1
1
2
3
4
5
Population density and territory size in juvenile rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus
6
mykiss: implications for population regulation
7
8
9
Jacquelyn L.A. Wood1, James W.A. Grant, and Moria H. Belanger
10
Department of Biology, Concordia University,
11
7141 Sherbrooke Street West, Montréal, Québec, H4B 1R6, Canada
12
1
13
Fax: 514-848-2881
14
Email: J.L.A. Wood: jackiewood7@gmail.com (corresponding author)
Phone: 514-848-2424 ext. 3439
15
J.W.A. Grant: grant@alcor.concordia.ca
16
M. H. Belanger: noahwebstersloj@hotmail.com
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2
24
Abstract: We manipulated population density of juvenile rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss)
25
across a range of realistic densities in artificial stream channels, while controlling food
26
abundance in two different ways: in Experiment 1, the total amount of food was held constant
27
over a three-fold increase in density, whereas in Experiment 2, the per capita amount of food was
28
held constant over an eight-fold increase in density. We tested the contrasting predictions that
29
territory size (1) is not affected by population density; (2) decreases with population density as
30
1/n, where n = the local population size; or (3) decreases with population density but towards an
31
asymptotic minimum size. In Experiment 1, territory size decreased with increasing population
32
density. With the broader range of densities used in Experiment 2, territory size initially
33
decreased with density and then leveled off at a minimum territory radius of 20-30 cm. Our
34
results suggest an asymptotic minimum size of about 0.2m2 for a 5-cm rainbow trout, similar to
35
what is observed for high-density conditions in the wild. This minimum territory size could
36
potentially set an upper limit on local population density and help regulate the population size of
37
stream salmonids.
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Key words: territoriality, population regulation, density dependence, trout
3
47
Introduction
48
Whether or not territorial behaviour exerts strong population-regulating effects depends on how
49
individual territory size is adjusted in response to changes in environmental conditions, such as
50
food abundance and intruder pressure. At one extreme, an absolutely fixed territory size will set
51
the upper limit of individuals that can settle in a particular habitat (Grant and Kramer 1992;
52
Rodenhouse et al. 1997). At the opposite extreme, if there is no minimum acceptable territory
53
size, then territory size will decrease as 1/n, wherein n is the local population size, with respect to
54
the territory size at n=1. According to the latter hypothesis, territories serve only to space
55
individuals within habitats (Fretwell and Lucas 1970; Maynard Smith 1974), and territoriality
56
will play no role in population regulation. Intermediate between these two extremes, the elastic
57
disc model (Huxley 1934) predicts that territories will initially decrease with increasing density
58
until a minimum acceptable territory size is reached, which sets the maximum density for a
59
particular habitat (Wilson 1975; Adams 2001). The minimum territory size in any given habitat
60
may be affected by environmental conditions, such as food abundance, so that the maximum
61
density is higher in optimal than in suboptimal habitats (Maynard Smith 1974). For example,
62
warblers preferentially settle in flooded vs. dry habitats in response to prey abundance, leading to
63
smaller minimum territory sizes in the preferred habitat (Petit and Petit 1996).
64
Stream dwelling salmonids have been a popular model system for investigating the
65
population consequences of territoriality because juveniles defend feeding territories (Elliott
66
1990; Keeley and Grant 1995) and frequently exhibit density dependent growth, mortality, or
67
emigration (Imre et al. 2005; Lobon-Cervia 2007; Utz and Hartman 2009). Hence, territoriality
68
has frequently been implicated in the regulation of salmonid populations in the literature (e.g.
69
Chapman 1966; Elliott 1994; Cattaneo et al. 2002). For example, Elliott (1993) demonstrated
4
70
that mortality of brown trout was density dependent during early life stages as a result of
71
competition for feeding territories among newly emerged fish, after which mortality was density
72
independent (also see Milner et al. 2003; Einum and Nislow 2005). Indeed, studies of stream
73
salmonids have often revealed regular, negative relationships between abundance and average
74
body size (“thinning rules”, Grant and Kramer 1990; Elliott 1993; Bohlin et al. 1994) which have
75
been taken as indirect evidence of density regulation (Jenkins et al. 1999), with territoriality as
76
the mechanism.
77
Territory size data for stream salmonids have generally supported the two key predictions
78
of optimal territory size models (e.g. Schoener 1983; Adams 2001): territory size decreases with
79
increasing food abundance and population density (Slaney and Northcote 1974; Dill et al. 1981;
80
Keeley 2000). However, Keeley’s (2000) elegant experiment used only three levels of population
81
density, making it difficult to determine the actual shape of the territory size vs. density curve.
82
Furthermore, most experimental studies have often used densities greater than 100 fish·m-2
83
(Slaney and Northcote 1974; Imre et al. 2004), much higher than found in the wild (e.g. Grant
84
and Kramer 1992). Hence, the transferability of these results to natural situations is problematic.
