Maternal effect key to fish combating climate change

July 14, 2014 by Paul Mayne, University of Western Ontario

( —According to research by Western scientists, thermal tolerance in a wild fish population is a key factor in understanding how animal species adapt to climate change.

Western Sciences professors Nico Munoz and Bryan Neff, along with collaborators at the University of British Columbia and Yellow Island Aquaculture Limited, conducted the first-ever genetic assessment of oxygen-limited, thermal (heat) tolerance and cardiac (heart) performance within a coastal population of .

The investigators found compelling results, which help explain the adaptive mechanisms available to fish populations faced with rising temperatures in the world's oceans. The findings were published this week in Proceedings of the Royal Society B.

Maternal effects, or the ways mothers influence the physical features and performance of their offspring, can be critical to successful acclimatization of offspring, said Neff, who also serves as associate dean (research) in the Faculty of Science.

"We found that these maternal effects were associated with egg size. Mothers that produced larger, high quality eggs also produced offspring that could tolerate warmer water temperatures," he said. "Because egg size can be highly heritable in chinook salmon, our finding indicates that the salmon can respond to warming temperatures in at least two ways, selection on their own thermal tolerance, as well as selection on the size of eggs that mothers produce."

According to Neff, this indirect genetic effect mediated by egg size could accelerate evolutionary success in combating rising temperatures and could contribute to the population-specific that has recently been uncovered among Pacific salmon populations.

Explore further: Global warming may be causing surge in numbers of pink salmon

Related Stories

Valentine's Day: True love makes pacific salmon healthier

February 13, 2014

Salmon can spot their true love across a crowded stream, according to research from a university-industry partnership involving the University of Waterloo. Allowing female salmon to follow their heart and mate with the male ...

Wild coho may seek genetic diversity in mate choice

May 28, 2014

A new study by researchers at Oregon State University suggests that wild coho salmon that choose mates with disease-resistant genes different from their own are more likely to produce greater numbers of adult offspring returning ...

Recommended for you

New species of lemur found on Madagascar

January 15, 2018

A team of researchers with members from the State University of New York Polytechnic Institute, Omaha's Henry Doorly Zoo and Aquarium, Global Wildlife Conservation and the Madagascar Biodiversity Partnership has discovered ...


Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

1 / 5 (4) Jul 14, 2014
Two primary drivers of average global temperature have been identified. They very accurately explain the reported up and down measurements since before 1900 with coefficient of determination, R2>0.9 (correlation coefficient = 0.95) and provide credible estimates back to the low temperatures of the Little Ice Age (1610).

R2 = 0.9049 considering only sunspots and ocean cycles.
R2 = 0.9061 considering sunspots, ocean cycles and CO2 change.
The tiny difference in R2, whether considering CO2 or not, demonstrates that CO2 change has no significant effect on climate.
The coefficients of determination are a measure of how accurately the calculated average global temperatures compare with measured. R2 > 0.9 is excellent.

The calculations use data since before 1900 which are official, accepted as valid and are publicly available.

Solar cycle duration or magnitude fail to correlate but their combination, expressed as the time-integral of solar cycle anomalies, gives an excellent correlation. A solar cycle anomaly is the difference between the sunspot number for a year and an average sunspot number for many years.

Everything not explicitly considered (such as the 0.09 K s.d. random uncertainty in reported annual measured temperature anomalies, aerosols, CO2, other non-condensing ghg, volcanoes, ice change, etc.) must find room in the unexplained 9.51%.

The method, equation, data sources, history and predictions are provided at and references.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Jul 14, 2014
CO2 change has no significant effect on climate
this is a good indicator that you do NOT believe in AGW
therefore I will give you the same chance as everyone else: Thermo's LINK
IF you THINK there is no reality to AGW, then by all means, PROVE IT
take the challenge. Win, and you get $30,000 and respect, as well as a toast from the scientists who will likely make you famous (and us here)
PROVE, using the scientific method, that AGW is false. You dont have to be original, but you DO have to be first. better HURRY

don't let BIG OIL etc run your mind with BS sites like
they have a vested interest in making you disbelieve in REAL science!
you have been DUPED by them

5 / 5 (2) Jul 14, 2014
@enviro414 - the only thing you've proven is that you're either a troll or just plain stupid (probably both).
1 / 5 (4) Jul 14, 2014
I guess that would make you, supatard, a moron and a tard.
2 / 5 (4) Jul 14, 2014
Cap - My hat is off to Dr Keating for wording his challenge so that he cannot lose. (He is the judge).

