Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Differential migration in Pacific salmon and trout: Patterns and hypotheses

Differential migration in Pacific salmon and trout: Patterns and hypotheses Anim. Migr. 2021; 8: 1–18 Review Article Thomas P. Quinn* Differential migration in Pacific salmon and trout: Patterns and hypotheses https://doi.org/10.1515/ami-2021-0001 1 Introduction received July 16, 2020; accepted November 16, 2020 Migration is a widespread behavioral pattern in animals Abstract: Migrations affect the population dynamics, life (1, 2), with profound consequences for the fitness of indi- history, evolution, and connections of animals to natural viduals and the conservation status of the population or ecosystems and humans. Many species and populations species. Migration affects exposure to predators, patho- display partial migration (some individuals migrate and gens, and contaminants, access to optimal feeding and some do not), and differential migration (migration dis- breeding areas, spatio-temporal changes in abiotic condi- tance varies). Partial migration is widely distributed in tions, and exploitation by humans (3-5). In many cases, fishes but the term differential migration is much less migratory species, or the migratory forms of species, are commonly applied, despite the occurrence of this phe- in greater jeopardy than non-migratory species and forms nomenon. This paper briefly reviews the extent of dif- (6-8). Migratory animals can also have profound effects on ferential migration in Pacific salmon and trout (genus their ecosystems (9, 10). Oncorhynchus), a very extensively studied group. Three Over the past decades it has been increasingly clear hypotheses are presented to explain the patterns among that there are many alternatives to migration displayed species: 1) phylogenetic relationships, 2) the prevalence by individuals and populations, and the scientific liter- of partial migration (i.e., variation in anadromy), and 3) ature on alternative migration patterns has been heavily life history patterns (iteroparous or semelparous, and influenced by work on birds (11, 12). With respect to birds, duration spent feeding at sea prior to maturation). Each partial migration was defined as describing “… popula- hypothesis has some support but none is consistent with tions [that] include some individuals that do and some all patterns. The prevalence of differential migration, that do not migrate from the same breeding area” (13). ranging from essentially non-existent to common within This definition is consistent with general usage (14), and a species, reflects phylogeny and life history, interacting partial migration is known in many taxa (15-18) including with the geographic features of the region where juvenile fishes. For example, anguillid eels are famous for their cat- salmon enter the ocean. Notwithstanding the uncertain adromous migrations from marine areas where they are evolution of this behavior, it has very clear implications spawned to freshwater habitats where they feed and grow for salmon conservation, as it strongly affects exposure to for years before migrating back to sea, but some juveniles predators, patterns of fishery exploitation and also uptake do not ascend rivers (19). Many other diadromous fishes of toxic contaminants. also show partial migration, including black bream, Acan- Keywords: Partial migration; Anadromy; Life history; Phy- thopagrus butcheri, in Australia (20), European perch, logeny; Conservation; Oncorhynchus Perca fluviatilis, in the Baltic Sea (21), and white perch, Morone americana, on the Atlantic coast of North America (22). There are also many examples of marine fishes with migratory and non-migratory populations, and often the management and conservation hinge on understanding these patterns (e.g., Patagonian toothfish, Dissostichus eleginoides (23) and winter flounder, Pseudopleuronectes americanus (24)). Perhaps the best studied example of partial migration *Corresponding author: Thomas P. Quinn, School of Aquatic and in fishes is anadromy is salmonids (primarily the genera Fishery Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA Oncorhynchus, Salmo, and Salvelinus). In these fishes, E-mail: tquinn@uw.edu the patterns and prevalence of anadromy can vary widely Open Access. © 2021 Thomas P. Quinn, published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. 2   Thomas P. Quinn among and within populations (25-27), influenced by gen- seasonal races or runs, in several families of migratory otype and phenotypic plasticity (28). There is an extensive fishes, notably salmonids, sturgeons, and lamprey (46). literature spanning all species, on the prevalence of ana- Differential timing of migration is most dramatic among dromous and nonanadromous populations, and individ- distinct breeding populations but within-population var- uals within populations, including aspects related gene iation also occurs, with males and older salmon typically flow between forms (29), genomic association (30), rela- migrating earlier than females and younger salmon. These tionship to growth among populations (31, 32), growth patterns and hypotheses were recently reviewed (47), and and energy storage of individuals (33-35), and sex (36). will not be detailed here. The term differential migration is commonly used, Two important distinctions between the migrations of especially in the avian literature, when referring to cases salmon and birds should be noted when reviewing con- where individuals vary in the distance or timing of migra- cepts so well-established in the avian literature. First, dif- tion (37) or, more specifically, “… the situation in which ferential migration in birds (in terms of distance) is often migration in some distinguishable classes of individuals related to sex, with females typically migrating farther (ages, sexes, races) differs with respect to timing, distance, than males (38, 48, 49). Sex-biased distribution patterns or both” (13). Typically, for example, female birds migrate are known in some fishes, for example sharks and rays (50, farther than males, and males arrive earlier, or there is a 51), but this is often related to parturition. Male salmon difference between adults and young (38). Unlike partial often migrate before females (though nest site selection migration, a term commonly applied to fishes in the scien- and preparation are solely accomplished by females) but tific literature, differential migration is seldom applied to there seems to be no evidence of systematic differences in fishes in general and salmonids in particular, though the migration distance with sex. As noted at the conclusion of phenomenon certainly occurs. That is, many anadromous this paper, there may be data to test this hypothesis but it forms differ markedly in the spatial extent of their migra- is not a prominent feature of research to date. tions. Striped bass, Morone saxatilis, vary in their move- Even more fundamentally, salmon migrations differ ments in estuarine and marine waters (39), and Secor (40) from those of birds and some other animals in that, while revived this “contingent hypothesis” and revealed diver- the breeding site is a fixed location, the feeding grounds gent patterns of movement among anadromous fish, in to which they migrate and from which they return are addition to a resident (nonanadromous) form (41, 42). extremely broad. Salmon migrations are not seasonal In a recent review of individual variation in animal changes in latitude between discrete breeding and feeding movement, Shaw (43) concluded that “… the conse- sites. Rather, juvenile salmon (naïve to the ocean, without quences of movement are less well understood than the adults to guide them) enter marine waters and disperse. causes.” This may be the case for some taxa but I would Depending on the species and point of entry, individuals argue that it is not so for salmon and their relatives. In from one population may migrate north along the coast, these fishes, the consequences for growth, natural and both north and south, or mainly south. In many cases they anthropogenic mortality, and the productivity of popula- feed out in the open North Pacific Ocean, more or less con- tions, may be better understood than the causes, which tinuously moving, until they approach sexual maturity. are a complex blend of ancestral tendencies of the popu- They then migrate in a more directed manner homeward lation, recent growth and condition of the individual, and to the mouth of their natal river, ascend it, and spawn. environmental stimuli. Despite the voluminous scientific Individual salmon can be caught at sea and in some cases literature on the behavior, ecology, and evolution of sal- tagged and later recovered, or assigned to a population monids (44, 45), and the existence of differential migra- of origin by genetic methods, but for the most part their tion, the proximate and ultimate causes of this form of feeding distribution and movements at sea are inferred variation are very poorly understood. indirectly. In comparison, the arrival of birds in feeding The first purpose of this paper is to briefly review the areas can be observed directly. The broad distributions of prevalence and patterns of differential migration in ana- salmon during their feeding migrations at sea complicate dromous Pacific salmon (genus Oncorhynchus) species. determination of whether there are differential patterns Definitions of differential migration often include varia- or not; variation in distance travelled is so common as tion in migration timing as well as spatial patterns (13), to be unimportant, especially in species that vary in the number of years spent feeding at sea prior to homeward but this review follows Cristol, Baker (38) and limits the migration. Consequently, this review focuses on distribu- scope to differences in spatial extent of feeding migra- tion patterns that are bimodal or otherwise result in more tions from the breeding areas. There is also widely recog- discrete differences rather than a continuum. nized variation in migration timing, often referred to as Differential migration in Pacific salmon and trout: Patterns and hypotheses    3 Considering differential migration with respect to dis- (58-60), and similarly rapid migrations are observed else- tance travelled rather than timing, patterns of variation where (61). However, genetic analysis of juveniles caught might be explained, hypothetically, by three factors. First, in marine waters indicated that some populations left the the extent of differential migration might follow phylog- Fraser River and migrated rapidly through the Strait of eny (i.e., species more closely related would show more Georgia whereas others stayed longer there to feed, and similar patterns). Second, the prevalence of differential some coastal B.C. populations remained in local areas into migration might parallel that of partial migration (e.g., their first fall and winter at sea (62). non-anadromy) among species. Third, the prevalence of Juvenile chum salmon feed in estuaries longer than differential migration might be associated with life history do sockeye and pink salmon but they also show a single variation – specifically, the number of years spent at sea migration pattern with few exceptions. Their distribution prior to maturation, and the prevalence of iteroparity. The is in the open ocean, north of their river of origin. There review of species is arranged taxonomically, and a phy- are reports of some sub-adult chum salmon that remain logeny is provided for reference (Fig. 1), though different in the Salish Sea and feed for a year or more (63), and I studies, using different samples, markers, and analyti- have sampled some while studying other salmon species cal methods, vary somewhat in the relationships among in Puget Sound, but they seem to be quite unusual. species. Then, having reviewed the patterns and evalu- In the case of pink salmon, there are two forms of dif- ated the support for these hypothesized factors as influ- ferential migration to note. First, though the great majority encing differential migration, I discuss the evidence for feed on the open ocean, the populations from Asia (e.g., the influences of genetic, internal (sex, size, physiological the east coast of the Kamchatka Peninsula) travel farther condition), and external (environmental) factors in dif- at sea than do North American populations, based on ferential migration, and end with an explanation for why tagging studies, and the Asian populations also migrate these patterns are so important in these fishes, as with so homeward much faster than do the North American ones many other migratory animals. at the onset of sexual maturity (64). In addition to this variation in distribution and migration rate at sea, Jensen (65) reported that some pink salmon entering Puget Sound remained there rather than migrating to the ocean as most 2 Species-Specific Patterns do. Haw, Wendler (66) measured a sample of these fish and they were markedly smaller than conspecifics caught 2.1 Sockeye, Chum, and Pink Salmon along the coast at the same time of year. This differential migration pattern was never explained and now seems Salmon and trout enter the Pacific Ocean over a broad to be increasingly rare, as indicated by my examination arc around the Pacific Rim, from California to Alaska in of catch records reported by the Washington Department North America and from Korea to Russia in Asia (Fig. 2) of Fish and Wildlife. Pink salmon, as a species, are cur- so some generalization is needed in characterizing their rently more numerous in the Salish Sea than they were migration patterns. The most numerous species are the in the past (67), so differential migration would likely be pink (O. gorbuscha), chum (O. keta) and sockeye (O. nerka) detected if it was still common. salmon. These species, more closely related to each other Thus within this evolutionary group, differential than to others in the genus (52), typically migrate rapidly migration is limited, being mostly a matter of degree (i.e., northward along the coast of North America and Asia oceanic distributions and migration rates) or uncommon during their first summer at sea, and then move into the alternative patterns such as the Puget Sound residents. open North Pacific Ocean and Gulf of Alaska and remain Given the shared evolutionary lineage of this group, the there before returning to spawn (53-55). Sockeye salmon results are thus consistent with a hypothesis related commonly occur as self-sustaining non-anadromous pop- to phylogeny. In sockeye salmon, non-migratory pop- ulations (known as kokanee), that evolved independently ulations evolved repeatedly, but the anadromous form from anadromous ancestors in many river systems (56). showed only limited differential migration, so the con- Nevertheless, the expression of differential migration is nection between partial and differential migration is not limited among anadromous populations of that species, supported. In terms of life history, the three species vary and the others. For example, juvenile sockeye salmon in terms of how long they stay at sea, from one year in migrate rapidly (57) and tend to vacate the inland waters pink salmon to typically two or three in sockeye and two of Puget Sound and the Strait of Georgia (Fig. 3), now to four of more in chum salmon (44), so there is no clear often referred to as the Salish Sea, by mid-late summer link between this aspect of life history and migration. All 4   Thomas P. Quinn three species are invariably semelparous but, as the next southern populations of coho and Chinook salmon feed section indicates, so are other species in which differen- primarily in the cool, productive coastal upwelling zone tial migration is common. from California to southern British Columbia. Populations farther north feed along the coast and also in offshore waters. These patterns suggest that the area where salmon 2.2 Chinook and coho salmon enter the ocean determines their feeding areas but this is not the case. Decades ago it was reported that Chinook The second major grouping of migration patterns involves salmon from different populations breeding within the