85
Our goal was to determine how population density affects territory size while holding
86
food density constant in two different ways. In Experiment 1, we tested whether territory size
87
decreased with increasing population density when the total food supply was held constant, with
88
two advances over previous studies: densities typically found in nature were used and fish were
89
not allowed to emigrate so the densities were held constant in a trial. Because total food
90
abundance was kept constant across a three-fold increase in density in Experiment 1, the per
91
capita food abundance was actually decreasing as density increased. In nature, this experiment
92
might be analogous to a situation where the initial density of young-of-the-year salmonids is set
5
93
by the proximity to a redd, and is independent of food abundance (e.g. Teichart et al. 2011). In
94
Experiment 2, we modified the experiment in two important ways: the per capita food supply
95
was maintained at a constant level among density treatments and the range of density treatments
96
used was increased to an eight-fold range, in an attempt to determine the shape of the territory
97
size vs. density curve. Under natural conditions, a situation where the per capita food abundance
98
remains relatively constant among different local population densities might be equivalent to an
99
ideal free distribution between adjacent sites within a stream that differ in food abundance (i.e.
100
an adjacent pool and riffle). If fish density is directly proportional to food abundance, then
101
population density will vary while per capita food abundance is held constant. In summary, we
102
conducted two different experiments by holding food constant in two different ways to test the
103
contrasting predictions that territory size (1) is not affected by population density; (2) decreases
104
with population density as 1/n; or (3) decreases with population density but towards an
105
asymptotic minimum size.
106
107
Material and Methods
108
Test Fish
109
Young-of-the-year rainbow trout were obtained from Pisciculture des Arpents Verts, Ste-
110
Edwidge-de-Clifton, Quebec, Canada. The trout were maintained in 133 L holding tanks on a 12
111
hour light: 12 hour dark cycle (08:00-20:00). Water temperature varied over the course of the
112
experiments (from 11oC in winter to 21oC in summer), but was still within the range of preferred
113
temperatures for rainbow trout (Kerr and Lasenby 2000). The fish were fed ad libitum daily with
114
ground trout chow pellets (Vigor #4, Corey Feed Mills).
115
6
116
Artificial Stream Channels
117
In order to simulate natural conditions, all trials were conducted in 1.92 m x 0.76 m (l × w; 1.47
118
m2) artificial stream channels. However, only 1.08 m2 of space downstream from the automatic
119
feeder was suitable space for foraging. Water temperature in the stream channels varied with the
120
outdoor temperature, and was recorded daily for each trial (mean ± SD temperature = 12.1 ±
121
3.1oC). Water depth, measured at the centre of each channel, was 24.5 ± 1.4 cm (mean ± SD),
122
whereas current velocity, measured at 40% of the water depth at 20 positions, was 0.056 ± 0.033
123
m·s-1 (mean ± SD). The substrate of each stream channel consisted of a layer of light colored
124
aquarium gravel overlaid by a four by eight grid of river stones (mean max. diameter = 7.84 cm;
125
range = 5.7-10.5 cm). The stones were spaced at equal distances (15.3 cm apart horizontally, and
126
21.3 cm apart vertically) from each other, acting as visual markers to aid fish in establishing
127
territories, and to provide a frame of reference for recording the positions of focal fish during
128
observations.
129
Since stream-dwelling salmonids feed primarily on drifting aquatic invertebrates (e.g.
130
Keeley and Grant 1995), food was presented in a manner simulating stream drift. The daily
131
ration of food was spread evenly over the belt of an automatic belt feeder, which delivered the
132
food at a constant rate over a period of 12 hours (08:00-20:00). To promote growth over the
133
course of the experiment, fish received a daily ration of food (Optimum 0.7 granulated fish feed,
134
Corey Feed Mills) that was equivalent to 5% of the biomass of four fish for each treatment in
135
Experiment 1 (i.e. 5% × 4 × mean mass of a fish at the beginning of the trial), and approximately
136
5% of the total fish biomass in the stream channel in Experiment 2. Each morning the feeder
137
belts were checked for any food that had not fallen into the stream channel during the previous
138
day (mean ± SD % food = 25.23 ± 6.48 %); this amount was weighed and subtracted from the
7
139
original planned ration. Planned and actual ration of food were highly correlated across trials
140
(linear regression: actual ration (g) = 0.743 planned ration (g) + 0.001, r2 = 0.971, n = 191, P <
141
0.001).
142
143
Density Treatments
144
Each stream channel was stocked with juvenile rainbow trout (Experiment 1; mean ± SD mass =
145
1.01 ± 0.38 g, mean ± SD fork length = 3.55 ± 0.52 cm, and Experiment 2; mean ± SD mass =
146
1.31 ± 0.38 g; mean ± SD fork length = 4.95 ± 0.52 cm) in one of three different density
147
treatments (4, 8, or 12 fish) in Experiment 1, and in one of five different density treatments (2, 4,
148
8, 12, or 16 fish) in Experiment 2. Five replicates of each density treatment were rotated
149
successively through each of three artificial stream channels to control for any differences
150
between channels.
151
152
Experimental Protocol
153
In Experiment 1, 15 trials were carried out between 1 May and 21 July, 2006, with each trial
154
lasting 7 days. In Experiment 2, 25 trials were carried out between 21 January and 21 June, 2007,
155
with each trial lasting for 8 days. On the morning prior to the first day of each trial, fish were
156
chosen and randomly assigned to a density treatment, anaesthetized using clove oil (Keene et al.
