Research ArticleAPPLIED ECOLOGY

Temperature-dependent adaptation allows fish to meet their food across their species’ range

See allHide authors and affiliations

Science Advances  25 Jul 2018:
Vol. 4, no. 7, eaar4349
DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.aar4349
  • Fig. 1 Chart showing the North Atlantic Ocean with locations of predator (Atlantic cod, G. morhua, acronyms) and prey (copepods, filled circles and shaded areas, corresponding colors) observations used in this study.

    Populations are Georges Bank (GEO), Gulf of Maine (GOM), spring-spawning western Scotian Shelf (WSS1), northern Gulf of St. Lawrence (NSL), south Newfoundland (SNL), Grand Banks (GB), Flemish Cap (FC), southern Labrador and eastern Newfoundland (LAB), west Greenland offshore (WGO), west Greenland Inshore (WGI), Iceland (ICE), Faroe Plateau (FP), northeast Arctic (NEA), western Baltic Sea (WBS), North Sea (NS), Irish Sea (IRS), and Celtic Sea (CEL). Fish population positions were approximated from (62). Copepod sampling locations as per (10, 21, 22).

  • Fig. 2 Predator-prey timing across a species’ range.

    Timing of spawning (red triangle), predators (fish larvae, red), and prey (larval copepods, blue) for Atlantic cod populations across the species’ range (population acronyms on dependent axis as described in Fig. 1). Predator timing and prey timing are estimated via TDF metrics (see Materials and Methods) using population-specific mean temperature phenology estimates (symbols, fish larvae, red circle; larval copepods, blue square) and estimates of mean temperature phenology ± one standard deviation (lines; fish larvae, red; larval copepods, blue).

  • Fig. 3 Predator-prey match across a species’ range.

    Estimates of larval copepod (N3 stage) and fish larvae (first feeders) timing for populations of Atlantic cod (G. morhua) across the north Atlantic. Estimates of N3 stage copepods and first-feeding fish larvae timing are made via the TDF method (see Materials and Methods) using observations of copepodite timing (table S1) (10, 21, 22) and spawning time (42), respectively. We made estimates using SDs based on population-specific mean daily temperature estimates (data points with error bars ± one standard deviation from mean temperature phenology; data labels refer to populations in Fig. 1). Variability in larval fish timing due to uncertainty around the relationship between temperature and time to yolk absorption (fig. S8) is shown by open symbols. Also given is the standard major axis (SMA) line fits (solid line, with 95% confidence intervals around the slope as dashed lines; P < 0.001; R2 = 0.68; slope not different from 1, P = 0.19; intercept not different from 0, P = 0.66). The 1:1 line (that is, slope of 1, intercept of 0) is given in the solid gray line.

Supplementary Materials

  • Supplementary material for this article is available at http://advances.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/4/7/eaar4349/DC1

    Table S1. Observed and estimated predator timing and prey timing used in this study.

    Box S1. A description of the TDF model.

    Box S2. Examples of using the TDF model to estimate predator timing.

    Fig. S1. Illustrating MMH.

    Fig. S2. Predator-prey match across a species’ range with source-specific estimates.

    Fig. S3. Predator-prey match across a species’ range for northern populations.

    Fig. S4. Predator-prey match across a species’ range using alternate prey species.

    Fig. S5. Predator-prey match across a species’ range using observed predator-prey stages.

    Fig. S6. Predator-prey match across a species’ range using timing estimates based on constant SD predictions.

    Fig. S7. Illustration of method to estimate timing of unobserved stages via the TDF metric.

    Fig. S8. Temperature-dependent SDs for Atlantic cod.

    Fig. S9. Intra-annual variation in population-specific temperatures estimated from temperature observations between 5- and 100-m depth.

    References (63, 64)

  • Supplementary Materials

    This PDF file includes:

    • Table S1. Observed and estimated predator timing and prey timing used in this study.
    • Box S1. A description of the TDF model.
    • Box S2. Examples of using the TDF model to estimate predator timing.
    • Fig. S1. Illustrating MMH.
    • Fig. S2. Predator-prey match across a species’ range with source-specific estimates.
    • Fig. S3. Predator-prey match across a species’ range for northern populations.
    • Fig. S4. Predator-prey match across a species’ range using alternate prey species.
    • Fig. S5. Predator-prey match across a species’ range using observed predator-prey stages.
    • Fig. S6. Predator-prey match across a species’ range using timing estimates based on constant SD predictions.
    • Fig. S7. Illustration of method to estimate timing of unobserved stages via the TDF metric.
    • Fig. S8. Temperature-dependent SDs for Atlantic cod.
    • Fig. S9. Intra-annual variation in population-specific temperatures estimated from temperature observations between 5- and 100-m depth.
    • References (63, 64)

    Download PDF

    Files in this Data Supplement:

Navigate This Article