The only way to prove a negative is to prove a positive with which the negative cannot coexist.

The insignificant difference in R2 whether CO2 change is considered or not should be sufficient proof for most people that CO2 change has no significant influence on climate.

For others there is this:
CO2 increase from 1800 to 2001 was 89.5 ppmv (parts per million by volume). The atmospheric carbon dioxide level has now (through May, 2014) increased since 2001 by 27.51 ppmv (an amount equal to 30.7% of the increase that took place from 1800 to 2001) (1800, 281.6 ppmv; 2001, 371.13 ppmv; May, 2014, 398.64 ppmv).

The average global temperature trend since 2001 is flat (average of 5 reporting agencies Graphs through 2013 have been added.

That is the observation. No amount of spin can rationalize that the temperature increase to 2001 was caused by a CO2 increase of 89.5 ppmv but that 27.51 ppmv additional CO2 increase had no effect on the average global temperature trend after 2001.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Jul 15, 2014
Cap - My hat is off to Dr Keating for wording his challenge so that he cannot lose. (He is the judge
this is the fallacy of the uneducated as well as denialist camp, especially the ones supported by outside interests: http://www.drexel...nge.ashx

the wording is INTENTIONALLY SIMPLE, so that even an idiot could understand them, I will post the important part here
I will award $30,000 of my own money to anyone that can prove, via the scientific method, that man-made global climate change is not occurring

the ONLY argument that I can see from YOUR CAMP is that it is impossible due to the inability as well as lack of evidence.

your continued posting here is because your abysmal failure there, which only supports the conclusion that YOU HAVE NO ARGUMENT THAT USES VALID SCIENCE
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Jul 15, 2014
Cap - My hat is off to Dr Keating for wording his challenge so that he cannot lose. (He is the judge
KEating says on his site: Contrary to claims by deniers, the scientific process examines and review all alternatives. That is one of the reasons it takes so long. It is also one of the reasons there is such a high level of confidence in the results. Many papers are published and presentations made at conventions that are then reviewed by the scientific community and found to have problems. In this manner, we examine all sorts of alternatives and slowly, but very surely, add to our understanding of the science. One of the false arguments deniers make is that climate scientists will only find evidence of global warming because that is what their funding is for

this is YOUR fallacy, enviro... you think the science is only to SUPPORT agw... it is NOT

this is hwy you will always FAIL against science

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Jul 15, 2014
The insignificant difference
I love how you are incapable of making a logical argument and using the scientific method to prove your point in the challenge, so you think people are going to just be stupid and accept your post NOW?
you post figures with NO reference
your link is to a BLOG
you make a claim
That is the observation. No amount of spin can rationalize
based upon non-empirical proof and unproven conjecture which is unsupported by empirical data, and then expect believers to drop out of the ozone? what?


given your lack of links/support from reputable science and your only link/reference was a blog... your argument FAILS out of the blocks
THE ARGUMENT AGAINST should be of the same caliber as the argument FOR:
peer reviewed publications
1 / 5 (3) Jul 15, 2014
the wording is INTENTIONALLY SIMPLE, so that even an idiot could understand them
--cap'n stunted
Well, you are certainly qualified to know......idiot.
1 / 5 (1) Jul 16, 2014
Cap - You apparently overlooked this part of Keating's challenge that makes it so he can't lose "5. I am the final judge of all entries but will provide my comments on why any entry fails to prove the point."

Your lack of broad science skill has made you gullible to mob think.

Do you have any idea what R2>0.9 means? Are you aware that thermalization is the mechanism by which absorbed EMR warms the air and it is not even mentioned in the IPCC reports?

I wonder how much wider the separation between the rising CO2 level and not-rising temperature will need to get for some people to realize that maybe they missed something.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.