157
1998), and the initial fork length (± 0.1 cm) and mass (± 0.0001 g) were recorded. Each fish
158
received a unique mark by subcutaneous injection of a small amount of fluorescent red, green, or
159
yellow elastomer in either the dorsal or caudal fin rays (Dewey and Zigler 1996), which allowed
160
us to monitor the movements of focal animals in the stream channel. The fish were allowed 15-
161
20 minutes to recover from anaesthesia before being released into a small mesh enclosure
8
162
(diameter = 18.0 cm) within the stream channel. After 2 hours, the enclosure was removed, and
163
the fish were able to enter the main body of the stream channel. A 6-hour conditioning period
164
then followed, during which a small amount of food (approx. 1% of fish biomass) was spread on
165
the belt feeders to allow fish to acclimate to the method of food delivery. New test fish were
166
selected for each trial and there was no mortality during any trial for either of the experiments in
167
this study.
168
Beginning the next day, Day 1 of each trial, scan samples were conducted 3 times per day
169
at approximately 10:00, 13:00, and 16:00 h; the position of each fish in each stream channel was
170
recorded on a schematic map. On Days 6 or 7 of each trial in Experiment 1, we conducted 20-
171
minute observations of territory size and space-use of 4 focal fish for each density treatment.
172
Because the rates of aggression were not extremely high in Experiment 1, we collected more
173
information about space use for each focal fish in Experiment 2. Hence, one 15-minute
174
observation was conducted on day 4 of each trial, and one 30-minute observation was conducted
175
on Days 7 or 8. At the conclusion of each trial, all fish were captured, and the final fork length
176
and mass were recorded to determine % specific growth rate (100 × [loge final weight of fish –
177
loge initial weight of fish] · trial length in days-1).
178
During observations, the grid of river stones was used to estimate the relative position of
179
fish within the channel (± 5.1 cm horizontally, and ± 7.1 cm vertically). The location of each
180
foraging station, and the direction (1-12 o’clock, with 12 o’clock as directly upstream) and
181
distance (in body lengths) of aggressive acts initiated from each foraging position (see
182
Steingrímsson and Grant 2008) were recorded on a digital voice recorder. We defined foraging
183
stations as locations where the fish held its position against the current for at least 5 seconds. All
184
of the aggression recorded in this study was either nipping, when one fish bites another, charges,
9
185
when a fish swims quickly and directly at an intruder usually ending with a nip, or chases, when
186
a fish repeatedly charges while attempting to nip at the tail of the retreating fish (Keenleyside
187
and Yamamoto 1962).
188
189
Quantifying Space Use
190
In Experiment 1, we focused primarily on the dominant fish in each trial because too few
191
subordinates engaged in aggressive behaviour. To estimate the territory size of each focal fish,
192
we first calculated the mean aggressive radius for each dominant fish in Experiment 1, and for
193
each focal fish in Experiment 2 that exhibited agonistic behaviour. Aggressive radius was the
194
distance between the defender and the intruder when the former initiated the attack. These
195
defended areas overlapped little and were stable over time.
196
To provide an independent estimate of the tank area successfully monopolized by the
197
dominant fish in Experiment 2, we applied the minimum convex polygon (MCP) method to the
198
coordinates of the positions of all subordinate fish obtained from the daily scan samples (i.e. 24
199
for each fish). Digital maps of the stream channels and territories of each focal fish were created
200
using ArcView GIS 3.2, in conjunction with the Animal Movement Extension (Hooge and
201
Eichenlaub 2000). Each stream channel was treated as a simple x-y coordinate system with the 0,
202
0 (x, y) position in the downstream, left corner of the stream channel.
203
204
Statistical Analysis
205
Prior to analysis, all continuous variables were subjected to one-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov
206
tests for normality; all variables met the assumptions for parametric tests. Because each tank
207
contained one dominant individual that defended a relatively large portion of the stream channel
10
208
compared to other fish, two-way ANOVAs were used to determine whether there was a main
209
effect of either dominance status (dominant versus subordinate) or density treatment on patterns
210
of space use and growth rate among test fish. Average water temperature was also added as a
211
covariate in all analyses. However, there was no significant effect of water temperature on any
212
variable except specific growth rate in Experiment 2, so we reported the results of the two-way
213
ANOVAs only, except in the section on growth rate where we reported the results of the two-
214
way ANCOVA. In instances where aspects of space use for dominant or subordinate fish were
215
considered separately, one-way ANOVAs were used. Finally, we used quadratic and piecewise
216
regression models to investigate whether the territory size of focal fish leveled off with
217
increasing population density, and used Akaike’s Information Criterion (AIC) to determine the
218
best-fit model. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS v.19 statistical software with
219
the exception of AIC model selection which was carried out using R v.2.14.0. (R Development
220
Core Team 2011).
221
222
Results
223
General Behaviour
224
At the beginning of all trials in both experiments, fish initially congregated at the downstream
225
end of the stream channel. Within 24 hours, a dominant fish moved forward in the stream
226
channel and adopted a central upstream station, directly downstream of the feeder, and initiated
227
the majority of forages and chases from this position. Depending on fish density, subordinates
228
began adopting positions further upstream soon after. In general, it took 1-3 days for fish
229
behaviour to stabilize within the stream channels. On average, dominant fish were 25.0% heavier
230
than the average subordinate in the tank at the beginning of trials in Experiment 1 (two-way
11
231
ANOVA: F1, 24 = 5.78, P = 0.024), and 17.5% heavier than the average subordinate in the tank in
232
Experiment 2 (two-way ANOVA: F1, 38 = 1.74, P = 0.20).
