Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29566015›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

From top to bottom: Do Lake Trout diversify along a depth gradient in Great Bear Lake, NT, Canada?

Louise Chavarie, Kimberly L Howland, Les N Harris, Michael J Hansen, William J Harford, Colin P Gallagher, Shauna M Baillie, Brendan Malley, William M Tonn, Andrew M Muir and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. "Evolutionary applications · 2020
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Louise ChavarieDepartment of Fisheries and Wildlife, Center for Systems Integration and Sustainability, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-1327-7872
Kimberly L HowlandFisheries and Oceans Canada, Winnipeg, Canada.
Les N HarrisFisheries and Oceans Canada, Winnipeg, Canada.
Michael J HansenU.S. Geological Survey, Hammond Bay Biological Station, Millersburg, MI, United States of America.
William J HarfordCooperative Institute of Marine & Atmospheric Studies, University of Miami, Miami, FL, United States of America.
Colin P GallagherFisheries and Oceans Canada, Winnipeg, Canada.
Shauna M BaillieDepartment of Biology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada.
Brendan MalleyFisheries and Oceans Canada, Winnipeg, Canada.
William M TonnDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.
Andrew M MuirGreat Lakes Fishery Commission, Ann Arbor, MI, United States of America.
Charles C KruegerDepartment of Fisheries and Wildlife, Center for Systems Integration and Sustainability, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Depth is usually considered the main driver of Lake Trout intraspecific diversity across lakes in North America. Given that Great Bear Lake is one of the largest and deepest freshwater systems in North America, we predicted that Lake Trout intraspecific diversity to be organized along a depth axis within this system. Thus, we investigated whether a deep-water morph of Lake Trout co-existed with four shallow-water morphs previously described in Great Bear Lake. Morphology, neutral genetic variation, isotopic niches, and life-history traits of Lake Trout across depths (0-150 m) were compared among morphs. Due to the propensity of Lake Trout with high levels of morphological diversity to occupy multiple habitat niches, a novel multivariate grouping method using a suite of composite variables was applied in addition to two other commonly used grouping methods to classify individuals. Depth alone did not explain Lake Trout diversity in Great Bear Lake; a distinct fifth deep-water morph was not found. Rather, Lake Trout diversity followed an ecological continuum, with some evidence for adaptation to local conditions in deep-water habitat. Overall, trout caught from deep-water showed low levels of genetic and phenotypic differentiation from shallow-water trout, and displayed higher lipid content (C:N ratio) and occupied a higher trophic level that suggested an potential increase of piscivory (including cannibalism) than the previously described four morphs. Why phenotypic divergence between shallow- and deep-water Lake Trout was low is unknown, especially when the potential for phenotypic variation should be high in deep and large Great Bear Lake. Given that variation in complexity of freshwater environments has dramatic consequences for divergence, variation in the complexity in Great Bear Lake (i.e., shallow being more complex than deep), may explain the observed dichotomy in the expression of intraspecific phenotypic diversity between shallow- vs. deep-water habitats. The ambiguity surrounding mechanisms driving divergence of Lake Trout in Great Bear Lake should be seen as reflective of the highly variable nature of ecological opportunity and divergent natural selection itself.

Indexed as

Adaptation, PhysiologicalAnimalsBiodiversityCanadaEcosystemGenetics, PopulationGenetic VariationLakesNorth AmericaPhenotypeSelection, GeneticTrout

Identifiers

PMID29566015
PMCPMC5863968

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.