Chinook and coho salmon, another evolutionary lineage Columbia River system had very different marine distri- (Fig. 1), and was recently reviewed (68, 69). In their native bution patterns despite entering at the same point along range these species are almost exclusively anadromous, the coast (73). Healey (74) pointed out that populations though in some cases individuals mature without having with juveniles entering the ocean in their first year of gone to sea. This so-called precocious maturation is almost life, termed ocean-type, were distributed along the coast exclusively seen in males and in Chinook salmon rather (rather than offshore) to a much greater extent than the than coho salmon. It is associated with rapid growth (70) “stream-type” that spend a full year in streams prior to but the tendency to do so varies among populations (71). seaward migration. The ocean-type juveniles tend to be These species are invariably semelparous under normal smaller when they enter the ocean, enter over a longer circumstances, though under experimental conditions period, and make greater use of estuaries, suggesting a males that mature can survive and spawn in subsequent relationship to differential migration. However, the real years (72). Thus the life history patterns differ from those divide in migratory patterns seems to be between lineages of pink, chum, and sockeye salmon. that evolved in the continental interior or coastal areas Chinook and coho salmon breed in rivers farther (75), rather than a divide between juvenile life history south than do pink, chum and sockeye salmon, and the patterns (76). Thus the evolutionary lineage within the Figure 1: Phylogenetic relationships of Pacific salmon and trout species in the genus Oncorhynchus, and their relationship with the two other most important genera of salmonid fishes, as inferred from a matrix comprised of mitochondrial and nuclear genes, modified from Crête-Lafrenière, Weir (52). This generalization is for illustrative purposes; the distances between nodes are not quantitative, and the relati- onships differ from those in some other studies. Differential migration in Pacific salmon and trout: Patterns and hypotheses    5 species seems, in this case, to have more influence on dif- Chinook and coho salmon display another form of dif- ferential migration (i.e., coastal vs. offshore distributions) ferential migration; some members of these species feed than does the region of the coast where the fish enter the throughout the year in the inland marine waters of the ocean, or their juvenile life history. Even among those dis- Salish Sea rather than along the ocean coast (Figs. 4, 5). tributed along the coast, some populations differ in how Indeed, these salmon were so numerous that the leading far they go. In particular, juveniles from the Columbia ichthyologists of the day wrote [p. 475] that “King Salmon River migrate rapidly northward in their first summer at and Silver Salmon of all sizes are taken with the seine at sea, dispersing over almost 3000 km along the continen- almost any season in Puget Sound. This would indicate tal shelf, whereas many others remain within about 100 that these species do not go far from the shore” (80). The – 200 km of their natal rivers (77). It should also be noted latter statement, that they do not migrate to the open that Chinook salmon vary in the number of years spent at ocean, was clearly incorrect, but their presence within the sea, and in general the older fish are found farther from Salish Sea is undeniable, and has been common knowl- their natal river than are younger fish (78). edge in the fishing and fisheries management commu- As with Chinook salmon, the marine distribution nities of the region for decades (66, 81) but has not been patterns of coho salmon populations vary considerably, discussed in the broader context of differential migration. even among those entering the ocean near each other The existence of salmon making such limited marine (79). In contrast to Chinook salmon, coho salmon do not migrations poses several inter-related questions: 1) what seem to show the “offshore vs. coastal” differential migra- proportion of the salmon displays this form of differen- tion pattern within a given region, but only the general tial migration, 2) has the proportion changed over the latitudinal gradient from distribution within the coastal past decades, 3) do the migratory variants reflect discrete upwelling zone of the California Current region, to a mix modes of behavior or points along a continuum, 4) what of nearshore and offshore distribution farther north, costs and benefits might accrue to the two migratory where the offshore waters are more suitable in temper- forms, and 5) to what extent are the patterns under envi- ature, productivity, and biotic community. However, it ronmental and genetic control? has also been known for more than a century that both Figure 2: Map of the North Pacific Rim, showing the area, stippled, where Pacific salmon and trout enter marine waters [46]. 6   Thomas P. Quinn Figure 3: Map showing the Strait of Georgia, Puget Sound and associated inland marine waters where differential migration is displayed by some salmon, as an alternative to migration to west coast of Washington along the Olympic Peninsula, west coast of Vancouver Island, or central coast of British Columbia north of Queen Charlotte Strait [46]. Figure 4: Chinook salmon, caught in Puget Sound in August, when Figure 5: Immature Chinook salmon caught in Puget Sound in such fish normally return from the Pacific Ocean coast to inland November, as part of the anadromous but “resident” contingent that marine waters prior to migrating upriver to spawning areas. Photo represents an alternative to the pattern of migration to the coastal credit: Thomas Quinn, used with permission of the angler, Leonard ocean. Photo credit: Thomas Quinn, used with permission of the O’Neill. angler, Justin Wong. Differential migration in Pacific salmon and trout: Patterns and hypotheses    7 Tagging data indicated that the great majority of coho The influence of body size and entry date could be (79) and Chinook salmon (78) feeding in Puget Sound orig- interpreted as consistent with some interaction between inated from rivers flowing into the Salish Sea. However, individual condition and the environment, and the effects many salmon originating from the same rivers migrate of geographic region and environmental conditions on farther, out to the ocean coast, and feed there rather than migration indicate external influences. The fact that in remaining in the Salish Sea. Analysis of the recoveries of both species, both forms of migration are seen within tagged coho salmon entering the Strait of Georgia indi- breeding populations would seem to argue against a cated that the residents decreased as a proportion of the strong genetic control of short and long migration patterns total from the mid-1970s (ca. 60%) to almost nil by the in this case (e.g., some population adopt one pattern, and late 1990s (82). The authors concluded (p. 514), “Despite other populations adopt the alternative pattern). However, our inability to understand all of the details of the mech- as discussed in more detail below (Section 4.1), recent anisms that affected the movement of coho, there is little studies have uncovered strong associations between doubt that the recent behaviour change in coho is related genomic signatures and the timing of migration from the to a change in climate.” Further analyses of tagging data ocean into freshwater habitats, and the tendency for juve- (83) indicated that only small a proportion of coho salmon niles to migrate between breeding sites in streams and the produced in Puget Sound remained as residents – the con- ocean (86), or a large lake (87). Consequently, the extent siderable majority migrated to the coast. A mix of long and of genetic influence on alternative migration distances short distance migrants was seen in all years and popula- may be greater than one might infer from the presence of tion groups, but the proportions varied with the region of both migratory forms in a given population. Indeed, it was Puget Sound that they entered. In addition, salmon that recently reported that the tendency of coho salmon to feed entered marine waters later in the year were more likely to as residents or migrate northward differed between popu- remain in Puget Sound than those entering earlier. There lations, and even some family-level variation in distribu- was also considerable year to year variation in the propor- tion was detected (88). tions of long and short distance migrants. These findings Regardless of the controlling factors, body size differs suggest that the environmental conditions encountered dramatically between salmon feeding in the Salish Sea when entering marine waters influenced migration but and those migrating to the coast (Fig. 6). Jensen (89) wrote the mechanism is not clear, and the evidence not com- that “... both the silver [coho] and chinook salmon remain- plete. ing in Puget Sound are much smaller than their brothers O’Neill and West (84) also used data on the recovery feeding off our coast. This may be due to lack of feed in patterns in space and time of Chinook salmon tagged as the Sound, or it is possible there is a definite relationship juveniles, and concluded that those remaining in Puget between the size of the fish and the distance they migrate Sound were a large fraction of the total population. The tendency to remain within Puget Sound was greater for salmon that had spent a full year in fresh water prior to ocean entry as juveniles (hence were larger) compared to those migrating to sea in their first year of life. Subsequent analysis of similar data over a longer period of record by Chamberlin, Essington (85) also indicated that a substan- tial fraction of the juveniles entering Puget Sound fed there for most or all of their period at sea. As was the case with the coho salmon, the tendency to remain as residents was primarily affected by where they entered marine waters, with a secondary effect of size (larger being more likely to remain resident) and substantial variation among years. Interestingly, the annual indices of residency were positively correlated between coho and Chinook salmon (Pearson correlation coefficient: 0.58, P < 0.01), and warmer water was associated with a greater tendency for Figure 6: Immature coho salmon caught in Puget Sound in May, displaying the small size that is typical of such residents, in contrast migration to the coast in both species (Race Rocks, British to the larger conspecifics of the same age that feed along the Pacific Columbia July mean vs. Chinook salmon: R = 0.37, P < Ocean coast. Photo credit: Thomas Quinn. 0.01; coho salmon: R = 0.33, P = 0.015). 8   Thomas P. Quinn from their home stream.” Essentially, he was posing two with pink, chum, and sockeye salmon, coho and Chinook hypotheses: fish of similar size enter two environments salmon are invariably semelparous under natural condi- and then grow at different rates, or initial size predisposes tions. individuals to migrate long or short distances. Milne (90) reported the same growth rate differential between coho salmon feeding in British Columbia inland marine water 2.3 Masu salmon and the coast. He pointed out that the slower-growing, short distance migrants do not represent separate breed- The first five species discussed above are all distributed ing populations but, rather, some fish from all popula- on both the Asian and North American sides of the Pacific tions seem to show this pattern. Pressey (81) reported that Ocean, though each has its own latitudinal range. A sixth Chinook salmon sampled in June within Puget Sound were species, masu salmon, O. masou, restricted to Asia, has much smaller than those in outer Juan de Fuca Strait (aver- long been recognized. In some taxonomies it was divided aging 54.0 vs. 84.2 cm in length or about 2 vs. 7 kg). Those into two species (93) but it is now more widely recognized fish might represent a range of ages but Haw, Wendler (66) as a single species with four subspecies, some of which reported similar size differences between coho salmon evolved as isolated, nonanadromous forms (94). The tax- sampled within Puget Sound and near the coast (46.4 cm onomic relationship between masu salmon and the rest vs. 70 cm or about 1 vs 4 kg in mass), and 42.1 vs. 56.0 of the Pacific salmon and trout is not entirely clear, and cm in pink salmon. Both coho and pink salmon spend a its ecology and life history has elements of many different single year at sea so all would have been the same age species. The most widely distributed subspecies, O. masou when sampled. Thus, there seem to be fundamental dif- masou, is commonly anadromous and in the northern part ferences between the water bodies that affect growth in all of its range both males and females typically migrate to three species. Given the strong relationship between body sea. However, farther south, more males reach sexual size and the number and size of eggs females can produce, maturity after feeding in freshwater habitats and thus and the advantages of large size through sexual selection the great majority of seaward migrants are females (31). in males, these differences in body size would reflect very Under conditions of especially rapid growth, females also substantial fitness costs (44). mature without migrating to sea. The anadromous indi- The slower growth of salmon remaining in the Salish viduals die after spawning but those maturing in fresh Sea does not mean that this differential migration pattern water can spawn again (95). Thus this species displays is necessarily maladaptive. For example, if Salish Sea res- sex-biased partial migration, and also some deviation ident salmon experienced higher survival rates than those from the semelparity that otherwise characterizes Pacific migrating to the coast, there might be a form of tradeoff salmon. However, there seem to be no indications of dif- of benefits and costs. The inter-annual trends in survival ferential migration, only variation related to where they at sea differ between populations entering marine waters enter marine waters. The timing of migration to sea and in the Salish Sea and the coastal ocean in coho (91) and back by masu salmon varies but few if any spend more Chinook salmon (92), and in coho salmon the survival than a single winter at sea, and their feeding distribution rates have been higher for Salish Sea populations. This is largely restricted to the Sea of Japan and Sea of Okhotsk does not prove that the members of each population (96). remaining in the Salish Sea enjoy a higher probability of surviving than members of their cohort migrating to the coast, but it is at least consistent with that hypothesis. 