233
Foraging by the dominant fish was concentrated in a forward direction, in the immediate
234
area where food dropped from the feeders. However, the dominant fish defended much of the
235
stream channel, particularly in the low-density treatments, and rarely tolerated subordinate
236
individuals in the extreme upstream end of the stream channel. In the 2 and 4-fish treatments,
237
few chases were observed by the dominant individual, presumably because of low encounter
238
rates with the subordinate fish. However, subordinate fish were still effectively confined to the
239
downstream end of the stream channel by the dominant, which frequently patrolled the tank,
240
periodically chasing subordinates that attempted to move farther upstream. At these densities,
241
dominant individuals easily monopolized available food and space. In the higher-density
242
treatments, dominant fish were initially able to defend a large area of the stream channel as at
243
lower densities. As the trial progressed, however, subordinate individuals gradually spread out
244
and moved upstream, encroaching on the dominant’s foraging area. Dominant individuals still
245
effectively defended the extreme upstream end of the stream channel, but subordinate fish were
246
able to dart in from outside the central feeding area of the dominant to intercept food items as
247
they fell from the feeder.
248
249
Experiment 1: total food held constant
250
Dominant fish were more frequently aggressive than the average subordinate fish (Fig. 1a; two-
251
way ANOVA: F1, 24 = 96.11, P = 0.001). Subordinates did not initiate any aggression in the 4-fish
252
treatment, and for the remaining treatments dominant fish initiated, on average, 6.7 times more
253
chases than the average subordinate. Across density treatments, rates of aggression increased
12
254
significantly with increasing density (Fig. 1a; two-way ANOVA: F2, 24 = 8.96, P = 0.001). The
255
average aggressive radius of focal fish decreased with increasing density (Fig. 1b; one-way
256
ANOVA: F1, 24 = 47.91, P = 0.001; Linear regression: t1 = -6.92, P = .001). For all density
257
treatments, dominant fish had a higher specific growth rate than subordinate fish over the course
258
of the seven-day trials (Fig. 1c; two-way ANOVA: F 1, 24 = 5.26, P = 0.031). Specific growth rate
259
tended to decrease with increasing density, but the difference was not significant (two-way
260
ANOVA: F2, 24 = 1.98, P = 0.161).
261
262
Experiment 2: per capita food held constant
263
The collective space used by the subordinate fish in Experiment 2 increased with increasing
264
density (Fig. 2a; one-way ANOVA: F4, 19 = 7.89, P = 0.001). A polynomial regression yielded a
265
marginally non-significant quadratic term (Fig. 2a; t1 = -1.98, P = 0.06) after the linear term was
266
included in the model, suggesting that subordinate fish collectively used more space with initial
267
increases in density, but this space use leveled off at about 0.85 m2. We confirmed this result
268
using a piecewise regression model which revealed a significant increase in subordinate space
269
use with increasing density up to the 8-fish treatment (t1 = 5.11, P = 0.001), after which space
270
use remained constant (t1 = -0.27, P = 0.79). The piecewise regression was the best fitting model
271
with an AIC value of -1.88, lower than either the linear (AIC = 2.20) or the quadratic (AIC =
272
0.080) models.
273
Dominant fish were more frequently aggressive than the average subordinate fish (two-
274
way ANOVA: F1, 38 = 8.21, P = 0.007), even when one extremely aggressive fish in the 12-fish
275
treatment was not included (Fig. 2b; two-way ANOVA: F1, 37 = 11.39, P = 0.002). Subordinates
276
did not initiate any aggression in the 2-fish treatment, and for the remaining treatments dominant
13
277
fish initiated, on average, 3.2 times more chases than the average subordinate. Across density
278
treatments, rates of aggression increased significantly with increasing density (Fig. 2b; two-way
279
ANOVA: F4, 37 = 7.21, P = 0.001). The proportion of aggression initiated by the dominant fish,
280
however, decreased with increasing density (Fig. 2c; one-way ANOVA: F3, 18 = 12.83, P = 0.001)
281
before leveling off at 8-fish per tank (Piecewise regression: ≤ 8 fish per tank: t = -3.85, P =
282
0.003; ≥ 8 fish per tank: t = -0.78, P = 0.452). We confirmed that the piecewise regression was
283
the best fit model with AIC (linear: 5.05; quadratic: 0.90; piecewise: -2.59).
284
Dominant fish had greater chase distances than subordinate fish (data not shown; two-
285
way ANOVA: F1, 32 = 17.78, P = 0.001) across all trials. The average aggressive radius of focal
286
fish defending territories decreased with increasing density (Fig. 3a; two-way ANOVA: F4, 32 =
287
8.98, P = 0.001) and appeared to level off at high population densities, as indicated by a
288
significant quadratic term in a polynomial regression ( t1 = 2.16, P = 0.037) and AIC (linear:
289
361.55; piecewise: 361.22; quadratic: 358.81) Tukey’s post-hoc tests confirmed that the
290
aggressive radius in the 16-fish treatment was not significantly different from either the 12-fish
291
(P = 0.876) or 8-fish treatments (P = 0.389).
