agti the in caught minnows to compared zooplankton, more ingested Annsj¨on generally ˚ ± 58S)cmae olk oain 31% (3.1 locations lake to compared SD) 35.8 ± 24 Mn-hte :Z U: (Mann-Whitney 42.4) 4 ± 88S)(anWinyU Z U: (Mann-Whitney SD) 38.8 s 0.460, = 1 -4.730, = ± P 66S)(Mann-Whitney SD) 16.6 .0,Fgr 5). Figure 0.001, < P 5,278 .0,Tbe2, Table 0.001, < 3.7748, : 1 -5.601, = P = Posted on Authorea 27 Apr 2020 | CC BY 4.0 | https://doi.org/10.22541/au.158801934.43964147 | This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. .Rnl D oi .Eooia pcain clg etr.2005;8(3):336-52. Letters. 2000. Ecology Press; speciation. University Ecological Oxford P. U.K.: Nosil Oxford, 1986. HD, radiation. Press; Rundle adaptive University 3. of Princeton ecology NJ: The Princeton, D. wild. Schluter the 2. in selection Natural stiftelse. JA. Borghs Endler Olsson 1. the and 2013.0091) KAW (grant foundation References: Wallenberg Alice gut Haferkemper and the individual Leonie conducted Knut on Bublys thank the discussions Kasparas further Svanb¨ack with from lab. Richard helped I and map. Asbj field project. the and the created this specialization in Schulz help of Jenny amazing and steps an analyses all been content have supported who Ekl¨ov, Villwock who Peter Holger and to grateful am I https://uu.diva-portal.org, at DiVA in available openly Acknowledgements: are study this of urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-389472. findings number: the reference support that data The overlap diet a stream Statement: if the Accessibility stream, on invasions the Data minnow of of populations consequences into fish the directly minnows native determine webs. be the to of need for food cannot introduction studies threat the habitats future similar Certainly, lake Nonetheless, a occur. habitats. in would pose stream observed also target may in patterns habitats competition occurring and stream interspecific interactions habitats brown Therefore, the contrasting native lakes. to these the inhabiting transferred in may of individuals habitats species growth stream the inhabiting different and than minnows recruitment at that resources reduced indicate different herein of the presented on abundance to results rely My contributing low (26). factors a habitats lake the and in responsible of Oligochaeta, trout being one and thus as webs, Chironomidae as in regarded food of considered example, also lake dominance are for modify a as They to lacustris with densities, ability (26). Gammarus assemblage the high bait have zoobenthos reach life they can a that that as they showed for lakes, them further that these used (25) of fact Brittain many anglers the and In as to fish. introduced due of relationship. invasive, were richness this being minnows species resolve low remote, correlation to a often the needed by on are are characterized (but direction are experiments specialization lakes and lab individual mountain strength further in Scandinavian the but variation influence diet, of have could and studies degree pressure few morphology the very predation minnow conditions, shape Only Potentially, of may ecological 51). 54). 50, that of 53, (13, factors kind 52, predators lake such specific see escape the under the and to advantageous in identify acceleration Collin present as rapid to a pressure seen tried (28), enhance predation be may Palandacic high can mass a muscle morphology Ramler, as reported body of hydrodynamic further deeper the they ones to A habitats, adaptions habitats. the stream morphological to compared these in with streamlined attributing occurring more accordance besides conditions be However, in to lakes. Switzerland in are in living habitats conspecifics that stream are inhabiting results minnows locations found different my (27) Fumagalli the to at abundances contrast forces prey In driving of the estimates understand divergence, at