2.4 Cutthroat trout and steelhead – anadro- In summary, coho and Chinook salmon are phyloge- mous rainbow trout netically close to each other and each species shows one or more forms of differential migration, but partial migra- Cutthroat trout, O. clarkii, and rainbow trout, O. mykiss, tion is rare in coho and uncommon in Chinook salmon, were formerly classified in the genus Salmo, with Atlantic and largely restricted to males. That is, neither species salmon and brown trout but were reassigned to the same forms nonanadromous populations in their native range, genus as Pacific salmon (97). Both species include sub- though some male Chinook salmon can mature and spawn species and very distinct genetic lineages in their natural without going to sea, and some coho salmon of both sexes ranges (98), and both exist in many areas as exclusively can do so if a lake is available for rearing. Thus partial and nonanadromous populations, either landlocked above differential migration are not linked in these species. As barriers to migration, or volitionally so. Juveniles of the two species are often difficult to distinguish visually, Differential migration in Pacific salmon and trout: Patterns and hypotheses    9 habitat use patterns in streams overlap (99), and natural- anadromous rainbow trout would show limited marine ly-produced hybrids are not uncommon (100-102). Both migration comparable to that in cutthroat trout. However, species breed in the spring, in contrast to the fall-spawn- in stark contrast to cutthroat trout, seaward migration by ing Pacific salmon. Moreover, both species are iteropa- the anadromous form of rainbow trout, known as steel- rous, and the offspring migrate to sea at similar body head, is typically quite rapid, directed, and primarily in sizes, ages, and times of the year. All these attributes open water, as revealed by studies in the Salish Sea (111- would suggest similar and limited marine migrations in 113), and rivers along the North American coast (114, 115). both species; this is the case with the coastal cutthroat Sub-adult steelhead quickly move to the open ocean, trout subspecies, O. clarkii clarkii, but not rainbow trout. travelling far out to sea (108, 116) and display the counter- In Puget Sound, the great majority of cutthroat trout shading needed for camouflage in the ocean – gray backs, do not move more than about 20 – 30 km from their natal silver sides, and white undersides (Fig. 8). There is some streams, based on genetic assignment of fish to rivers of variation in marine distribution related to where the fish origin (103), and sonic tracking (104). They feed very close entered the ocean and how long they stay before returning to shore and display spotting patterns that camouflage (116), but these seem more a matter of degree and thus not them when seen against a background of gravel, sand, clearly an example of differential migration. and shells along beaches (Fig. 7). In other regions such as One study serendipitously provided insights into the the Columbia River estuary (105) and coastal Alaska (106), genetic basis of migration in these species. Wild steelhead complex patterns of movement are displayed between and cutthroat trout smolts were trapped as they left a river marine and freshwater habitats for feeding, breeding, and flowing into Hood Canal, part of Puget Sound, and sonic overwintering but there are no indications of long distance transmitters were implanted to track their movements. movement or differential migration. Populations along Subsequent DNA analysis revealed that 89 steelhead, 52 the open ocean coast may differ in distribution; some cutthroat trout, and 42 naturally-produced hybrids (23%) move offshore (107-109) whereas others remain within or had been tagged. As expected, the steelhead moved near their natal estuaries (110). Nevertheless, there are rapidly seaward and the cutthroat remained near their presently no indications of long distance migrations in natal river, and the movement patterns of the hybrids were some members of the species that would exemplify dif- intermediate between the two pure forms (117). ferential patterns, relative to the characteristic pattern of Thus the life history and freshwater ecology of these limited movement. two related species, cutthroat and rainbow/steelhead Given the extensive range of non-anadromy and trout, are similar, yet they have completely different pat- partial migration in rainbow trout, and the ecological sim- terns of migration at sea, and neither displays clear differ- ilarity to cutthroat in many aspects, one might predict that ential migration at sea. In partially migratory populations Figure 7: Coastal cutthroat trout caught in Puget Sound in December, Figure 8: Female steelhead, caught in a tributary of Puget Sound in displaying the spotting pattern typical of this subspecies in rivers January prior to spawning, displaying the countershading that is and marine waters. Photo credit: James Losee, Washington Depart- typical of the anadromous form of rainbow trout. Photo credit: Bill ment of Fish and Wildlife. McMillan. 10   Thomas P. Quinn of rainbow trout, the sex ratio of seaward migrants is often The connection between phylogeny and the extent of dif- female-biased (118-121) and this may also be the case with ferential migration but not with partial migration among cutthroat trout but I have not seen data to test the idea. It species, seems somewhat counter-intuitive. Phylogeny should be noted that the above description of steelhead would be expected to be linked to the more fundamental reflects the large literature on the form in North America, trait of anadromy or freshwater residency, owing to the but there are indications of greater migration diversity in profound physiological adaptations needed for this migra- Russia. Interpretation of scales from the Kol and Kekhta tion, compared to the primarily behavioral adaptations for rivers of Kamchatka indicated that in addition to the dom- differential migration. Importantly, the patterns of partial inant forms (river resident and anadromous), some indi- and differential migration are not closely connected. viduals used the estuary without going to the ocean (122). There was also little or no support for the hypothe- It is unclear whether these forms are now, or ever were, sized connection between life history traits such as the prevalent in North America, how distinct they are, and number of years spent at sea or the prevalence of iteropar- what factors cause them to occur in some rivers, and some ity, and differential migration. The duration of marine individuals. residence varies among species, ranging from less than a year in cutthroat trout, typically or invariably one full year at sea in pink, masu, and coho salmon, commonly two or three in steelhead and sockeye salmon, one to four 3 Discussion in Chinook salmon, and two to four in chum salmon. Thus the species with best-developed differential migration, As noted in the Introduction, the consequences of migra- coho and Chinook salmon, are not distinguished in the tion in salmonids in general, and especially partial and duration of marine residence. Similarly, neither semelpa- differential migration, are much better understood than rous nor iteroparous species seem predisposed to differ- the evolution and causes. The consequences of differential ential migration, though partial migration (i.e., non-ana- migration can include exposure to higher rates of fishing dromy) is much more common in the iteroparous species. pressure in coastal waters than offshore for Chinook salmon (76), higher concentrations of chemical contami- nants for those feeding in Puget Sound compared to the ocean coast (84), and different growth rates. This review 4 Key questions to guide future considers three hypothetical frameworks for comparing research patterns of differential migration: phylogenetic affinity, patterns of partial migration, and life history variation Movement decisions by individuals result from complex (duration of marine residence, and iteroparity). combinations of internal and external factors, as the gen- There is some support for the hypothesized connec- otype interacts with the immediate biotic and abiotic con- tion between differential migration and phylogeny, but ditions experienced by the individual, as summarized by not for a connection to partial migration (i.e., anadromy efforts to synthesize the vast research on migration pat- vs. non-anadromy). Pink, chum, and sockeye salmon are terns of diverse taxa (43, 123). Similar conclusions have most closely related to each other and they show only a drawn regarding the variation in anadromy in salmonids; limited degree of differential migration; virtually all ana- movement decisions reflect genetic tendencies at the pop- dromous individuals of all three species migrate to the ulation and individual levels, growth and condition of open ocean. The presence of a common nonanadromous the individual, and proximate environmental conditions form of sockeye salmon, kokanee, thus seems discon- presented to the population (28, 44). If progress is to be nected from differential migration. Coho and Chinook made on some of the complex issues related to differential salmon are related to each other and both show differen- migration in salmon (and, by extension, other less closely tial migration but only slight partial migration (and almost studied species), then hypotheses need to be framed to exclusively males in their native range). Rainbow and address these influences (124). cutthroat trout are related to each other, and each shows almost exclusively a single migration pattern, though they differ greatly from each other in the duration and spatial extent of migrations at sea. The phylogenetic position of masu salmon is unclear, and they show several forms of partial migration but apparently no differential migration. Differential migration in Pacific salmon and trout: Patterns and hypotheses    11 4.1 What is the genetic contribution to dif- some coho salmon populations produced more fish that remained in the Salish Sea rather than migrating farther ferential migration? north, and that siblings were closer to each other when There is evidence for some degree of genetic control over recovered at sea than non-siblings among those migrat- migration in many taxa (125), and especially birds (126). It ing long distances (88). This kind of approach, associat- is beyond the scope of this review to consider all aspects ing behavior patterns with population or family of origin, of genetic control and evolution of migration in salmonids likely will be complemented in the future with genomic (44), but selected examples related to anadromy may prove approaches such as those used to investigate within-spe- useful. Salmonid species show a wide range of patterns, cies variation in the timing of return from the ocean (133), from invariably anadromous to entirely non-anadromous and the distinction between non-anadromous and ana- (25, 26). In sockeye salmon, anadromous populations col- dromous forms (30). onized suitable habitat after glacial retreat, and in many independent river systems the slower growth in fresh water was sufficiently offset by the survival advantage 4.2 How does individual condition affect of not going to sea and back, leading to the evolution of differential migration? and non-anadromous “kokanee,” often in sympatry with anadromous conspecifics (56, 127). Genetic separation In many taxa, patterns of differential migration are is achieved through a combination of assortative mating related to body size, sex, or both (especially in cases of and lower survival of the hybrids, which not uncommonly sexual dimorphism). For example, male elephant seals, occur (128). In contrast to this relatively strong genetic Mirounga angustirostris, are much larger than females, separation between forms in this species, most salmonids and travel farther to forage than do females, likely to meet show more conditional control, with sex-specific norms their metabolic needs (134). Segregated foraging areas of reaction related to the growth rate of the juveniles (36, by age and sex are also known in many other animals, 129), an exemplified in O. mykiss (28). Consequently, some including beluga whales, Delphinapterus leucas (135), genetic influence on differential migration would not be many species of sharks (50), songbirds (136), and more. surprising. Given the notable sex bias in anadromy (more common It is very possible that the spatial extent of migration in females if the species varies), it is plausible that differ- has a genetic basis. Indeed, there is strong evidence of ential migration (e.g., use of inland marine waters vs. the population-specific patterns of salmon distribution at sea, coastal ocean) is sex-biased. To my knowledge such pat- as indicated by juveniles tagged in fresh water and recov- terns have not been reported but data could be obtained ered as adults at sea (130), and by the maintenance of from fishery samples to evaluate this hypothesis. migration patterns after transplantation to a new site and With respect to size, it is widely known that the fastest hybridization between populations (131). The Chinook growing individuals (especially males) of many salmo- salmon from the interior part of the Columbia River basin nid species transition directly to sexual maturity without are genetically distinct as a lineage from those breeding migrating to sea, for example in masu salmon (32), Atlan- farther downriver, and differ in marine distribution (75, tic salmon, Salmo salar (137), and Chinook salmon (138). 76). However, the alternative tendencies to feed in inland Thus a connection between body size and differential marine waters or migrate to the ocean coast are evident migration is plausible. There are at least two obvious within populations of Chinook (85) and coho salmon (83), hypotheses related to body size and differential migration so the evidence for a genetic basis is mixed and ambigu- alternatives in salmon of migration to the coast and occu- ous, and conclusions await controlled experiments. Alter- pancy of interior marine waters. First, juveniles of all sizes natively, recent developments in genetic analyses allow might enter inland marine waters and some factor other what is known as parentage-based tagging of hatchery than size determines whether they remain or migrate to produced salmon. That is, all parents used for spawning the coast. In this scenario, those remaining grow slower, are genotyped and then fisheries are sampled so that indi- for ecological reasons, than do those along the coast. vidual adult salmon can be linked to not only their pop- Second, small (or large) size may predispose juveniles to ulation of origin (as prior tagging programs have done) follow one migration alternative or the other. Studies on but also to their parents. This remarkable capacity now the migration pathways of individuals of known size have permits detailed assessment of the spatial and temporal not been conducted. However, cohorts of juvenile salmon patterns of salmon at sea in areas where fishing occurs (i.e., those migrating to sea in a given year from a given (88, 132). Application of this approach revealed that hatchery or river or origin) that were larger on average 12   Thomas P. Quinn tended to produce more fish that remained in Puget Sound decades have been slight, and in general these waters are rather than migrating to the coast in Chinook salmon (85). characterized by very moderate seasonal changes. For However, the effect was not consistent among regions, example, from 1970 – 2010, the mean surface tempera- and was not detected in coho salmon using similar anal- tures at Race Rocks, British Columbia in June ranged from yses (83), so evidence that large size influences differ- 9.1 to 11.4 and the seasonal variation was from a mean ential migration in these salmon is at present mixed. It monthly low of 7.6° in winter to a high of 11.3°. Conditions thus seems that poorer growing conditions in the inland within Puget Sound may be more variable but it still seems marine waters reduce growth, rather than that small fish unlikely that thermal conditions alone are responsible for tend to remain there while larger members of the cohort the changes in migratory behavior. Rather, there are prob- migration to the coast. ably other ecological processes that are either causally connected with temperature or coinciding over the period of record, that affect the fish. 4.3 How do environmental conditions affect differential migration? 