292
Dominant fish had a higher specific growth rate than subordinate fish over the course of
293
the eight-day trials (Fig. 3b; two-way ANOVA: F 1, 38 = 27.84, P = 0.001). Water temperature
294
had a significant positive effect on growth rate (two-way ANCOVA: F1, 37 = 4.64, P = 0.038), but
295
there was still a significant main effect of dominance status after statistically removing the effect
296
of water temperature (two-way ANCOVA: F1, 37 = 30.50, P = 0.001). Growth rate also tended to
297
increase with density (two-way ANCOVA: F4, 37 = 2.87, P = 0.036).
298
299
To examine the effect of food abundance on territory size, we compared the aggressive
radius for focal fish in the 4, 8, and 12-fish treatments in both experiments. Territory size was
14
300
greater in Experiment 1 than in Experiment 2, but the result was not significant (Fig. 3c; two-
301
way ANOVA: F1, 48 = 2.69, P = 0.107). As already reported, territory size decreased with
302
increasing density over the range from 4 to 12 fish per tank (Fig. 3c; two-way ANOVA: F2, 48 =
303
10.90, P = 0.001).
304
305
306
Discussion
In our study, territory sizes were neither incompressible nor followed the 1/n curve.
307
Rather, territory size decreased with increasing population density, when food density was held
308
constant in two different ways. The lack of a significant difference in territory size between the
309
two experiments was surprising given that food was more abundant in Experiment 2 than in 1.
310
While previous studies indicated a negative relationship between territory size and food
311
availability (Slaney and Northcote 1974; Keeley 2000), our data were consistent with the general
312
finding that the magnitude of decrease in territory size is small, even when food abundance is
313
doubled (Grant et al. 1998; Imre et al. 2004). In Experiment 2, two lines of evidence were
314
consistent with the prediction that territory size approached an asymptotic minimum size of
315
about 0.2m2 as density increased. If salmonid territories are approximately circular (see Keeley
316
and Grant 1995), then the minimum territory radius of 20-30 cm translated into a minimum
317
territory size of 0.13-0.28m2. In addition, the collective space used by subordinates leveled off at
318
about 0.85m2, implying that the dominant monopolized 0.23m2 (i.e. 1.08-0.85). Both curves
319
leveled off between densities of 8 to 16 fish, or 7.4-14.8 fish· m-2.
320
At low densities in both experiments, dominant fish were despotic, monopolizing most of
321
the usable area of the stream channel, and restricting subordinates to the downstream corners of
322
the channel. Because food items arrived asynchronously, dominant fish were able to use the
15
323
“free” time available between the arrival of food items to patrol its territory, intimidate
324
subordinates, and discourage them from stealing food (Grant and Kramer 1992; Praw and Grant
325
1999). As the density of individuals increased, the subordinate fish shared the costs of the
326
dominant’s aggression, were able to more effectively intercept food items, and eventually
327
established a foraging space or even a territory in the stream channel. In Experiment 2, the total
328
food abundance increased with density, so there was less free time available between the arrival
329
of food items for the dominant to spend on aggressive behaviour. The per capita rate of
330
aggression did not peak at intermediate densities as expected (Grant 1993), but increased with
331
increasing population density. This result was likely because the social system shifted from a
332
despotic society, with the dominant individual defending the entire tank, to a territorial mosaic
333
(sensu Keenleyside 1979), where the dominant and several subordinates each defended
334
individual territories. Consistent with this interpretation, the dominant’s share of the aggressive
335
behaviour decreased from 100% in the 2-fish treatment to about 15% in the 16-fish treatment in
336
Experiment 2.
337
In stream salmonids under experimental conditions, relative competitive ability of
338
individuals is usually determined by body size (Chapman 1962; Noakes 1980), and the most
339
profitable foraging sites are often occupied by dominant individuals that grow faster than
340
subordinates (Chapman 1962; Fausch 1984; Metcalfe et al. 1989). In our experiments, dominant
341
individuals adopted a central upstream station, directly beneath the feeder, where they had
342
priority of access to falling food items. While dominant fish were not always the largest fish
343
initially, they were more aggressive, had a larger chase radius, and a higher growth rate than
344
subordinates. One upstream source of food in this study may have made the longitudinal
345
hierarchy more pronounced than it would be in nature. However, the situation is not entirely un-
16
346
natural because food primarily originates in the fast upstream riffles for fish in slower raceways
347
and pools (Elliott 1967; Allan and Russek 1985; Nakano 1995).
348
Even though our experiments were conducted in laboratory stream channels, our results
349
likely have implications for field conditions. The minimum territory size of about 0.2m2 in our
350
study was comparable to those predicted by allometric regressions for similar sized fish in wild
351
populations: 0.08m2 for brown trout (Elliott 1990); 0.28m2 for steelhead trout (Keeley and
352
McPhail 1998); and 0.31m2 for Atlantic salmon (Keeley and Grant 1995). Before the advent of
353
non-invasive tagging techniques, most measurements of territory size in the wild were of
354
sedentary individuals in high density populations. The similarity between these field data and our
355
results suggest that the contiguous territories observed in territorial mosaics in the wild (sensu
356
Keenleyside 1979) are at or near the asymptotic territory size. Using elastomer tags,
357
Steingrímsson and Grant (2008) quantified the territory size of more mobile fish at lower
358
densities; their YOY Atlantic salmon defended the largest territories yet documented (0.9m2),
359
equivalent to a 50-cm territory radius in our study. Hence, the range in territory radii observed in
360
our study encompass the range of territory sizes observed in the wild for juvenile salmonids of
361
about 5cm in length.