To abundant of plasticity were adjacent invertebrates. degree plants of two benthic the water needed. in for degree habitats, the variation lake microhabitats of strong other the suitable minnows the a behind provide to between indicates contrast could and differences In variation which L2 fixed. that L3, Such genetically and suggest be minnows. L1 not greater would at stream might a which habitats caught to to formation, individuals feeding similar than resource-morph were caught more zooplankton L3 in individuals were fewer location to ingested at shape compared caught and insects, body invertebrates individuals terrestrial Individuals Furthermore, on benthic locations. extent locations. on different greater stream extent the two a between to other habitats, feeding the the were in within S3 variation location strong at a caught showed use resource also slk inw hwasrn itoelpwt ueiebontot(4,te are they (24), trout brown juvenile with overlap diet strong a show minnows lake As . ø nV rn ø lsa aeisgt omno ouainsrcue iaca upr came support Financial structure. population minnow to insights gave llestad 5 ns¨ n(4.N Anssj¨on (34). ˚ æ stad Posted on Authorea 27 Apr 2020 | CC BY 4.0 | https://doi.org/10.22541/au.158801934.43964147 | This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. 3 otltM ryo .Hnbo fErpa rswtrfihs onl wteln:Pbiain Kot- Publications Switzerland: Cornol, fishes. freshwater p. European of 646 2007. Handbook telat; J. Freyhof M, Kottelat 23. minnow, the of Animal 62. history techniques. natural The habitat-specific WE. - Frost 22. foraging bluegill in variation individual 1989;38:643-58. and Behaviour. Learning TJ. 1984;65(3):851- Ecology. Ehlinger environments. 21. structured in bass largemouth by lake-type 2010;139(5):1584-94. foraging 61. juvenile Society. Optimal shapes Fisheries O. ecology American Anderson Contrasting the 20. F. of Breden Transactions gene TR, salmon. Hamon and sockeye RH, selection riverine Mackas 2002;56(6):1199-216. and between JL, Evolution. Nielsen balance system. SA, the misty Pavey the and 19. in divergence stickleback Adaptive stream JD. and McPhail Lake EB, flow: Taylor American AP, literature. Hendry neglected a 18. - fishes in displacement and release 1994;144(4):596-627. Character and Naturalist. DS. amphibians, Wilson BW, fishes, 1996;27:111-33. Robinson Systematics. in 17. and polymorphisms Ecology resource of of Review significance Annual Evolutionary birds. Sk´ulason S. TB, Smith 16. 1995;10(9):366- Evolution. & Ecology in Trends vertebrates. 70. pump- in and polymorphism Resource bass TB. rock Sk´ulason Smith 2002;61(6):1619-38. 15. S, stream-dwelling Biology. and Fish lake- of between Journal variation populations. Morphological kinseed MG. Fox and J, Integrative Brinsmead fishes. 14. in regimes flow across 2008;48(6):750-68. differentiation Biology. phenotypic Comparative 1997;61(1):3-50. of Society. Predictability Linnean RB. Langerhans the 13. of Journal 1984;24(1):107-20. stickleback Biological threespine Zool. shape. lacustrine Am body of vertebrates. rosteidae) morphology aquatic Ecological in JA. foraging Walker and 12. locomotion form, 1988;85(6):1878-82. Body America. National PW. of the Webb of States 11. Proceedings United sunfish. the Bluegill of in polymorphism Sciences foraging of Complex Academy DS. Wilson species cichlid TJ, 2018;31(9):1313-29. sympatric Ehlinger Biology. in 10. Evolutionary infections of parasite Divergent Journal O. Victoria. Seehausen Lake OM, 2009;63(12):3201-13. Selz in Evolution. predators CE, Wagner histories. for A, role life Karvonen a of 9. gradient: evolution environmental the an on across availability diversification resource Phenotypic Biology. predation and DN. Evolutionary of Reznick Bmc MR, Effects fish. Walsh T. prey 8. omnivorous Mehner in MT, divergence Monaghan morphological 10.1186/471-2148-13-132. T, on 2013;13:doi: Wanke use Syv¨aranta resource J, K, and Watanabe pressure K, Sciences. Scharnweber Aquatic and 7. Fisheries of Journal Canadian thereof? lack the 2009;66(8):1383-98. Or speciation! Ecological natural AP. 2007;274(1611):839-44. a Hendry 6. within Sci. diversity B-Biol use Soc an resource R increased specialization: Proc drives individual population. competition Intraspecific of DI. 2005;7(7):993-1012. strength Svanb¨ack Bolnick Research. 