Population variation in brain size of nine-spined sticklebacks (Pungitius pungitius) - local adaptation or environmentally induced variation?

Abstract Background Most evolutionary studies on the size of brains and different parts of the brain have relied on interspecific comparisons, and have uncovered correlations between brain architecture and various ecological, behavioural and life-history traits. Yet, similar intraspecific studies are rare, despite the fact that they could better determine how selection and phenotypic plasticity influence brain architecture. We investigated the variation in brain size and structure in wild-caught nine-spined sticklebacks (Pungitius pungitius) from eight populations, representing marine, lake, and pond habitats, and compared them to data from a previous common garden study from a smaller number of populations. Results Brain size scaled hypo-allometrically with body size, irrespective of population origin, with a common slope of 0.5. Both absolute and relative brain size, as well as relative telencephalon, optic tectum and cerebellum size, differed significantly among the populations. Further, absolute and relative brain sizes were larger in pond than in marine populations, while the telencephalon tended to be larger in marine than in pond populations. These findings are partly incongruent with previous common garden results. A direct comparison between wild and common garden fish from the same populations revealed a habitat-specific effect: pond fish had relatively smaller brains in a controlled environment than in the wild, while marine fish were similar. All brain parts were smaller in the laboratory than in the wild, irrespective of population origin. Conclusion Our results indicate that variation among populations is large, both in terms of brain size and in the size of separate brain parts in wild nine-spined sticklebacks. However, the incongruence between the wild and common garden patterns suggests that much of the population variation found in the wild may be attributable to environmentally induced phenotypic plasticity. Given that the brain is among the most plastic organs in general, the results emphasize the view that common garden data are required to draw firm evolutionary conclusions from patterns of brain size variability in the wild.</p

Environmental rearing conditions produce forebrain differences in wild Chinook salmon \u3cem\u3eOncorhynchus tshawytscha\u3c/em\u3e

Recent studies suggest that hatchery-reared fish can have smaller brain-to-body size ratios than wild fish. It is unclear, however, whether these differences are due to artificial selection or instead reflect differences in rearing environment during development. Here we explore how rearing conditions influence the development of two forebrain structures, the olfactory bulb and the telencephalon, in juvenile Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) spawned from wild-caught adults. First, we compared the sizes of the olfactory bulb and telencephalon between salmon reared in a wild stream vs. a conventional hatchery. We next compared the sizes of forebrain structures between fish reared in an enriched NATURES hatchery and fish reared in a conventional hatchery. All fish were size-matched and from the same genetic cohort. We found that olfactory bulb and telencephalon volumes relative to body size were significantly larger in wild fish compared to hatchery-reared fish. However, we found no differences between fish reared in enriched and conventional hatchery treatments. Our results suggest that significant differences in the volume of the olfactory bulb and telencephalon between hatchery and wild-reared fish can occur within a single generation

Ethical considerations in fish research

Fishes are used in a wide range of scientific studies, from conservation research with potential benefits to the species used to biomedical research with potential human benefits. Fish research can take place in both laboratories and field environments and methods used represent a continuum from non-invasive observations, handling, through to experimental manipulation. While some countries have legislation or guidance regarding the use of fish in research, many do not and there exists a diversity of scientific opinions on the sentience of fish and how we determine welfare. Nevertheless, there is a growing pressure on the scientific community to take more responsibility for the animals they work with through maximising the benefits of their research to humans or animals while minimising welfare or survival costs to their study animals. In this review, we focus primarily on the refinement of common methods used in fish research based on emerging knowledge with the aim of improving the welfare of fish used in scientific studies. We consider the use of anaesthetics and analgesics and how we mark individuals for identification purposes. We highlight the main ethical concerns facing researchers in both laboratory and field environments and identify areas that need urgent future research. We hope that this review will help inform those who wish to refine their ethical practices and stimulate thought among fish researchers for further avenues of refinement. Improved ethics and welfare of fishes will inevitably lead to increased scientific rigour and is in the best interests of both fishes and scientists