362
Our results suggest that an asymptotic minimum territory size can limit the maximum
363
local density of individuals, independent of food supply. The individuals who were unable to
364
establish territories in our experiments would presumably have lost weight and died in longer-
365
term experiments (e.g. Imre et al. 2004). In laboratory experiments with a small number of
366
confined fish, differences between dominant and subordinate fish are often magnified compared
367
to field conditions (reviewed in Sloman et al. 2008). On the other hand, when fish are free to
368
disperse in the wild, local competition is often manifested in terms of density dependent
17
369
emigration rather than by mortality (Einum et al. 2006). Hence, it is conceivable that a relatively
370
inelastic minimum territory size might trigger density-dependent dispersal and have profound
371
effects on the population regulation of wild populations.
372
Our results contribute to the growing literature suggesting that territorial behaviour can
373
limit the density of individuals settling in a habitat in a wide variety of taxa (Adams 2001;
374
Lopez-Sepulcre and Kokko 2005). In most other taxa, however, adult individuals defend
375
relatively permanent all-purpose territories that are insensitive to changes in population density,
376
so that excess non-breeding individuals exist as floaters in the population (Tricas 1989; Newton
377
1998; Both and Visser 2003; Mougeot et al. 2003). By contrast, data for stream-dwelling
378
salmonids suggest that similar dynamics can occur, even when juveniles defend feeding
379
territories that shift in size and location as the individuals grow (Keeley and Grant 1995).
380
Because the population regulation of juvenile salmonids appears to be primarily density-
381
dependent in freshwater habitats (Elliott 1994; Jonsson et al. 1998), an asymptotic minimum
382
territory size during critical periods of habitat limitation (Elliott 1990) can play an important role
383
in population regulation.
384
385
Acknowledgements
386
We thank Grant Brown and Jae Woo Kim for logistical support and the Associate Editor and
387
anonymous referees for helpful comments on the manuscript. This study was financially
388
supported by a Discovery Grant to J.W.A.G, and an Undergraduate Student Research Award to
389
M.H.B from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.
390
391
References
18
392
393
394
395
396
Adams, E.S. 2001. Approaches to the study of territory size and shape. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst.
32: 277-303.
Allan, J.D., and Russek, E. 1985. The quantification of stream drift. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 42:
210-215.
Allen, K.R. 1969. Limitations on production in salmonid populations in streams. In Symposium
397
on salmon and trout in streams. Edited by T.G. Northcote. University of British
398
Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. pp. 3-18.
399
Bohlin, T., Dellefors, C., Faremo, U., and Johlander, A. 1994. The energetic equivalence
400
hypothesis and the relation between population density and body size in stream-living
401
salmonids. Am. Nat. 143: 478-493.
402
403
Both, C. and Visser, M.E. 2003. Density dependence, territoriality, and divisibility of resources:
from optimality models to population processes. Am. Nat. 161: 326-336.
404
Cattaneo, F., Lamouroux, N., Breil, P., and Capra, H. 2002. The influence of hydrological and
405
biotic process on brown trout (Salmo trutta) population dynamics. Can. J. Fish. Aquat.
406
Sci. 59: 12-22.
407
408
409
410
411
412
Chapman, D.W. 1962. Aggressive behavior in juvenile coho salmon as a cause of emigration. J.
Fish. Res. Board. Can. 19: 1047-1080.
Chapman, D.W. 1966. Food and space as regulators of salmonid populations in streams. Am.
Nat. 100: 345-357.
Dewey, M.R., and Zigler, S.J. 1996. An evaluation fluorescent elastomer for marking bluegills in
experimental studies. Prog. Fish. Cult. 58: 219-220.
413
Dill, L.M., Ydenberg, R.C., and Fraser, A.H.G. 1981. Food abundance and territory size in
414
juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). Can. J. Zool. 59: 1801-1809.
19
415
Einum, S., and Nislow, K.H. 2005. Local-scale, density-dependent survival of mobile organisms
416
in continuous habitats: an experimental test using Atlantic salmon. Oecologia 143: 203-
417
210.
418
Einum, S., Sundt-Hansen, L., and Nislow, K.H. 2006. The partitioning of density-dependent
419
dispersal, growth and survival throughout ontogeny in a highly fecund organism. Oikos
420
113: 489-496.
421
Elliott, J.M. 1967. The food of trout (Salmo trutta) in a Dartmoor stream. J. Appl. Ecol. 4: 59-71.
422
Elliott, J.M. 1990. Mechanisms responsible for population regulation in young migratory trout,
423
Salmo trutta. III. The role of territorial behaviour. J. Anim. Ecol. 59: 803-818.
424
Elliott, J.M. 1993. The self-thinning rule applied to juvenile sea trout, Salmo trutta. J. Anim.