4.4 Are differential migration patterns alter- In the case of juvenile Chinook and coho salmon cohorts natives, or points along a continuum? entering Puget Sound in a given year, the proportions of the two species that remain there rather than migrat- In some cases, differential migration is a matter of discrete ing farther out to the coastal ocean were positively cor- alternative feeding areas or distances (50, 134), but in other related between years (83, 85). Moreover, in years when cases it is a matter of degree, for example the latitudinal sea surface temperatures in late spring (when the juve- clines in sex ratio reported in some migratory birds (48, niles enter marine waters) were cooler, larger proportions 49). In some taxa, new research is challenging previous remained as residents whereas warmer temperatures were paradigms. For example, it was concluded that “Mysticete associated with larger proportions of distant migrants, in [whale] migration should be thought of as a continuum of both salmon species. These finding were all consistent different strategies” (139). In the case of Pacific salmon, with environmental influences on migration, though the there has been a tendency to view those remaining in mechanism is unclear. The changes in temperature among inland marine waters as distinct from those migrating to Table 1: Summary of variation among Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus) species in the prevalence of anadromy and partial migration (within the native range, discounting transplants and populations artificially landlocked), life history (iteroparity or semelparity), general marine migration pattern, and extent differential migration. Species Anadromy Life history Marine migration Differential migration Pink Invariably so Semelparous Extensive, offshore Negligible salmon Chum Invariably so Semelparous Extensive, offshore Negligible salmon Sockeye Typical, but non-anadromous Semelparous Extensive, offshore Negligible salmon populations are common Almost invariably so; in a few Primarily nearshore; north- Two forms; moderately common; Coho lakes some fish mature without Semelparous ern populations more often residents in inland marine waters salmon going to sea offshore and migration to the ocean coast Primarily nearshore; north- Three moderately common Chinook Almost invariably so; some males Semelparous ern populations more often forms; residents in inland marine salmon mature without going to sea offshore waters, coastal, and offshore Semelparous, with Masu Populations may be anadromous, exceptions when not Primarily nearshore Negligible salmon nonanadromous, or mixed anadromous Rainbow Populations may be anadromous, Iteroparous Extensive, offshore Negligible trout nonanadromous, or mixed Cutthroat Populations may be anadromous, Limited to the area near the Iteroparous Negligible trout nonanadromous, or mixed natal stream Differential migration in Pacific salmon and trout: Patterns and hypotheses    13 the coast. This idea is based largely on recovery patterns Acknowledgements of tagged salmon in fisheries, and such data only indi- cate their location at capture, not their movement history. The ideas in this review have resulted from countless con- More recently, telemetry has indicated that most salmon versations with many collaborators but I especially thank tagged in Puget Sound as residents remained there until Sandra O’Neill for spurring my interest in the migratory they reached sexual maturity, but some later moved out variants in Puget Sound salmon, and Josh Chamber- to the coast, and a few of those came back into Puget lin, Jessica Rohde, Anna Kagley, Furt Fresh, Fred Goetz, Sound prior to the normal return migration for spawning Joseph Smith, Martini Arostegui, and James Losee for their (140, 141). However, most of the salmon tracked remained collaboration and ideas regarding Puget Sound salmon within Puget Sound, and limited their movements to a movement research, and two very helpful anonymous small area (140, 142). These observations are consistent reviewers. Endowed Professorships from the H. Mason with the idea that the differential migration alternatives Keeler and the Richard and Lois Worthington endow- in Pacific salmon are more like modes along a continuum ments provided support for the gestation of these ideas rather than discrete, absolute alternatives, or the two tails and the field work to test them. of a single normal distribution of behavior. Finally, we may ask, “Why does this matter?” There is wide recognition that migratory animals link ecosys- References tems and provide important services of many kinds (9), though they may also play a role in disease transmission [1] Baker RR. The Evolutionary Ecology of Animal Migration. New (143). Many migratory species are threatened, often at York: Holmes and Meier; 1978. least in part because their migrations heighten vulnera- [2] Dingle H. Migration: The biology of life on the move. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996. 474 p. bility (6, 7). However, the diversity of migration patterns [3] Bairlein F. Migratory birds under threat. Science. may confer some greater resilience to the effects of human 2016;354:547-8. activities, including a changing climate (144). Migratory [4] Hardesty-Moore M, Deinet S, Freeman R, Titcomb GC, Dillon fishes often provide food for humans in addition to other EM, Stears K, et al. Migration in the Anthropocene: how ecosystem services, and there is increasing recognition collective navigation, environmental system and taxonomy shape the vulnerability of migratory species. Philosophical that variable migration patterns affect fisheries exploita- Transactions of the Royal Society, B. 2018;373:20170017. tion (24, 42, 145). Alternative migration patterns also [5] Tamario C, Sunde J, Petersson E, Tibblin P, Forsman A. affect uptake of chemical contaminants in species such as Ecological and Evolutionary consequences of environmental Pacific bluefin tuna, Thunnus orientalis (146, 147), striped change and management actions for migrating fish. Frontiers bass (148), Pacific herring (149), Atlantic salmon (150, in Ecology and Evolution. 2019;7:271. 151), and Chinook salmon (84). These contaminants can [6] Horns JJ, Şekercioğlu Ç. Conservation of migratory species. Current Biology. 2018;28:R980–R3. be a health concern for humans, and also a conservation [7] Runge CA, Martin TG, Possingham HP, Willis SG, Fuller RA. concern for the natural predators that feed on the salmon Conservating mobile species. Frontiers in Ecology and the (152). Thus differential migration patterns can be very Environment. 2014;12:395-402. consequential for the fishes themselves and their consum- [8] Wilcove DS, Wikelski M. Going, going, gone: Is animal ers, both human and otherwise. Understanding the causal migration disappearing? . PLoS Biology. 2008;6(7):e188. [9] Bauer S, Hoye BJ. Migratory animals couple biodiversity mechanisms is vital in salmon, because their genotype and ecosystem functioning worldwide. Science. and phenotype are altered by the hatchery production 2014;344:1242552. that has increasingly come to dominate many populations [10] Polis GA, Anderson WB, Holt RD. Toward an integration of complexes (153). To the extent that migration patterns are landscape and food web ecology: the dynamics of spatially influenced by body size, date of seawater entry, and gen- subsidized food webs. Annual Review of Ecology and otype, we may be affecting migration patterns. Finally, Systematics. 1997;28:289–316. [11] Lack D. Bird migration and natural selection. Oikos. climate-driven changes in temperature and flow regimes 1968;19:1-9. are altering both the selective forces on migration patterns [12] Lack D. The problem of partial migration. British Birds. and timing, and some of the cues that trigger migration. 1944;37:122-30, 43-50. [13] Terrill SB, Able KP. Bird migration terminology. Auk. 1988;105:205-6. [14] Chapman BB, Brönmark C, Nilsson J-A, Hansson L-A. The ecology and evolution of partial migration. Oikos. 2011;120:1764–75. 14   Thomas P. Quinn [15] Berg JE, Hebblewhite M, St. Clair CC, Merrill EH. Prevalence parr. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. and mechanisms of partial migration in ungulates. Frontiers 2010;67:955-65. in Ecology and Evolution. 2019;7:325. [32] Morita K, Tamate T, Kuroki M, Nagasawa T. Temperature-de- [16] Menz MHM, Reynolds DR, Gao B, Hu G, Chapman JW, Wotton pendent variation in alternative migratory tactics and KR. Mechanisms and consequences of partial migration in its implications for fitness and population dynamics in a insects. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution. 2019;7:403. salmonid fish. Journal of Animal Ecology. 2014;83:1268–78. [17] Chapman BB, Hulthén K, Brodersen J, Nilsson PA, Skov C, [33] Silverstein JT, Shimma H, Ogata H. Early maturity in amago Hansson L-A, et al. Partial migration in fishes: causes and salmon (Oncorhynchus masu ishikawai): an association with consequences. Journal of Fish Biology. 2012;81:456–78. energy storage. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic [18] Chapman BB, Skov C, Hulthén K, Brodersen J, Nilsson PA, Sciences. 1997;54:444-51. Hansson L-A, et al. Partial migration in fishes: definitions, [34] Shearer KD, Swanson P. The effect of whole body lipid on methodologies and taxonomic distribution. Journal of Fish early sexual maturation of 1+ age male chinook salmon Biology. 2012;81:479–99. (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Aquaculture. 2000;190:343-67. [19] Tsukamoto K, Nakai I, Tesch W-V. Do all freshwater eels [35] Sloat MR, Reeves GH. Individual condition, standard migrate? Nature. 1998;396:635-6. metabolic rate, and rearing temperature influence steelhead [20] Gillanders BM, Izzo C, Doubleday ZA, Ye Q. Partial migration: and rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) life histories. growth varies between resident and migratory fish. Biology Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. Letters. 2015;11:20140850. 2014;71:491–501. [21] Tibblen P, Koch-Schmidt P, Larsson P, Stenroth P. Effects of [36] Sloat MR, Fraser DJ, Dunham JB, Falke JA, Jordan CE, McMillan salinity on growth and mortality of migratory and resident JR, et al. Ecological and evolutionary patterns of freshwater forms of Eurasian perch in the Baltic Sea. Ecology of maturation in Pacific and Atlantic salmonines. Reviews in Fish Freshwater Fish. 2012;21:200-6. Biology and Fisheries. 2014;24:689–707. [22] Kerr LA, Secor DH, Piccoli PM. Partial migration of fishes [37] Ketterson ED, Nolan V. The evolution of differential bird as exemplified by the estuarine-dependent white perch. migration. Current Ornithology. 1983;1:357—402. Fisheries. 2009;34:114-23. [38] Cristol DA, Baker MB, Carbone C. Differential migration [23] Boucher EM. Disentangling reproductive biology of the revisited: latitudinal segregation by age and sex class. Patagonian toothfish Dissostichus eleginoides: skipped Current Ornithology. 1999;15:33-88. vs obligatory annual spawning, foraging migration vs [39] Clark J. Seasonal movements of striped bass contingents of residential life style. Environmental Biology of Fishes. Long Island Sound and the New York Bight. Transactions of 2018;101:1343–56. the American Fisheries Society. 1968;97:320-43. [24] Ziegler CM, Zacharias JP, Frisk MG. Migration diversity, [40] Secor DH. Specifying divergent migrations in the concept spawning behavior, and habitat utilization of winter of stock: the contingent hypothesis. Fisheries Research. flounder. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 1999;43:13-34. 2019;76:1503–14. [41] Secor DH, Rooker JR, Zlokovitz E, Zdanowicz VS. Identification [25] Rounsefell GA. Anadromy in North American Salmonidae. of riverine, estuarine, and coastal contingents of Hudson Fishery Bulletin. 1958;58:171-85. River striped bass based upon otolith elemental fingerprints. [26] Quinn TP, Myers KW. Anadromy and the marine migrations of Marine Ecology Progress Series. 2001;211:245-53. Pacific salmon and trout: Rounsefell revisited. Reviews in Fish [42] Secor DH, O’Brien MHP, Gahagan BI, Watterson JC, Fox DA. Biology and Fisheries. 2004;14:421-42. Differential migration in Chesapeake Bay striped bass. PLoS [27] Spares AD, Dadswell MJ, Dickinson MP, Stokesbury MJW. A ONE. 2020;15(5):e0233103. critical review of marine adaptability within the anadromous [43] Shaw AK. Causes and consequences of individual variation in Salmoninae. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries. animal movement. Movement Ecology. 2020;8(12):1-12. 2015;25:503–19. [44] Quinn TP. The Behavior and Ecology of Pacific Salmon and [28] Kendall NW, McMillan JR, Sloat MR, Buehrens TW, Quinn Trout, second edition. Seattle: University of Washington TP, Pess GR, et al. Anadromy and residency in steelhead Press; 2018. and rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss: a review of the [45] Jonsson B, Jonsson N. Ecology of Atlantic Salmon and Brown processes and patterns. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Trout: Habitat as a Template for Life Histories. New York: Aquatic Sciences. 2015;72:319-42. Springer; 2011. 708 p. [29] Johnson JR, Baumsteiger J, Zydlewski J, Hudson JM, Ardren [46] Berg LS. Vernal and hiemal races among anadromous W. Evidence of panmixia between sympatric life history fishes. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada. forms of coastal cutthroat trout in two lower Columbia River 1959;16:515-37. tributaries. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. [47] Quinn TP, McGinnity P, Reed TE. The paradox of ‘premature 2010;30:691-701. migration’ by adult anadromous salmonid fishes: Patterns [30] Narum SR, Zendt JS, Frederiksen C, Campbell N, Matala and hypotheses. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic A, Sharp WR. Candidate genetic markers associated Sciences. 2016;73:1015-30. with anadromy in Oncorhynchus mykiss of the Klickitat [48] Catry P, Lecoq M, Araújo A, Conway G, Felgueiras M, King River. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. JMB, et al. Differential migration of chiffchaffs Phylloscopus 2011;140:843-54. collybita and P. ibericus in Europe and Africa. Journal of Avian [31] Morita K, Nagasawa T. Latitudinal variation in the growth Biology. 2005;36:184-90. and maturation of masu salmon (Oncorhynchus masou) Differential migration in Pacific salmon and trout: Patterns and hypotheses    15 [49] Jenkins K, Cristol DA. Evidence of differential migration by sex Sockeye Salmon in British Columbia waters and in the Gulf in white-throated sparrows (Zonotrichia albicollis). The Auk. of Alaska. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 2002;119:539-43. 2014;143:1386-403. [50] Chapman DD, Feldheim KA, Papastamatiou YP, Hueter RE. [63] Jensen HM. Recoveries of immature chum salmon tagged There and back again: a review of residency and return in southern Puget Sound. Fisheries Research Papers, migrations in sharks, with implications for population Washington Department of Fisheries. 1956;1(4):32. structure and management. Annual Reviews of Marine [64] Hiramatsu K, Ishida Y. Random movement and orientation Science. 2015;7:547-70. in pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) migrations. [51] Omori KL, Fisher RA. Summer and fall movement of cownose Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. ray, Rhinoptera bonasus, along the east coast of United 1989;46:1062-6. States observed with pop-up satellite tags. Environmental [65] Jensen HM. Migratory habits of pink salmon found in the Biology of Fishes. 2017;100:1436-49. Tacoma Narrows area of Puget Sound. Fisheries Research [52] Crête-Lafrenière A, Weir LK, Bernatchez L. Framing the Papers, Washington Department of Fisheries. 1956;1(4):21-4. Salmonidae family phylogenetic portrait: A more complete [66] Haw F, Wendler HO, Deschamps G. Development of picture from increased taxon sampling. Public Library Washington State salmon sport fishery through 1964. of Science. 2012;7(10):e46662. doi:10.1371/journal. Washington Department of Fisheries, Research Bulletin 7, pone.0046662. 1967. [53] Radchenko VI, Beamish RJ, Heard WR, Temnykh OS. Ocean [67] Losee JP, Kendall NW, Dufault A. Changing salmon: an ecology of Pink Salmon In: Beamish RJ, editor. The Ocean analysis of body mass, abundance, survival, and productivity Ecology of Pacific Salmon and Trout. Bethesda: American trends across 45 years in Puget Sound. Fish and Fisheries. Fisheries Society; 2018. p. 15-160. 2019;20:934-51. [54] Urawa S, Beacham TD, Fukuwaka M, Kaeriyama M. Ocean [68] Riddell BR, Brodeur RD, Bugaev AV, Moran P, Murphy JM, ecology of Chum Salmon. In: Beamish RJ, editor. The Ocean Orsi JA, et al. Ocean ecology of Chinook Salmon. In: Beamish Ecology of Pacific Salmon and Trout. Bethesda: American RJ, editor. The Ocean Ecology of Pacific Salmon and Trout. Fisheries Society; 2018. p. 161-318. Bethesda: American Fisheries Society; 2018. p. 555-696. [55] Farley Jr EV, Beacham TD, Bugaev AV. Ocean ecology of [69] Beamish RJ, Weitkamp LA, Shaul LD, Radchenko VI. Ocean Sockeye Salmon. In: Beamish RJ, editor. The Ocean Ecology ecology of Coho Salmon. In: Beamish RJ, editor. The Ocean of Pacific Salmon and Trout. Bethesda: American Fisheries Ecology of Pacific Salmon and Trout. Bethesda: American Society; 2018. p. 319-90. Fisheries Society; 2018. p. 391-554. [56] Taylor EB, Foote CJ, Wood CC. Molecular genetic evidence [70] Clarke WC, Blackburn J. Effect of growth on early sexual for parallel life-history evolution within a Pacific salmon maturation in stream-type chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus (sockeye salmon and kokanee, Oncorhynchus nerka). tshawytscha). Aquaculture. 