5. R, the Ecology Evolutionary affects method. competition theory Intraspecific diet optimal DI. Bolnick Svanb¨ack R, 4. hxnsphoxinus Phoxinus 6 ora fAia clg.1943;12:139- Ecology. Animal of Journal . atrsesaculeatus Gasterosteus (Gaste- L Posted on Authorea 27 Apr 2020 | CC BY 4.0 | https://doi.org/10.22541/au.158801934.43964147 | This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. 4 icmn ,DeeiM nteoii fseisb ypti pcain aue 1999;400(6742):354-7. Nature. speciation. sympatric by species of individuals: origin the of On ecology M. 2003;161(1):1-28. The Doebeli Naturalist. al. U, Dieckmann American et 44. CD, specialization. Hulsey individual JM, of Davis implications LH, and Yang 1995;19:5-46. Cybium. Incidence JA, species. Fordyce Svanb¨ack fish R, DI, freshwater Genes Bolnick European Dev 43. fourteen of morphometrics. habits Feeding geometric T. in Oberdorff P, allometry Michel 42. of concepts form: and 2016;226(3):113-37. shape, Evol. Size, CP. Eco- Klingenberg Molecular 41. morphometrics. geometric for package 2011;11(2):353-7. software 2009;36(2):235-47. Resources. integrated Biol. logy an Evol MorphoJ: 1991. CP. Morphometrics. Klingenberg Press; Geometric University 40. in Cambridge Advances York: P. New Gunz P, data. Mitteroecker landmark 39. for Norway: tools in Morphometric patterns FL. invasion Bookstein recent 38. and history Molecular dispersal 2013. heterogeneity fishes. Post-glacial Oslo; Spatial minnow: freshwater of al. Eurasian University its The et of J. M, Holmen accuracy Bariche 37. R, barcoding Barbieri affects V, 2014;14(6):1210-21. Hotspot Almada Resources. Biodiversity Ecology MT, Cyprinidae). Mediterranean Monaghan : (Teleostei the F, France in Herder southern MF, and Geiger Greece 36. from Phoxinus of 2007;18(2):145-62. species Freshw. new Explor Ichthyol Three M. Kottelat 35. l¨an; 1937;7(4):445-79. 2010. Monographs. Ecological namaycush Fiskeunders¨okningarnus i A. streams. Berglund in L, Fish plankton Preˇsov; Bergwall 2016. lake of of 34. typical University Journal of ecology: Fate applications. feeding DC. fish their Chandler freshwater and in 33. analysis methods content on Stomach P. review Manko a 32. - analysis content 1980;17(4):411-29. Stomach Biology. EJ. Hyslop 10.1002/ecs2.1387. 2016;7(8):e01387. techniques Ecosphere. 31. assessment growth perch. use polymorphic ontogenetic resource of Combining specialization Ekl¨ov and P. trophic MHK, in morphology Marklund trade-offs reveal U, on Strandberg resources K, Scharnweber food 30. 2002;131(1):61-70. and Oecologia. habitat Ecol perch. analysis. of in morphometric trajectories Effects geometric Ekl¨ov P. on Svanb¨ack R, based 29. and basin lake Danube of divergence the Morphological and H. 2017;7(2):572-84. Italy Ahnelt Evol. Northern J, Wanzenbock of GB, Phoxinus and Delmastro stream A, lake Palandacic between D, Ramler divergence 28. genetic adaptive and morphological minnow for 502. the ( minnows Evidence of European in history L. habitats Fumagalli The stream H, O. Ugedal Collin EB, 27. Thorstad OT, Sandlund T, phoxinus Hesthagen J, Museth 26. Borgstr phoxinus J, Museth 24. h nrdcino h uoenmno ( minnow European the of introduction the N 2010;642(1):93-100. 