425
Ecol. 62: 371-379.
426
Elliott, J.M. 1994. Quantitative ecology and the brown trout. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
427
Fausch, K.D. 1984. Profitable stream positions for salmonids: relating specific growth rate to net
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
energy gain. Can. J. Zool. 62: 441-451.
Fretwell, S. D., and Lucas, H. L. 1970. On territorial behavior and other factors influencing
habitat distribution in birds. I. Theoretical development. Acta Biotheor. 19:16-36.
Grant, J.W.A. 1993. Whether or not to defend? The influence of resource distribution. Mar.
Freshw. Behav. Physiol. 23: 137-153.
Grant, J.W.A. 1997. Territoriality. In Behavioural ecology of teleost fishes. Edited by J.-G.J.
Godin. Oxford University Press, New York. pp. 81-103.
Grant, J.W.A., and Kramer, D.L. 1990. Territory size as a predictor of the upper limit to
436
population density of juvenile salmonids in streams. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 47: 1724-
437
1737.
20
438
439
440
Grant, J.W.A., and Kramer, D.L. 1992. Temporal clumping of food arrival reduces its
monopolization and defence by zebrafish, Brachydanio rerio. Anim. Behav. 44: 101-110.
Grant, J.W.A., Steingrímsson, S.Ó., Keeley, E.R., and Cunjak, R.A. 1998. Implications of
441
territory size for the measurement and prediction of salmonid abundance in streams. Can.
442
J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 55(S1): 181-190.
443
Hooge, P.N., and Eichenlaub, B. 2000. Animal movement extension to Arcview, version 2.0.
444
Alaska. Science Center – Biological Science office, U.S. Geological Survey,
445
Anchorage, AK, USA.
446
Huxley, J.S. 1934. A natural experiment on the territorial instinct. Brit. Birds. 27: 270-277.
447
Imre, I., Grant, J.W.A., and Keeley, E.R. 2004. The effect of food abundance on territory size
448
and population density of juvenile steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Oecologia
449
138: 371-378.
450
Imre, I., Grant, J.W.A., and Cunjak, R.A. 2005. Density-dependent growth of young-of-the-year
451
Atlantic salmon Salmo salar in Catamaran Brook, New Brunswick. J. Anim. Ecol. 74:
452
508-516.
453
454
455
Jenkins, T.M., Diehl, S., Kratz, K.W., and Cooper, S.D. 1999. Effects of population density on
individual growth of brown trout in streams. Ecology 80: 941-956.
Jonsson, N., Jonsson, B., and Hansen, L.P. 1998. The relative role of density-dependent and
456
density-independent survival in the life cycle of Atlantic salmon Salmo salar. J. Anim.
457
Ecol. 67: 751-762.
458
459
Keeley, E.R. 2000. An experimental analysis of territory size in juvenile steelhead trout. Anim.
Behav. 59: 477-490.
21
460
Keeley, E.R., and Grant, J.W.A. 1995. Allometric and environmental correlates of territory size
461
in juvenile Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 52: 186-196.
462
Keeley, E.R., and McPhail, J.D. 1998. Food abundance, intruder pressure, and body size as
463
determinants of territory size in juvenile steelhead trout (Oncorynchus mykiss).
464
Behaviour 135: 65-82.
465
Keene, J.L., Noakes, D.L.G., Moccia, R.D., and Soto, C.G. 1998. The efficacy of clove oil as an
466
anaesthetic for rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss (Walbaum). Aquat. Res. 29: 89-101.
467
Keenleyside, M. H. A. 1979. Diversity and adaptation in fish behaviour. In Zoophysiology, Vol.
468
469
470
11. Edited by M.H.A. Keenleyside. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. pp. 150–174.
Keenleyside, M.H.A., and Yamamoto, F.T. 1962. Territorial behaviour of juvenile Atlantic
salmon (Salmo salar L.). Behaviour 19: 139-169.
471
Kerr, S.J., and Lasenby, T.A. 2000. Rainbow stocking in inland lakes and streams: An annotated
472
bibliography and literature review. Fish and Wildlife Branch, Ontario Ministry of Natural
473
Resources, Peterborough, Ontario.
474
475
476
477
Lobon-Cervia, J. 2007. Density-dependent growth in stream living brown trout, Salmo trutta L.
Funct. Ecol. 21: 117-124.
Lopez-Sepulcre, A. and Kokko, H. 2005. Territorial defense, territory size, and population
regulation. Am. Nat. 166: 317-329.
478
Maynard-Smith, J. 1974. Models in Ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
479
McNicol, R.E., and Noakes, D.L.G. 1984. Environmental influences on territoriality of juvenile
480
brook charr, Salvelinus fontinalis, in a stream environment. Environ. Biol. Fishes 10: 29-
481
42.
22
482
Metcalfe, N.B., Huntingford, F.A., Graham, W.D., and Thorpe, J.E. 1989. Early social status and
483
the development of life-history strategies in Atlantic salmon. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol.
484
Sci. 236: 7-19.
485
486
487
488
489
Milner, N.J., Elliott, J.M., Armstrong, J.D., Gardiner, R., Welton, J.S., and Ladle, M. 2003. The
natural control of salmon and trout populations in streams. Fish. Res. 62: 111-125.