1994;121:95-103. Evolution. 1996;50:401-16. [71] Taylor EB. Precocial male maturation in laboratory-reared [57] Welch DW, Melnychuk MC, Rechisky ER, Porter AD, Jacobs populations of chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha. MC, Ladouceur A, et al. Freshwater and marine migration Canadian Journal of Zoology. 1989;67:1665-9. and survival of endangered Cultus Lake sockeye salmon [72] Unwin MJ, Kinnison MT, Quinn TP. Exceptions to semelparity: (Oncorhynchus nerka) smolts using POST, a large-scale postmaturation survival, morphology and energetics of male acoustic telemetry array Canadian Journal of Fisheries and chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Canadian Aquatic Sciences. 2009;66:736-50. Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 1999;56:1172-81. [58] Neville CM, Johnson SC, Beacham TD, Whitehouse T, Tadey [73] Wahle RJ, Chaney E, Pearson RE. Areal distribution of marked J, Trudel M. Initial estimates from an integrated study Columbia River basin spring chinook salmon recovered in examining the residence period and migration timing of fisheries and at parent hatcheries. Marine Fisheries Review. juvenile sockeye salmon from the Fraser River through 1981;43(12):1-9. coastal waters of British Columbia. North Pacific Anadromous [74] Healey MC. Coastwide distribution and ocean migration Fish Commission Bulletin. 2016;6:45–60. patterns of stream- and ocean-type chinook salmon, [59] Groot C, Bailey RE, Margolis L, Cooke K. Migratory patterns Oncorhynchus tshawytscha. Canadian Field-Naturalist. of sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) smolts in the Strait 1983;97(4):427-33. of Georgia, British Columbia, as determined by analysis [75] Waples RS, Teel DJ, Myers JM, Marshall AR. Life-history of parasite assemblages. Canadian Journal of Zoology. divergence in chinook salmon: historic contingency and 1989;67:1670-8. parallel evolution. Evolution. 2004;58:386-403. [60] Groot C, Cooke K. Are the migrations of juvenile and adult [76] Sharma R, Quinn TP. Linkages between life history type and Fraser River sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) in migration pathways in freshwater and marine environments near-shore waters related? Canadian Special Publication of for Chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha. Acta Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 1987;96:53-60. Oecologica. 2012;41:1-13. [61] Farley EV, Jr., Murphy JM, Wing BW, Moss JH, Middleton A. [77] Trudel M, Fisher J, Orsi JA, Morris JFT, Thiess ME, Sweeting Distribution, migration pathways, and size of western Alaska RM, et al. Distribution and migration of juvenile Chinook juvenile salmon along the eastern Bering Sea shelf. Alaska salmon derived from coded wire tag recoveries along the Fishery Research Bulletin. 2005;11:15-26. continental shelf of western North America. Transactions of [62] Beacham TD, Beamish RJ, Candy JR, Wallace C, Tucker S, the American Fisheries Society. 2009;138:1369-91. Moss JH, et al. Stock-specific migration pathways of juvenile 16   Thomas P. Quinn [78] Weitkamp LA. Marine distributions of Chinook salmon from [93] Kato F. Life histories of masu and amago salmon the west coast of North America determined by coded wire (Oncorhynchus masou and Oncorhynchus rhodurus). In: tag recoveries. Transactions of the American Fisheries Groot C, Margolis L, editors. Pacific salmon life histories. Society. 2009;139:147-70. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press; 1991. p. [79] Weitkamp L, Neely K. Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) 448-520. ocean migration patterns: insight from marine coded-wire [94] Morita K. General biology of masu salmon. In: Beamish tag recoveries. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic RJ, editor. The Ocean Ecology of Pacific Salmon and Trout. Sciences. 2002;59:1100-15. Bethesda, MD: American Fisheries Society; 2018. p. 703-30. [80] Jordan DS, Evermann BW. The Fishes of North and Middle [95] Tsiger VV, Skirin VI, Krupyanko NI, Kashlin KA, Semenchenko America. Washington, D. C.: Smithsonian Institution; 1896. AY. Life history form of male masu salmon (Oncorhynchus [81] Pressey RT. The sport fishery for salmon on Puget Sound. masou) in South Primor’e, Russia. Canadian Journal of Fisheries Research Papers, Washington Department of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 1994;51:197-208. Fisheries. 1953;1(1):33-48. [96] Nagasawa T. Ocean life history of Masu Salmon from ocean [82] Beamish RJ, McFarlane GA, Thomson RE. Recent declines in entry to upstream migration. In: Beamish RJ, editor. The the recreational catch of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) Ocean Ecology of Pacific Salmon and Trout. Bethesda, MD: in the Strait of Georgia are related to climate. Canadian American Fisheries Society; 2018. p. 731-66. Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 1999;56:506–15. [97] Smith GR, Stearley RF. The classification and scientific names [83] Rohde J, Fresh KL, Quinn TP. Factors affecting partial of rainbow and cutthroat trouts. Fisheries. 1989;14(1):4-10. migration in Puget Sound Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus [98] Behnke RJ. Native trout of western North America. Bethesda: kisutch). North American Journal of Fisheries Management. American Fisheries Society; 1992. 2014;34:559-70. [99] Bisson PA, Sullivan K, Nielsen JL. Channel hydraulics, habitat [84] O’Neill SM, West JE. Marine distribution, life history traits, use, and body form of juvenile coho salmon, steelhead, and and the accumulation of polychlorinated biphenyls in cutthroat trout in streams. Transactions of the American Chinook salmon from Puget Sound, Washington. Transactions Fisheries Society. 1988;117:262-73. of the American Fisheries Society. 2009;138:616-32. [100] Baumsteiger J, Hankin D, Loudenslager EJ. Genetic [85] Chamberlin JW, Essington TE, Ferguson JW, Quinn TP. analyses of juvenile steelhead, coastal cutthroat trout, The influence of hatchery rearing practices on salmon and their hybrids differ substantially from field identifi- migratory behavior: Is the tendency of Chinook salmon cations. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. to remain within Puget Sound affected by size and date of 2005;134:829-40. release? . Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. [101] Kennedy BM, Baumsteiger J, Gale WL, Ardren WR, Ostrand 2011;140:1398-408. KG. Morphological, physiological, and genetic techniques for [86] Hecht BC, Campbell NR, Holecek DE, Narum SR. Genome-wide improving field identification of steelhead, coastal cutthroat association reveals genetic basis for the propensity to trout, and hybrid smolts. Marine and Coastal Fisheries. migrate in wild populations of rainbow and steelhead trout. 2009;1:45-56. Molecular Ecology. 2012. [102] Campton DE, Utter FM. Natural hybridization between [87] Arostegui MC, Quinn TP, Seeb LW, Seeb JE, McKinney GJ. steelhead trout (Salmo gairdneri) and coastal cutthroat trout Retention of a chromosomal inversion from an anadromous (Salmo clarki clarki) in two Puget Sound streams. Canadian ancestor provides the genetic basis for alternative Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 1985;42:110–9. freshwater ecotypes in rainbow trout. Molecular Ecology. [103] Losee JP, Seamons TR, Jauquet J. Migration patterns of 2019;28:1412–27. anadromous Cutthroat Trout in South Puget Sound: A [88] Beacham TD, Wallace C, Jonsen K, McIntosh B, Candy JR, fisheries management perspective. Fisheries Research. Willis D, et al. Variation in migration pattern, broodstock 2017;187:218-25. origin, and family productivity of coho salmon hatchery [104] Goetz FA, Baker B, Buehrens T, Quinn TP. Diversity of populations in British Columbia, Canada, derived from movements by individual anadromous coastal cutthroat parentage-based tagging. Ecology and Evolution. 2019. trout in Hood Canal, Washington. Journal of Fish Biology. [89] Jensen HM. Puget Sound salmon investigation. Washington 2013;83:1161-82. Department of Fisheries, 1948. [105] Zydlewski GB, Zydlewski J, Johnson J. Patterns of migration [90] Milne DJ. The difference in the growth rate of coho salmon and residency in coastal cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarkii on the east and west coasts of Vancouver Island in 1950. clarkii from two tributaries of the lower Columbia River. Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Progress Report of the Journal of Fish Biology. 2009;75:203-22. Pacific Coast Stations. 1950;85:80-2. [106] Saiget DA, Sloat MR, Reeves GH. Spawning and movement [91] Zimmerman MS, Irvine JR, O’Neill M, Anderson JH, Greene behavior of migratory coastal cutthroat trout on the western CM, Weinheimer J, et al. Spatial and temporal patterns in Copper River Delta, Alaska. North American Journal of smolt survival of wild and hatchery Coho Salmon in the Salish Fisheries Management. 2007;27:1029-40. Sea. Marine and Coastal Fisheries. 2015;7:116-34. [107] Pearcy WG, Brodeur RD, McKinnell SM, Losee JP. Ocean [92] Ruff CP, Anderson JH, Kemp IM, Kendall NW, McHugh PA, ecology of anadromous coastal cutthroat trout. In: Beamish Velez-Espino A, et al. Salish Sea Chinook salmon exhibit RJ, editor. The Ocean Ecology of Pacific Salmon and Trout. weaker coherence in early marine survival trends than coastal Bethesda, MD: American Fisheries Society; 2018. p. 905-30. populations. Fisheries Oceanography. 2017;26:625–37. [108] Pearcy WG, Brodeur RD, Fisher JP. Distribution and biology of juvenile cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarki clarki and Differential migration in Pacific salmon and trout: Patterns and hypotheses    17 steelhead O. mykiss in coastal waters off Oregon and [123] Nathan R, Getz WM, Revilla E, Holyoak M, Kadmon R, Saltze D, Washington. Fishery Bulletin. 1990;88:697-711. et al. A movement ecology paradigm for unifying organismal [109] Pearcy WG, Fisher JP. Distribution and abundance of juvenile movement research. Proceedings of the National Academy of salmonids off Oregon and Washington, 1981-1985. Corvalis, Sciences. 2008;105:19052-9. Oregon: National Marine Fisheries Service, 1990. [124] Shaw AK. Drivers of animal migration and implications [110] Krentz LK. Habitat use, movement, and life history variation in changing environments. Evolutionary Ecology. of coastal cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarki clarki in 2016;30:991-1007. the Salmon River estuary, Oregon. Corvallis: Oregon State [125] Liedvogel A, Åkesson S, Bensch S. The genetics of migration University; 2007. on the move. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 2011;26:561-9. [111] Moore ME, Berejikian BA, Goetz FA, Berger AG, Hodgson SS, [126] Pulido F. Evolutionary genetics of partial migration – Connor EJ, et al. Multi-population analysis of Puget Sound the threshold model of migration revis(it)ed. Oikos. steelhead survival and migration behavior. Marine Ecology 2011;120:1776-83. Progress Series. 2015;537:217-32. [127] Wood CC. Life history variation and population structure in [112] Melnychuk MC, Welch DW, Walters CJ, Christensen V. Riverine sockeye salmon. American Fisheries Society Symposium. and early ocean migration and mortality patterns of juvenile 1995;17:195-216. steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) from the Cheakamus [128] Wood CC, Foote CJ. Evidence for sympatric genetic divergence River, British Columbia. Hydrobiologia. 2007;582:55-65. of anadromous and nonanadromous morphs of sockeye [113] Goetz FA, Jeanes E, Moore ME, Quinn TP. Comparative salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka). Evolution. 1996;50:1265-79. migratory behavior and survival of wild and hatchery [129] Dodson JJ, Aubin-Horth N, Thériault V, Páez DJ. The steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) smolts in riverine, evolutionary ecology of alternative migratory tactics in estuarine, and marine habitats of Puget Sound, Washington. salmonid fishes. Biological Reviews. 2013;88:602-25. Environmental Biology of Fishes. 2015;98:357-75. [130] Weitkamp L. Marine distributions of coho and Chinook [114] Chapman ED, Hearn AR, Singer GP, Brostoff WN, LaCivita PE, salmon inferred from coded wire tag recoveries. American Klimley AP. Movements of steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) Fisheries Society Symposium. 2012;76:191-214. smolts migrating through the San Francisco Bay Estuary. [131] Quinn TP, Chamberlin J, Brannon EL. Experimental evidence of Environmental Biology of Fishes. 2015;98:1069–80. population-specific spatial distributions of Chinook salmon, [115] Romer JD, Leblanc CA, Clements S, Ferguson JA, Kent ML, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha. Environmental Biology of Fishes. Noakes D, et al. Survival and behavior of juvenile steelhead 2011;92:313-22. trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in two estuaries in Oregon, USA. [132] Beacham TD, Wallace C, Jonsen K, McIntosh B, Candy Environmental Biology of Fishes. 2013;96:849-63. JR, Willis D, et al. Insights on the concept of indicator [116] Myers KW. Ocean ecology of steelhead. In: Beamish RJ, populations derived from parentage-based tagging in a editor. The Ocean Ecology of Pacific Salmon and Trout. large-scale coho salmon application in British Columbia, Bethesda: American Fisheries Society; 2018. p. 779-904. Canada. Ecology and Evolution. 2020. [117] Moore ME, Goetz FA, Van Doornik DM, Tezak EP, Quinn TP, [133] Prince DJ, O’Rourke SM, Thompson TQ, Ali OA, Lyman Reyes-Tomassini JJ, et al. Early marine migration patterns HS, Saglam IK, et al. The evolutionary basis of premature of wild coastal cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki clarki), migration in Pacific salmon highlights the utility of steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), and their hybrids. genomics for informing conservation. Science Advances. PLoS one. 2010;5(9):E12881. 2017;3:e1603198. [118] Kelson SJ, Miller MR, Thompson TQ, O’Rourke SM, Carlson [134] Stewart BS. Ontogeny of differential migration and SM. Do genomics and sex predict migration in a partially sexual segregation in northern elephant seals. Journal of migratory salmonid fish, Oncorhynchus mykiss? Canadian Mammalogy. 1997;78:1101-16. Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 2019;76:2080-8. [135] Loseto LL, Richard P, Stern GA, Orr J, Ferguson SH. [119] Rundio DE, Williams TH, Pearse DE, Lindley ST. Male-biased Segregation of Beaufort Sea beluga whales during sex ratio of nonanadromous Oncorhynchus mykiss in a the open-water season. Canadian Journal of Zoology. partially migratory population in California. Ecology of 2006;84:1743-51. Freshwater Fish. 2012;21:293-9. [136] Woodworth BK, Newman AEM, Turbek SP, Dossman BC, [120] Ohms HA, Sloat MR, Reeves GH, Jordan CE, Dunham JB. Hobson KA, Wassenaar LI, et al. Differential migration and Influence of sex, migration distance, and latitude on the link between winter latitude, timing of migration, and life history expression in steelhead and rainbow trout breeding in a songbird. Oecologia. 2016;181:413-22. (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and [137] Myers RA, Hutchings JA, Gibson RJ. Variation in male parr Aquatic Sciences. 2014;71:70-80. maturation within and amoung populations of Atlantic [121] Pavlov DS, Savvaitova KA. On the problem of ratio of salmon, Salmo salar. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and anadromy and residence in salmonids (Salmonidae). Journal Aquatic Sciences. 1986;43:1242-8. of Ichthyology. 2008;48:778-91. [138] Larsen DA, Beckman BR, Strom CR, Parkins PJ, Cooper KA, [122] Pavlov DS, Savvaitova KA, Kuzishchin KV, Gruzdeva MA, Fast DE, et al. Growth modulation alters the incidence of Mal’tsev AY, Stanford JA. Diversity of life strategies and early male maturation and physiological development of population structure of Kamchatka mykiss Parasalmo mykiss hatchery-reared spring Chinook salmon: a comparison with in the ecosystems of small salmon rivers of various types. wild fish. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. Journal of Ichthyology. 2008;48:37-44. 2006;135:1017-32. 18   Thomas P. Quinn [139] Geijer CKA, Notarbartolo de Sciara G, Panigada S. Mysticete [148] Zlokovitz ER, Secor DH. Effect of habitat use on PCB body migration revisited: are Mediterranean fin whales an burden in Hudson River striped bass (Morone saxatilis). anomaly. Mammal Review. 2016;46:284-96. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. [140] Kagley AN, Smith JM, Fresh KL, Frick KE, Quinn TP. Residency, 1999;56((Suppl. 1)):86-93. partial migration, and late egress of sub-adult Chinook [149] West JE, O’Neill SM, Ylitalo GM. Spatial extent, magnitude, salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and comparisons and patterns of persistent organochlorine pollutants in with coho salmon (O. kisutch) in Puget Sound, Washington. Pacific herring (Clupea pallasi) populations in the Puget Fishery Bulletin. 2017;115:544-55. Sound (USA) and Strait of Georgia (Canada). Science of the [141] Rohde J, Kagley AN, Fresh KL, Goetz FA, Quinn TP. Partial Total Environment. 2008;394:369-78. migration and diel movement patterns in Puget Sound Coho [150] Svendsen TC, Vorkamp K, Rønsholdt B, Frier J-O. Salmon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. Retrospective determination of primary feeding areas 2013;142:1615-28. of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) using fingerprinting of [142] Arostegui MC, Smith JM, Kagley AN, Spilsbury-Pucci D, Fresh chlorinated organic contaminants. ICES Journal of Marine KL, Quinn TP. Spatially clustered movement patterns and Science. 2008;65:921-9. segregation of sub-adult Chinook Salmon within the Salish [151] Svendsen TC, Vorkamp K, Svendsen JC, Aarestrup K, Frier Sea. Marine and Coastal Fisheries. 2017;9:1-12. J-O. Organochlorine fingerprinting to determine foraging [143] Altizer S, Bartel R, Han BA. Animal migration and infectious areas of sea-ranched Atlantic salmon: a case study from disease risk. Science. 2011;331:296-302. Denmark. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. [144] Gilroy JJ, Gill JA, M. Butchart SHM, Jones VR, Franco AMA. 2009;29:598-603. Migratory diversity predicts population declines in birds. [152] Cullon DL, Yunker MB, Alleyne C, Dangerfield NJ, O’Neill S, Ecology Letters. 2016;19:308-17. Whiticar MJ, et al. Persistent organic pollutants in Chinook [145] Braccini M, Aires-da-Silva A, Taylor I. Incorporating movement salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha): implications for in the modelling of shark and ray population dynamics: resident killer whales of British Columbia and adjacent approaches and management implications. Reviews in Fish waters. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. Biology and Fisheries. 2016;26:13-24. 2009;28:148-61. [146] Colman JA, Nogueira JI, Pancorbo OC, Batdorf CA, Block BA. [153] Naish KA, Taylor JE, Levin PS, Quinn TP, Winton JR, Huppert D, Mercury in Pacific bluefin tuna (Thunnus orientalis): bioaccu- et al. An evaluation of the effects of conservation and fishery mulation and trans-Pacific Ocean migration. Canadian Journal enhancement hatcheries on wild populations of salmon. of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 2015;72:1015-23. Advances in Marine Biology. 2007;53:61-194. [147] Madigan DJ, Baumann Z, Carlisle AB, Snodgrass O, Dewar H, Fisher NS. Isotopic insights into migration patterns of Pacific bluefin tuna in the eastern Pacific Ocean. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 2018;75:260-70. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Animal Migration de Gruyter

Differential migration in Pacific salmon and trout: Patterns and hypotheses

Animal Migration , Volume 8 (1): 18 – Jan 1, 2021

Loading next page...
 
/lp/de-gruyter/differential-migration-in-pacific-salmon-and-trout-patterns-and-HFyYtF1BDV
Publisher
de Gruyter
Copyright
© 2021 Thomas P. Quinn, published by De Gruyter
ISSN
2084-8838
eISSN
2084-8838
DOI
10.1515/ami-2021-0001
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Anim. Migr. 2021; 8: 1–18 Review Article Thomas P. Quinn* Differential migration in Pacific salmon and trout: Patterns and hypotheses https://doi.org/10.1515/ami-2021-0001 1 Introduction received July 16, 2020; accepted November 16, 2020 Migration is a widespread behavioral pattern in animals Abstract: Migrations affect the population dynamics, life (1, 2), with profound consequences for the fitness of indi- history, evolution, and connections of animals to natural viduals and the conservation status of the population or ecosystems and humans. Many species and populations species. Migration affects exposure to predators, patho- display partial migration (some individuals migrate and gens, and contaminants, access to optimal feeding and some do not), and differential migration (migration dis- breeding areas, spatio-temporal changes in abiotic condi- tance varies). Partial migration is widely distributed in tions, and exploitation by humans (3-5). In many cases, fishes but the term differential migration is much less migratory species, or the migratory forms of species, are commonly applied, despite the occurrence of this phe- in greater jeopardy than non-migratory species and forms nomenon. This paper briefly reviews the extent of dif- (6-8). Migratory animals can also have profound effects on ferential migration in Pacific salmon and trout (genus their ecosystems (9, 10). Oncorhynchus), a very extensively studied group. Three Over the past decades it has been increasingly clear hypotheses are presented to explain the patterns among that there are many alternatives to migration displayed species: 1) phylogenetic relationships, 2) the prevalence by individuals and populations, and the scientific liter- of partial migration (i.e., variation in anadromy), and 3) ature on alternative migration patterns has been heavily life history patterns (iteroparous or semelparous, and influenced by work on birds (11, 12). With respect to birds, duration spent feeding at sea prior to maturation). Each partial migration was defined as describing “… popula- hypothesis has some support but none is consistent with tions [that] include some individuals that do and some all patterns. The prevalence of differential migration, that do not migrate from the same breeding area” (13). ranging from essentially non-existent to common within This definition is consistent with general usage (14), and a species, reflects phylogeny and life history, interacting partial migration is known in many taxa (15-18) including with the geographic features of the region where juvenile fishes. For example, anguillid eels are famous for their cat- salmon enter the ocean. Notwithstanding the uncertain adromous migrations from marine areas where they are evolution of this behavior, it has very clear implications spawned to freshwater habitats where they feed and grow for salmon conservation, as it strongly affects exposure to for years before migrating back to sea, but some juveniles predators, patterns of fishery exploitation and also uptake do not ascend rivers (19). Many other diadromous fishes of toxic contaminants. also show partial migration, including black bream, Acan- Keywords: Partial migration; Anadromy; Life history; Phy- thopagrus butcheri, in Australia (20), European perch, logeny; Conservation; Oncorhynchus Perca fluviatilis, in the Baltic Sea (21), and white perch, Morone americana, on the Atlantic coast of North America (22). There are also many examples of marine fishes with migratory and non-migratory populations, and often the management and conservation hinge on understanding these patterns (e.g., Patagonian toothfish, Dissostichus eleginoides (23) and winter flounder, Pseudopleuronectes americanus (24)). Perhaps the best studied example of partial migration *Corresponding author: Thomas P. Quinn, School of Aquatic and in fishes is anadromy is salmonids (primarily the genera Fishery Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA Oncorhynchus, Salmo, and Salvelinus). In these fishes, E-mail: tquinn@uw.edu the patterns and prevalence of anadromy can vary widely Open Access. © 2021 Thomas P. Quinn, published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. 2   Thomas P. Quinn among and within populations (25-27), influenced by gen- seasonal races or runs, in several families of migratory otype and phenotypic plasticity (28). There is an extensive fishes, notably salmonids, sturgeons, and lamprey (46). literature spanning all species, on the prevalence of ana- Differential timing of migration is most dramatic among dromous and nonanadromous populations, and individ- distinct breeding populations but within-population var- uals within populations, including aspects related gene iation also occurs, with males and older salmon typically flow between forms (29), genomic association (30), rela- migrating earlier than females and younger salmon. These tionship to growth among populations (31, 32), growth patterns and hypotheses were recently reviewed (47), and and energy storage of individuals (33-35), and sex (36). will not be detailed here. The term differential migration is commonly used, Two important distinctions between the migrations of especially in the avian literature, when referring to cases salmon and birds should be noted when reviewing con- where individuals vary in the distance or timing of migra- cepts so well-established in the avian literature. First, dif- tion (37) or, more specifically, “… the situation in which ferential migration in birds (in terms of distance) is often migration in some distinguishable classes of individuals related to sex, with females typically migrating farther (ages, sexes, races) differs with respect to timing, distance, than males (38, 48, 49). Sex-biased distribution patterns or both” (13). Typically, for example, female birds migrate are known in some fishes, for example sharks and rays (50, farther than males, and males arrive earlier, or there is a 51), but this is often related to parturition. Male salmon difference between adults and young (38). Unlike partial often migrate before females (though nest site selection migration, a term commonly applied to fishes in the scien- and preparation are solely accomplished by females) but tific literature, differential migration is seldom applied to there seems to be no evidence of systematic differences in fishes in general and salmonids in particular, though the migration distance with sex. As noted at the conclusion of phenomenon certainly occurs. That is, many anadromous this paper, there may be data to test this hypothesis but it forms differ markedly in the spatial extent of their migra- is not a prominent feature of research to date. tions. Striped bass, Morone saxatilis, vary in their move- Even more fundamentally, salmon migrations differ ments in estuarine and marine waters (39), and Secor (40) from those of birds and some other animals in that, while revived this “contingent hypothesis” and revealed diver- the breeding site is a fixed location, the feeding grounds gent patterns of movement among anadromous fish, in to which they migrate and from which they return are addition to a resident (nonanadromous) form (41, 42). extremely broad. Salmon migrations are not seasonal In a recent review of individual variation in animal changes in latitude between discrete breeding and feeding movement, Shaw (43) concluded that “… the conse- sites. Rather, juvenile salmon (naïve to the ocean, without quences of movement are less well understood than the adults to guide them) enter marine waters and disperse. causes.” This may be the case for some taxa but I would Depending on the species and point of entry, individuals argue that it is not so for salmon and their relatives. In from one population may migrate north along the coast, these fishes, the consequences for growth, natural and both north and south, or mainly south. In many cases they anthropogenic mortality, and the productivity of popula- feed out in the open North Pacific Ocean, more or less con- tions, may be better understood than the causes, which tinuously moving, until they approach sexual maturity. are a complex blend of ancestral tendencies of the popu- They then migrate in a more directed manner homeward lation, recent growth and condition of the individual, and to the mouth of their natal river, ascend it, and spawn. environmental stimuli. Despite the voluminous scientific Individual salmon can be caught at sea and in some cases literature on the behavior, ecology, and evolution of sal- tagged and later recovered, or assigned to a population monids (44, 45), and the existence of differential migra- of origin by genetic methods, but for the most part their tion, the proximate and ultimate causes of this form of feeding distribution and movements at sea are inferred variation are very poorly understood. indirectly. In comparison, the arrival of birds in feeding The first purpose of this paper is to briefly review the areas can be observed directly. The broad distributions of prevalence and patterns of differential migration in ana- salmon during their feeding migrations at sea complicate dromous Pacific salmon (genus Oncorhynchus) species. determination of whether there are differential patterns Definitions of differential migration often include varia- or not; variation in distance travelled is so common as tion in migration timing as well as spatial patterns (13), to be unimportant, especially in species that vary in the number of years spent feeding at sea prior to homeward but this review follows Cristol, Baker (38) and limits the migration. Consequently, this review focuses on distribu- scope to differences in spatial extent of feeding migra- tion patterns that are bimodal or otherwise result in more tions from the breeding areas. There is also widely recog- discrete differences rather than a continuum. nized variation in migration timing, often referred to as Differential migration in Pacific salmon and trout: Patterns and hypotheses    3 Considering differential migration with respect to dis- (58-60), and similarly rapid migrations are observed else- tance travelled rather than timing, patterns of variation where (61). However, genetic analysis of juveniles caught might be explained, hypothetically, by three factors. First, in marine waters indicated that some populations left the the extent of differential migration might follow phylog- Fraser River and migrated rapidly through the Strait of eny (i.e., species more closely related would show more Georgia whereas others stayed longer there to feed, and similar patterns). Second, the prevalence of differential some coastal B.C. populations remained in local areas into migration might parallel that of partial migration (e.g., their first fall and winter at sea (62). non-anadromy) among species. Third, the prevalence of Juvenile chum salmon feed in estuaries longer than differential migration might be associated with life history do sockeye and pink salmon but they also show a single variation – specifically, the number of years spent at sea migration pattern with few exceptions. Their distribution prior to maturation, and the prevalence of iteroparity. The is in the open ocean, north of their river of origin. There review of species is arranged taxonomically, and a phy- are reports of some sub-adult chum salmon that remain logeny is provided for reference (Fig. 1), though different in the Salish Sea and feed for a year or more (63), and I studies, using different samples, markers, and analyti- have sampled some while studying other salmon species cal methods, vary somewhat in the relationships among in Puget Sound, but they seem to be quite unusual. species. Then, having reviewed the patterns and evalu- In the case of pink salmon, there are two forms of dif- ated the support for these hypothesized factors as influ- ferential migration to note. First, though the great majority encing differential migration, I discuss the evidence for feed on the open ocean, the populations from Asia (e.g., the influences of genetic, internal (sex, size, physiological the east coast of the Kamchatka Peninsula) travel farther condition), and external (environmental) factors in dif- at sea than do North American populations, based on ferential migration, and end with an explanation for why tagging studies, and the Asian populations also migrate these patterns are so important in these fishes, as with so homeward much faster than do the North American ones many other migratory animals. at the onset of sexual maturity (64). In addition to this variation in distribution and migration rate at sea, Jensen (65) reported that some pink salmon entering Puget Sound remained there rather than migrating to the ocean as most 2 Species-Specific Patterns do. Haw, Wendler (66) measured a sample of these fish and they were markedly smaller than conspecifics caught 2.1 Sockeye, Chum, and Pink Salmon along the coast at the same time of year. This differential migration pattern was never explained and now seems Salmon and trout enter the Pacific Ocean over a broad to be increasingly rare, as indicated by my examination arc around the Pacific Rim, from California to Alaska in of catch records reported by the Washington Department North America and from Korea to Russia in Asia (Fig. 2) of Fish and Wildlife. Pink salmon, as a species, are cur- so some generalization is needed in characterizing their rently more numerous in the Salish Sea than they were migration patterns. The most numerous species are the in the past (67), so differential migration would likely be pink (O. gorbuscha), chum (O. keta) and sockeye (O. nerka) detected if it was still common. salmon. These species, more closely related to each other Thus within this evolutionary group, differential than to others in the genus (52), typically migrate rapidly migration is limited, being mostly a matter of degree (i.e., northward along the coast of North America and Asia oceanic distributions and migration rates) or uncommon during their first summer at sea, and then move into the alternative patterns such as the Puget Sound residents. open North Pacific Ocean and Gulf of Alaska and remain Given the shared evolutionary lineage of this group, the there before returning to spawn (53-55). Sockeye salmon results are thus consistent with a hypothesis related commonly occur as self-sustaining non-anadromous pop- to phylogeny. In sockeye salmon, non-migratory pop- ulations (known as kokanee), that evolved independently ulations evolved repeatedly, but the anadromous form from anadromous ancestors in many river systems (56). showed only limited differential migration, so the con- Nevertheless, the expression of differential migration is nection between partial and differential migration is not limited among anadromous populations of that species, supported. In terms of life history, the three species vary and the others. For example, juvenile sockeye salmon in terms of how long they stay at sea, from one year in migrate rapidly (57) and tend to vacate the inland waters pink salmon to typically two or three in sockeye and two of Puget Sound and the Strait of Georgia (Fig. 3), now to four of more in chum salmon (44), so there is no clear often referred to as the Salish Sea, by mid-late summer link between this aspect of life history and migration. All 4   Thomas P. Quinn three species are invariably semelparous but, as the next southern populations of coho and Chinook salmon feed section indicates, so are other species in which differen- primarily in the cool, productive coastal upwelling zone tial migration is common. from California to southern British Columbia. Populations farther north feed along the coast and also in offshore waters. These patterns suggest that the area where salmon 2.2 Chinook and coho salmon enter the ocean determines their feeding areas but this is not the case. Decades ago it was reported that Chinook The second major grouping of migration patterns involves salmon from different populations breeding within the Chinook and coho salmon, another evolutionary lineage Columbia River system had very different marine distri- (Fig. 1), and was recently reviewed (68, 69). In their native bution patterns despite entering at the same point along range these species are almost exclusively anadromous, the coast (73). Healey (74) pointed out that populations though in some cases individuals mature without having with juveniles entering the ocean in their first year of gone to sea. This so-called precocious maturation is almost life, termed ocean-type, were distributed along the coast exclusively seen in males and in Chinook salmon rather (rather than offshore) to a much greater extent than the than coho salmon. It is associated with rapid growth (70) “stream-type” that spend a full year in streams prior to but the tendency to do so varies among populations (71). seaward migration. The ocean-type juveniles tend to be These species are invariably semelparous under normal smaller when they enter the ocean, enter over a longer circumstances, though under experimental conditions period, and make greater use of estuaries, suggesting a males that mature can survive and spawn in subsequent relationship to differential migration. However, the real years (72). Thus the life history patterns differ from those divide in migratory patterns seems to be between lineages of pink, chum, and sockeye salmon. that evolved in the continental interior or coastal areas Chinook and coho salmon breed in rivers farther (75), rather than a divide between juvenile life history south than do pink, chum and sockeye salmon, and the patterns (76). Thus the evolutionary lineage within the Figure 1: Phylogenetic relationships of Pacific salmon and trout species in the genus Oncorhynchus, and their relationship with the two other most important genera of salmonid fishes, as inferred from a matrix comprised of mitochondrial and nuclear genes, modified from Crête-Lafrenière, Weir (52). This generalization is for illustrative purposes; the distances between nodes are not quantitative, and the relati- onships differ from those in some other studies. Differential migration in Pacific salmon and trout: Patterns and hypotheses    5 species seems, in this case, to have more influence on dif- Chinook and coho salmon display another form of dif- ferential migration (i.e., coastal vs. offshore distributions) ferential migration; some members of these species feed than does the region of the coast where the fish enter the throughout the year in the inland marine waters of the ocean, or their juvenile life history. Even among those dis- Salish Sea rather than along the ocean coast (Figs. 4, 5). tributed along the coast, some populations differ in how Indeed, these salmon were so numerous that the leading far they go. In particular, juveniles from the Columbia ichthyologists of the day wrote [p. 475] that “King Salmon River migrate rapidly northward in their first summer at and Silver Salmon of all sizes are taken with the seine at sea, dispersing over almost 3000 km along the continen- almost any season in Puget Sound. This would indicate tal shelf, whereas many others remain within about 100 that these species do not go far from the shore” (80). The – 200 km of their natal rivers (77). It should also be noted latter statement, that they do not migrate to the open that Chinook salmon vary in the number of years spent at ocean, was clearly incorrect, but their presence within the sea, and in general the older fish are found farther from Salish Sea is undeniable, and has been common knowl- their natal river than are younger fish (78). edge in the fishing and fisheries management commu- As with Chinook salmon, the marine distribution nities of the region for decades (66, 81) but has not been patterns of coho salmon populations vary considerably, discussed in the broader context of differential migration. even among those entering the ocean near each other The existence of salmon making such limited marine (79). In contrast to Chinook salmon, coho salmon do not migrations poses several inter-related questions: 1) what seem to show the “offshore vs. coastal” differential migra- proportion of the salmon displays this form of differen- tion pattern within a given region, but only the general tial migration, 2) has the proportion changed over the latitudinal gradient from distribution within the coastal past decades, 3) do the migratory variants reflect discrete upwelling zone of the California Current region, to a mix modes of behavior or points along a continuum, 4) what of nearshore and offshore distribution farther north, costs and benefits might accrue to the two migratory where the offshore waters are more suitable in temper- forms, and 5) to what extent are the patterns under envi- ature, productivity, and biotic community. However, it ronmental and genetic control? has also been known for more than a century that both Figure 2: Map of the North Pacific Rim, showing the area, stippled, where Pacific salmon and trout enter marine waters [46]. 6   Thomas P. Quinn Figure 3: Map showing the Strait of Georgia, Puget Sound and associated inland marine waters where differential migration is displayed by some salmon, as an alternative to migration to west coast of Washington along the Olympic Peninsula, west coast of Vancouver Island, or central coast of British Columbia north of Queen Charlotte Strait [46]. Figure 4: Chinook salmon, caught in Puget Sound in August, when Figure 5: Immature Chinook salmon caught in Puget Sound in such fish normally return from the Pacific Ocean coast to inland November, as part of the anadromous but “resident” contingent that marine waters prior to migrating upriver to spawning areas. Photo represents an alternative to the pattern of migration to the coastal credit: Thomas Quinn, used with permission of the angler, Leonard ocean. Photo credit: Thomas Quinn, used with permission of the O’Neill. angler, Justin Wong. Differential migration in Pacific salmon and trout: Patterns and hypotheses    7 Tagging data indicated that the great majority of coho The influence of body size and entry date could be (79) and Chinook salmon (78) feeding in Puget Sound orig- interpreted as consistent with some interaction between inated from rivers flowing into the Salish Sea. However, individual condition and the environment, and the effects many salmon originating from the same rivers migrate of geographic region and environmental conditions on farther, out to the ocean coast, and feed there rather than migration indicate external influences. The fact that in remaining in the Salish Sea. Analysis of the recoveries of both species, both forms of migration are seen within tagged coho salmon entering the Strait of Georgia indi- breeding populations would seem to argue against a cated that the residents decreased as a proportion of the strong genetic control of short and long migration patterns total from the mid-1970s (ca. 60%) to almost nil by the in this case (e.g., some population adopt one pattern, and late 1990s (82). The authors concluded (p. 514), “Despite other populations adopt the alternative pattern). However, our inability to understand all of the details of the mech- as discussed in more detail below (Section 4.1), recent anisms that affected the movement of coho, there is little studies have uncovered strong associations between doubt that the recent behaviour change in coho is related genomic signatures and the timing of migration from the to a change in climate.” Further analyses of tagging data ocean into freshwater habitats, and the tendency for juve- (83) indicated that only small a proportion of coho salmon niles to migrate between breeding sites in streams and the produced in Puget Sound remained as residents – the con- ocean (86), or a large lake (87). Consequently, the extent siderable majority migrated to the coast. A mix of long and of genetic influence on alternative migration distances short distance migrants was seen in all years and popula- may be greater than one might infer from the presence of tion groups, but the proportions varied with the region of both migratory forms in a given population. Indeed, it was Puget Sound that they entered. In addition, salmon that recently reported that the tendency of coho salmon to feed entered marine waters later in the year were more likely to as residents or migrate northward differed between popu- remain in Puget Sound than those entering earlier. There lations, and even some family-level variation in distribu- was also considerable year to year variation in the propor- tion was detected (88). tions of long and short distance migrants. These findings Regardless of the controlling factors, body size differs suggest that the environmental conditions encountered dramatically between salmon feeding in the Salish Sea when entering marine waters influenced migration but and those migrating to the coast (Fig. 6). Jensen (89) wrote the mechanism is not clear, and the evidence not com- that “... both the silver [coho] and chinook salmon remain- plete. ing in Puget Sound are much smaller than their brothers O’Neill and West (84) also used data on the recovery feeding off our coast. This may be due to lack of feed in patterns in space and time of Chinook salmon tagged as the Sound, or it is possible there is a definite relationship juveniles, and concluded that those remaining in Puget between the size of the fish and the distance they migrate Sound were a large fraction of the total population. The tendency to remain within Puget Sound was greater for salmon that had spent a full year in fresh water prior to ocean entry as juveniles (hence were larger) compared to those migrating to sea in their first year of life. Subsequent analysis of similar data over a longer period of record by Chamberlin, Essington (85) also indicated that a substan- tial fraction of the juveniles entering Puget Sound fed there for most or all of their period at sea. As was the case with the coho salmon, the tendency to remain as residents was primarily affected by where they entered marine waters, with a secondary effect of size (larger being more likely to remain resident) and substantial variation among years. Interestingly, the annual indices of residency were positively correlated between coho and Chinook salmon (Pearson correlation coefficient: 0.58, P < 0.01), and warmer water was associated with a greater tendency for Figure 6: Immature coho salmon caught in Puget Sound in May, displaying the small size that is typical of such residents, in contrast migration to the coast in both species (Race Rocks, British to the larger conspecifics of the same age that feed along the Pacific Columbia July mean vs. Chinook salmon: R = 0.37, P < Ocean coast. Photo credit: Thomas Quinn. 0.01; coho salmon: R = 0.33, P = 0.015). 