25. Hydrobiologia. overlap? niche forced or resources æ tdF rtanJ.Ln-emcagsi h itrlbnhso owga uapn aefollowing lake subalpine Norwegian a of benthos littoral the in changes Long-term JE. Brittain F, stad L)i owy rmhrls pce ops.Junlo ihBooy 2007;71:184-95. Biology. Fish of Journal pest. to species harmless from Norway: in (L.) n on rw ru ( trout brown young and ) atrsla vdcmrnsseohfiknetrna 9220.L¨ansstyrelsen J¨amtlands 1992-2009. fiskinventeringar och decimeringsfiske av resultat samt ) ø ,Biti E itoelpbtenitoue uoenmno ( minnow European introduced between overlap Diet JE. Brittain R, m am trutta Salmo hxnsphoxinus Phoxinus hxnsphoxinus Phoxinus ns¨ n ffke vitouea kanadar¨oding introducerad ( av Annsj¨on- Effekter ˚ ntelake, the in ) 7 yrnde.MlclrEooy 2011;20(21):4490- Ecology. Molecular Cyprinidae). , .Hdoilga 2010;642(1):71-9. Hydrobiologia. ). Ø r emasan euto abundant of result a Heimdalsvatn: vre Phoxinus Phoxinus Salveli- Posted on Authorea 27 Apr 2020 | CC BY 4.0 | https://doi.org/10.22541/au.158801934.43964147 | This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. eito S)o h ecnaeo u oueo ahie,o uso opako,bnhcinvertebrates benthic zooplankton, of sums or ( item, size each sample of the volume including gut insects, of terrestrial percentage and the of (SD) deviation 2 Table tions loca- Stream locations Lake ( distances Procrustes are differences. significant Depicted depict locations. font different six the in 1 Table perch Eurasian Tables in divergence population Ecol of Ekl¨ov Decrease factors. P. K, differences ecological Karlsson ( U, dietary to Strandberg relation and K, in Scharnweber morphological 54. charr of Arctic benthic magnitude small the 2018;8(3):1573-81. of Evol. in populations Variation among individuals CA. between in Leblanc divergence Kristj´ansson BK, intra-population 53. drives transparency proba- Water Ekl¨ov P. the ( Svanb¨ack R, increase perch PE, starts Eurasian Hirsch faster P, Do Bartels DN. 52. 2005;19(5):808-15. Reznick Ecology. D, Functional McKenney predators? OL, evading 2003;80(4):689-98. Griset of Society. CK, bility Linnean Ghalambor the divergence JA, of Walker morphological Journal 51. Habitat-associated Biological TJ. species. Dewitt fish AK, Neotropical Langerhans two CA, in Layman RB, Ecology Langerhans in Trends 50. speciation. (incomplete) for explanations 2009;24(3):145-56. Ecological Evolution. O. Seehausen & LJ, Harmon P, Nosil 49. Journal speciation. ecological for 2011;24(2):326-42. plasticity Biology. phenotypic Evolutionary of consequences of adaptation The AP. selection, Hendry natural X, 2008;21(6):1460-9. Thibert-Plante among Biology. 48. interactions Evolutionary on of plasticity Journal phenotypic flow. 2010;25(8):459-67. of pla- gene Evolution. effects Phenotypic and & AP. Modifying Ecology E. Moczek in Crispo CD, Trends Schlichting 47. speciation. T, and Cruickshank diversification EC, on Snell-Rood impacts MA, sticity’s Wund DW, Pfennig 46. 2008;117(1):114-24. resource Oikos. species communities. multiple fish drives in competition Intraspecific polymorphism K. Holmgren R, Svanb¨ack Ekl¨ov Fransson 45. P, R, ec fluviatilis Perca itcmoiino inw agti h aeadsras eitdaeaeae n standard and averages are Depicted streams. and lake the in caught minnows of composition Diet : eut fCnnclVraeAaye npiws oprsno oysaeo inw caught minnows of shape body of comparison pairwise on Analyses Variate Canonical of Results : 3005<.0 .2 .0 .2 0.002 0.026 0.003 0.001 0.028 <0.001 0.029 <0.001 <0.001 0.034 0.027 <0.001 0.035 <0.001 0.041 0.031 <0.001 S3 0.003 S2 0.037 0.018 S1 L3 L2 L1 ec fluviatilis Perca nbonn aes oeo at cd n oaigecec.Po n.2016;11(9):20. One. PLoS efficiency. foraging and acids fatty of role waters: browning in ) P S P S3 S3 S S2 P S2 S S1 P S1 S L3 L3 P L2 S 0.118 L2 P 0.012 L1 S L1 tions ca- lo- Lake tions ca- lo- Lake .Po n.2012;7(8). One. PLoS ). .1 0.220 0.011 tions ca- lo- Lake N tions ca- lo- Lake ). 8 tions ca- lo- Lake S mn rusadthe and groups among ) tions ca- lo- Lake .1 .5 .1 0.127 0.019 0.253 0.073 0.013 0.017 tions ca- lo- Stream tions ca- lo- Stream P

vle Bold -value.