Mougeot, F. Redpath, S.M., Leckie, F., and Hudson, P.J. 2003. The effect of aggressiveness on
the population dynamics of a territorial bird. Nature 421: 737-739.
Nakano, S. 1995. Competitive interactions for foraging microhabitats in a size-structured
490
interspecific dominance hierarchy of two sympatric stream salmonids in a natural habitat.
491
Can. J. Zool. 73: 1845-1854.
492
Newton, I. 1998. Population limitation in birds. Academic Press, London.
493
Noakes, D.L.G. 1980. Social behavior in young chars. In Charrs, salmonid fishes of the genus
494
495
496
497
498
499
salvelinus. Edited by E.K. Balon. Dr. W. Junk Publishers, The Hague. pp. 683-701.
Petit, L.J., and Petit, D.R. 1996. Factors governing habitat selection in prothonotary warblers:
field tests of the Fretwell-Lucas models. Ecol. Monogr. 66: 367-387.
Praw, J.C., and Grant, J.W.A. 1999. Optimal territory size in the convict cichlid. Behaviour 136:
1347-1363.
R Development Core Team. 2011. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R
500
Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Available from http://www.R-
501
project.org.
502
503
Rodenhouse, N.L., Sherry, T.W., and Holmes, R.T. 1997. Site-dependent regulation of
population size: a new synthesis. Ecology 78: 2025-2042.
23
504
505
506
Schoener, T.W. 1983. Simple models of optimal territory size: a reconciliation. Am. Nat. 121:
608-629.
Slaney, P.A., and Northcote, T.G. 1974. Effects of prey abundance on density and territorial
507
behaviour of young rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri) in a laboratory stream channel. J.
508
Fish. Res. Board Can. 31: 1201-1209.
509
510
511
512
513
Sloman, K.A., Baker, D., Winberg, S., and Wilson, R.W. 2008. Are there physiological
correlates of dominance in natural trout populations? Anim. Behav. 76: 1279-1287.
Steingrímsson, S.Ó. and Grant, J.W.A. 2008. Multiple central-place territories in wild young-ofthe-year Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). J. Anim. Ecol. 77: 448-457.
Teichart, M.A.K., Foldvik, A., Forseth, T., Ugedal, O., Einum, S., Finstad, A.G., Hedger, R.D.,
514
and Bellier, E. 2011. Effects of spawning distribution on juvenile Atlantic salmon (Salmo
515
salar) density and growth. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 68: 43-50.
516
517
518
Tricas, T.C. 1989. Determinants of feeding territory size in the corallivorous butterfly fish,
Chaetodon multicinctus. Anim. Behav. 37: 830-841.
Utz, R.M., and Hartman, K.J. 2009. Density-dependent individual growth and size dynamics of
519
central Appalachian brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis). Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 66:
520
1072–1080.
521
522
523
Wilson, E.O. 1975. Sociobiology: The new synthesis. Harvard University Press.
24
524
Figure Captions
525
526
Figure 1. Mean (± SE, N=5) a) aggressive rate of dominant fish (●) and the average subordinate
527
fish (■), b) aggressive radius of all focal fish, and c) specific growth rate of dominant (●) and the
528
average subordinate fish (■) in Experiment 1.
529
530
Figure 2. Mean (± SE, N=5) a) 95% minimum convex polygon of area used by all subordinate
531
fish in each trial, b) aggressive rate of dominant fish (●) and the average subordinate fish (■),
532
and c) proportion of aggression initiated by dominant fish in Experiment 2. The dotted lines in a)
533
and c) are the piecewise regression models (Y = 0.097X + 0.12 (X≤8) - 0.0046X + 0.85 (X ≥8),
534
F3,20 = 7.80, r2 = 0.47, P = 0.001) and (Y = -0.11X + 1.07 (X≤8) - 0.011X + 0.36 (X ≥8), F3,18 =
535
12.83, r2 = 0.63, P = 0.001), respectively.
536
537
Figure 3. Mean (± SE, N=5) a) aggressive radius of all focal fish in Experiment 2, b) specific
538
growth rate of dominant (●) and the average subordinate fish (■) in Experiment 2 and c)
539
aggressive radius of focal fish in Experiment 1 (■) and for the 4, 8, and 12 fish treatments in
540
Experiment 2 (●).
541
542
543
544
545
546
25
547
Figure 1.
(a)
-1
Aggressive rate (chases· min )
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
Aggressive radius (cm)
80.0
(b)
60.0
40.0
20.0
-1
% specific growth rate (g· day )
0.0
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
548
(c)
4.0
8.0
12.0
Number of fish
16.0
26
549
Figure 2.
2
Area used by subordinates (m )
1.4
(a)
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
(b)
-1
Aggressive rate (chases·min )
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
Proportion of aggression initiated
by dominant
0.0
1.2
(c)
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0
550
5.0
10.0
15.0
Number of fish
20.0
27
551
Figure 3.
Aggressive radius (cm)
100.0
80.0
60.0
40.0
20.0
-1
% specific growth rate (g·day )
0.0
8.0
(b)
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
70.0
Aggressive radius (cm)
(a)
(c)
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
0.0
552
5.0
10.0
15.0
Number of fish
20.0