tions ca- lo- Stream

tions ca- lo- Stream Stream lo- ca- tions tions ca- lo- Stream Posted on Authorea 27 Apr 2020 | CC BY 4.0 | https://doi.org/10.22541/au.158801934.43964147 | This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. lgcat . 88000000 0 0 0 20.7 42.6 2.4 7.3 0 0 0 0 4.9 0 0 46.3 0 36.4 0.6 0 2.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 41.5 27.9 0 32.9 0 8.7 17.8 0 18.6 0 0 0 0 5.4 18.8 0 9.8 13.6 3.3 0 3.2 0 4.2 16.2 0 0 44.8 1.0 4.8 3.2 0 32.7 15.4 25.2 0 0 0 2.6 43.1 41.2 0 0 0.5 13.4 0 0 2.5 8.3 0 0 28.8 20.9 0 2.1 0 31.0 6.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 8.7 4.3 0.4 0 0 0 0 0 1.4 0 0 0 0 40.9 20.9 locations 0 20.9 Stream 0 22.9 21.7 0 0 0 0 locations 0 0 0 Lake 23.5 5.2 0.001 < 4.3 42.679, 0 5.7 17.4 8.3 0 H 0 0 zooplankton: 0 0 loca- 0 0 different six 0 the 0 in adjusted caught and differences. 9.6 12.3 minnows significant test, 0.9 overall depict of 3.2 font the gut Bold 0 of the locations. results in 0 of the insects comparisons 0 are terrestrial 0 Depicted c) tions. and invertebrates, benthic 0 b) 0 3 0 Table 0 0 1.7 0 3.8 0.2 0 0 Σ 0 0.9 0 Σ Σ 0 adult Diptera 24.6 0 12.4 17.7 0 Polychaeta Oligochaeta 0 Arachnida 0.2 Odonata Coleoptera Gastropoda 6.3 2.2 3.1 Bivalvia 0 Trichoptera Nematoda Ephemeroptera Chironomidae Gammarus Ostracoda Chydorus Leptodora Ceriodapnia Alona Daphnia Bosmina Eurycercus 5 ersra insects terrestrial invertebrates benthic zooplankton = p . 770317432. 113. 763. . 5.7 2.6 34.0 17.6 31.1 11.1 20.9 4.3 1.7 0.3 17.7 3.2 sp. eut fKuklWli et npiws oprsno ouercpooto fa zooplankton, a) of proportion volumetric of comparison pairwise on tests Kruskal-Wallis of Results : P p 253. . 7400000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17.4 3.0 33.6 12.5 sp. p . 5601080000 0 0 0 0.8 0.1 15.6 3.3 0 0 0 0 sp. p . . . 0.5 0.1 1.8 0.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 sp. p . 770000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17.7 3.1 sp. p 634. 114. 284. 914. . 74193.9 1.9 27.4 8.9 42.1 29.1 48.1 42.8 41.1 71.1 47.0 66.3 sp. p . 75612. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24.2 6.1 17.5 3.1 sp. 3<001<0.001 < 0.002 0.008 0.001 < 0.003 0.005 0.021 0.009 S3 S2 S1 L3 L2 L1 0.001 < 42.679, H zooplankton: 5 = P aelctosLk oain aelctosLk oain aelctosLk oain temlctosSra oain temlctosSra oain temlctosSra locations Stream locations Stream locations Stream locations Stream locations Stream locations Stream locations Lake locations Lake locations Lake locations Lake locations Lake locations Lake 1( L1 . 09432. 343. 363. 6442.6 44.6 7.5 36.4 58.9 4.7 32.9 48.0 45.3 13.6 54.7 31.6 32.7 46.3 SD 45.4 13.4 mean 46.4 40.3 20.9 49.3 SD 49.5 4.3 45.3 50.4 mean 20.9 30.4 34.8 5.2 SD 14.4 80.5 mean 0 31.4 31.4 SD 0 11.9 88.1 mean SD mean SD mean N 1L 3S 2S3 S2 S1 L3 1.000 L2 0.001 < 42.679, H zooplankton: L1 locations Lake 5 2 1( L1 32) = = P 0.001 < 42.679, H zooplankton: locations Lake 5 N = 9 2 2( L2 32) = P .0 .1 1.000 0.613 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.001 < 42.679, H zooplankton: locations Lake 5 P = vle(Dunn -value N P 3 2( L2 33) = locations Stream ´ orcin o pairwise for correction) s N 3 3( L3 33) = locations Stream N locations Stream 3 3( L3 23) = N 3 1( S1 23) = N 8 1( S1 38) = N 8 2( S2 38) = N 1 2( S2 31) = N 1 3( S3 31) = N 8 3( S3 18) = N 18) = Posted on Authorea 27 Apr 2020 | CC BY 4.0 | https://doi.org/10.22541/au.158801934.43964147 | This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. cnnclvrae1,icuigrslso pamnsrn correlation. rank Spearman’s of results including 1), variate (canonical 5 Figure respectively. six habitats S3). the stream S2, in and (S1, caught lake minnows ma- for of 4: are drawn Analyses 0.9) Analyses Figure Variate (probability Function Canonical ellipses Discriminant on confidence of based with outlines shape locations Shape-change of different line). Ordination b) (green threefold. streams gnified landmarks the Semi and body. line) to (blue structures. head 21: homologous transition fin; anterior between ventral 3: dorsal 27: distances 33: fin, Figure of fin; proportional anal insertion pelvic on of 12: insertion of based posterior snout; posterior insertion were 17: the 26: anterior dots) fin; fin; 6-8: of 30: (blue caudal fin; dorsal tip fin; of pectoral anal of insertion 9: ventral of of insertion bone); 22: insertion insertion anterior fin; opercular 5: caudal 16: (principal of orbit; body; insertion opercular of dorsal to of point head ventral margin transition and ventral anterior, dorsal and dorsal, dorsal, posterior, posterior, most most : S3). 1-4 S2, dots): (S1, (red tributaries surrounding the 2: and Figure L3) L2, (L1, lake the in 1 Figure legends: Figure locations Stream locations Lake 0.001 < 33.018, H insects: terrestrial locations Stream locations Lake 0.001 < 38.102, H brates: inverte- benthic 5 5 = = P P eainhpbtenpooto fzolntni h inwgt n opooia distances morphological and guts minnow the in zooplankton of proportion between Relationship : a of Map : oiino h 5dgtzdlnmrsue ngoercmrhmtis ooooslandmarks Homologous morphometrics. geometric in used landmarks digitized 35 the of Position vrg rprin fgtcneto inw agti h ae(1 2 3 n h streams the and L3) L2, (L1, lake the in caught minnows of content gut of proportions Average eut fgoercmrhmtis )Saedffrne ewe inw agti h lake the in caught minnows between differences Shape a) morphometrics. geometric of Results 3<001<001<0010020.004 0.002 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < S3 S2 S1 L3 L2 0.003 0.001 L1 0.001 0.042 0.001 < < 0.001 33.018, < H insects: 0.004 terrestrial S3 S2 S1 L3 L2 L1 0.001 < 38.102, H brates: inverte- benthic 5 5 ns¨ nadispsto nSee nldn h oain hr inw hr caught where minnows where locations the including Sweden in position its Annsj¨on and ˚ = = P P locations Lake .8 .0 .0 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.884 0.724 1.000 1.000 0.001 < 33.018, H insects: terrestrial 1.000 0.577 1.000 0.001 < 38.102, H brates: inverte- benthic 5 5 = = P P locations Lake 0.001 < 33.018, H insects: terrestrial 0.001 < 38.102, H brates: inverte- benthic 5 5 = = 10 P P locations Lake .9 .0 1.000 0.001 < 33.018, 1.000 H 1.000 insects: terrestrial 0.390 0.480 1.000 0.001 < 38.102, H brates: inverte- benthic 5 5 = = © P P Landm¨ateriet. locations Stream locations Stream locations Stream Posted on Authorea 27 Apr 2020 | CC BY 4.0 | https://doi.org/10.22541/au.158801934.43964147 | This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. 11 Posted on Authorea 27 Apr 2020 | CC BY 4.0 | https://doi.org/10.22541/au.158801934.43964147 | This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. 12 Posted on Authorea 27 Apr 2020 | CC BY 4.0 | https://doi.org/10.22541/au.158801934.43964147 | This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. 13