8   Thomas P. Quinn from their home stream.” Essentially, he was posing two with pink, chum, and sockeye salmon, coho and Chinook hypotheses: fish of similar size enter two environments salmon are invariably semelparous under natural condi- and then grow at different rates, or initial size predisposes tions. individuals to migrate long or short distances. Milne (90) reported the same growth rate differential between coho salmon feeding in British Columbia inland marine water 2.3 Masu salmon and the coast. He pointed out that the slower-growing, short distance migrants do not represent separate breed- The first five species discussed above are all distributed ing populations but, rather, some fish from all popula- on both the Asian and North American sides of the Pacific tions seem to show this pattern. Pressey (81) reported that Ocean, though each has its own latitudinal range. A sixth Chinook salmon sampled in June within Puget Sound were species, masu salmon, O. masou, restricted to Asia, has much smaller than those in outer Juan de Fuca Strait (aver- long been recognized. In some taxonomies it was divided aging 54.0 vs. 84.2 cm in length or about 2 vs. 7 kg). Those into two species (93) but it is now more widely recognized fish might represent a range of ages but Haw, Wendler (66) as a single species with four subspecies, some of which reported similar size differences between coho salmon evolved as isolated, nonanadromous forms (94). The tax- sampled within Puget Sound and near the coast (46.4 cm onomic relationship between masu salmon and the rest vs. 70 cm or about 1 vs 4 kg in mass), and 42.1 vs. 56.0 of the Pacific salmon and trout is not entirely clear, and cm in pink salmon. Both coho and pink salmon spend a its ecology and life history has elements of many different single year at sea so all would have been the same age species. The most widely distributed subspecies, O. masou when sampled. Thus, there seem to be fundamental dif- masou, is commonly anadromous and in the northern part ferences between the water bodies that affect growth in all of its range both males and females typically migrate to three species. Given the strong relationship between body sea. However, farther south, more males reach sexual size and the number and size of eggs females can produce, maturity after feeding in freshwater habitats and thus and the advantages of large size through sexual selection the great majority of seaward migrants are females (31). in males, these differences in body size would reflect very Under conditions of especially rapid growth, females also substantial fitness costs (44). mature without migrating to sea. The anadromous indi- The slower growth of salmon remaining in the Salish viduals die after spawning but those maturing in fresh Sea does not mean that this differential migration pattern water can spawn again (95). Thus this species displays is necessarily maladaptive. For example, if Salish Sea res- sex-biased partial migration, and also some deviation ident salmon experienced higher survival rates than those from the semelparity that otherwise characterizes Pacific migrating to the coast, there might be a form of tradeoff salmon. However, there seem to be no indications of dif- of benefits and costs. The inter-annual trends in survival ferential migration, only variation related to where they at sea differ between populations entering marine waters enter marine waters. The timing of migration to sea and in the Salish Sea and the coastal ocean in coho (91) and back by masu salmon varies but few if any spend more Chinook salmon (92), and in coho salmon the survival than a single winter at sea, and their feeding distribution rates have been higher for Salish Sea populations. This is largely restricted to the Sea of Japan and Sea of Okhotsk does not prove that the members of each population (96). remaining in the Salish Sea enjoy a higher probability of surviving than members of their cohort migrating to the coast, but it is at least consistent with that hypothesis. 2.4 Cutthroat trout and steelhead – anadro- In summary, coho and Chinook salmon are phyloge- mous rainbow trout netically close to each other and each species shows one or more forms of differential migration, but partial migra- Cutthroat trout, O. clarkii, and rainbow trout, O. mykiss, tion is rare in coho and uncommon in Chinook salmon, were formerly classified in the genus Salmo, with Atlantic and largely restricted to males. That is, neither species salmon and brown trout but were reassigned to the same forms nonanadromous populations in their native range, genus as Pacific salmon (97). Both species include sub- though some male Chinook salmon can mature and spawn species and very distinct genetic lineages in their natural without going to sea, and some coho salmon of both sexes ranges (98), and both exist in many areas as exclusively can do so if a lake is available for rearing. Thus partial and nonanadromous populations, either landlocked above differential migration are not linked in these species. As barriers to migration, or volitionally so. Juveniles of the two species are often difficult to distinguish visually, Differential migration in Pacific salmon and trout: Patterns and hypotheses    9 habitat use patterns in streams overlap (99), and natural- anadromous rainbow trout would show limited marine ly-produced hybrids are not uncommon (100-102). Both migration comparable to that in cutthroat trout. However, species breed in the spring, in contrast to the fall-spawn- in stark contrast to cutthroat trout, seaward migration by ing Pacific salmon. Moreover, both species are iteropa- the anadromous form of rainbow trout, known as steel- rous, and the offspring migrate to sea at similar body head, is typically quite rapid, directed, and primarily in sizes, ages, and times of the year. All these attributes open water, as revealed by studies in the Salish Sea (111- would suggest similar and limited marine migrations in 113), and rivers along the North American coast (114, 115). both species; this is the case with the coastal cutthroat Sub-adult steelhead quickly move to the open ocean, trout subspecies, O. clarkii clarkii, but not rainbow trout. travelling far out to sea (108, 116) and display the counter- In Puget Sound, the great majority of cutthroat trout shading needed for camouflage in the ocean – gray backs, do not move more than about 20 – 30 km from their natal silver sides, and white undersides (Fig. 8). There is some streams, based on genetic assignment of fish to rivers of variation in marine distribution related to where the fish origin (103), and sonic tracking (104). They feed very close entered the ocean and how long they stay before returning to shore and display spotting patterns that camouflage (116), but these seem more a matter of degree and thus not them when seen against a background of gravel, sand, clearly an example of differential migration. and shells along beaches (Fig. 7). In other regions such as One study serendipitously provided insights into the the Columbia River estuary (105) and coastal Alaska (106), genetic basis of migration in these species. Wild steelhead complex patterns of movement are displayed between and cutthroat trout smolts were trapped as they left a river marine and freshwater habitats for feeding, breeding, and flowing into Hood Canal, part of Puget Sound, and sonic overwintering but there are no indications of long distance transmitters were implanted to track their movements. movement or differential migration. Populations along Subsequent DNA analysis revealed that 89 steelhead, 52 the open ocean coast may differ in distribution; some cutthroat trout, and 42 naturally-produced hybrids (23%) move offshore (107-109) whereas others remain within or had been tagged. As expected, the steelhead moved near their natal estuaries (110). Nevertheless, there are rapidly seaward and the cutthroat remained near their presently no indications of long distance migrations in natal river, and the movement patterns of the hybrids were some members of the species that would exemplify dif- intermediate between the two pure forms (117). ferential patterns, relative to the characteristic pattern of Thus the life history and freshwater ecology of these limited movement. two related species, cutthroat and rainbow/steelhead Given the extensive range of non-anadromy and trout, are similar, yet they have completely different pat- partial migration in rainbow trout, and the ecological sim- terns of migration at sea, and neither displays clear differ- ilarity to cutthroat in many aspects, one might predict that ential migration at sea. In partially migratory populations Figure 7: Coastal cutthroat trout caught in Puget Sound in December, Figure 8: Female steelhead, caught in a tributary of Puget Sound in displaying the spotting pattern typical of this subspecies in rivers January prior to spawning, displaying the countershading that is and marine waters. Photo credit: James Losee, Washington Depart- typical of the anadromous form of rainbow trout. Photo credit: Bill ment of Fish and Wildlife. McMillan. 10   Thomas P. Quinn of rainbow trout, the sex ratio of seaward migrants is often The connection between phylogeny and the extent of dif- female-biased (118-121) and this may also be the case with ferential migration but not with partial migration among cutthroat trout but I have not seen data to test the idea. It species, seems somewhat counter-intuitive. Phylogeny should be noted that the above description of steelhead would be expected to be linked to the more fundamental reflects the large literature on the form in North America, trait of anadromy or freshwater residency, owing to the but there are indications of greater migration diversity in profound physiological adaptations needed for this migra- Russia. Interpretation of scales from the Kol and Kekhta tion, compared to the primarily behavioral adaptations for rivers of Kamchatka indicated that in addition to the dom- differential migration. Importantly, the patterns of partial inant forms (river resident and anadromous), some indi- and differential migration are not closely connected. viduals used the estuary without going to the ocean (122). There was also little or no support for the hypothe- It is unclear whether these forms are now, or ever were, sized connection between life history traits such as the prevalent in North America, how distinct they are, and number of years spent at sea or the prevalence of iteropar- what factors cause them to occur in some rivers, and some ity, and differential migration. The duration of marine individuals. residence varies among species, ranging from less than a year in cutthroat trout, typically or invariably one full year at sea in pink, masu, and coho salmon, commonly two or three in steelhead and sockeye salmon, one to four 3 Discussion in Chinook salmon, and two to four in chum salmon. Thus the species with best-developed differential migration, As noted in the Introduction, the consequences of migra- coho and Chinook salmon, are not distinguished in the tion in salmonids in general, and especially partial and duration of marine residence. Similarly, neither semelpa- differential migration, are much better understood than rous nor iteroparous species seem predisposed to differ- the evolution and causes. The consequences of differential ential migration, though partial migration (i.e., non-ana- migration can include exposure to higher rates of fishing dromy) is much more common in the iteroparous species. pressure in coastal waters than offshore for Chinook salmon (76), higher concentrations of chemical contami- nants for those feeding in Puget Sound compared to the ocean coast (84), and different growth rates. This review 4 Key questions to guide future considers three hypothetical frameworks for comparing research patterns of differential migration: phylogenetic affinity, patterns of partial migration, and life history variation Movement decisions by individuals result from complex (duration of marine residence, and iteroparity). combinations of internal and external factors, as the gen- There is some support for the hypothesized connec- otype interacts with the immediate biotic and abiotic con- tion between differential migration and phylogeny, but ditions experienced by the individual, as summarized by not for a connection to partial migration (i.e., anadromy efforts to synthesize the vast research on migration pat- vs. non-anadromy). Pink, chum, and sockeye salmon are terns of diverse taxa (43, 123). Similar conclusions have most closely related to each other and they show only a drawn regarding the variation in anadromy in salmonids; limited degree of differential migration; virtually all ana- movement decisions reflect genetic tendencies at the pop- dromous individuals of all three species migrate to the ulation and individual levels, growth and condition of open ocean. The presence of a common nonanadromous the individual, and proximate environmental conditions form of sockeye salmon, kokanee, thus seems discon- presented to the population (28, 44). If progress is to be nected from differential migration. Coho and Chinook made on some of the complex issues related to differential salmon are related to each other and both show differen- migration in salmon (and, by extension, other less closely tial migration but only slight partial migration (and almost studied species), then hypotheses need to be framed to exclusively males in their native range). Rainbow and address these influences (124). cutthroat trout are related to each other, and each shows almost exclusively a single migration pattern, though they differ greatly from each other in the duration and spatial extent of migrations at sea. The phylogenetic position of masu salmon is unclear, and they show several forms of partial migration but apparently no differential migration. Differential migration in Pacific salmon and trout: Patterns and hypotheses    11 4.1 What is the genetic contribution to dif- some coho salmon populations produced more fish that remained in the Salish Sea rather than migrating farther ferential migration? north, and that siblings were closer to each other when There is evidence for some degree of genetic control over recovered at sea than non-siblings among those migrat- migration in many taxa (125), and especially birds (126). It ing long distances (88). This kind of approach, associat- is beyond the scope of this review to consider all aspects ing behavior patterns with population or family of origin, of genetic control and evolution of migration in salmonids likely will be complemented in the future with genomic (44), but selected examples related to anadromy may prove approaches such as those used to investigate within-spe- useful. Salmonid species show a wide range of patterns, cies variation in the timing of return from the ocean (133), from invariably anadromous to entirely non-anadromous and the distinction between non-anadromous and ana- (25, 26). In sockeye salmon, anadromous populations col- dromous forms (30). onized suitable habitat after glacial retreat, and in many independent river systems the slower growth in fresh water was sufficiently offset by the survival advantage 4.2 How does individual condition affect of not going to sea and back, leading to the evolution of differential migration? and non-anadromous “kokanee,” often in sympatry with anadromous conspecifics (56, 127). Genetic separation In many taxa, patterns of differential migration are is achieved through a combination of assortative mating related to body size, sex, or both (especially in cases of and lower survival of the hybrids, which not uncommonly sexual dimorphism). For example, male elephant seals, occur (128). In contrast to this relatively strong genetic Mirounga angustirostris, are much larger than females, separation between forms in this species, most salmonids and travel farther to forage than do females, likely to meet show more conditional control, with sex-specific norms their metabolic needs (134). Segregated foraging areas of reaction related to the growth rate of the juveniles (36, by age and sex are also known in many other animals, 129), an exemplified in O. mykiss (28). Consequently, some including beluga whales, Delphinapterus leucas (135), genetic influence on differential migration would not be many species of sharks (50), songbirds (136), and more. surprising. Given the notable sex bias in anadromy (more common It is very possible that the spatial extent of migration in females if the species varies), it is plausible that differ- has a genetic basis. Indeed, there is strong evidence of ential migration (e.g., use of inland marine waters vs. the population-specific patterns of salmon distribution at sea, coastal ocean) is sex-biased. To my knowledge such pat- as indicated by juveniles tagged in fresh water and recov- terns have not been reported but data could be obtained ered as adults at sea (130), and by the maintenance of from fishery samples to evaluate this hypothesis. migration patterns after transplantation to a new site and With respect to size, it is widely known that the fastest hybridization between populations (131). The Chinook growing individuals (especially males) of many salmo- salmon from the interior part of the Columbia River basin nid species transition directly to sexual maturity without are genetically distinct as a lineage from those breeding migrating to sea, for example in masu salmon (32), Atlan- farther downriver, and differ in marine distribution (75, tic salmon, Salmo salar (137), and Chinook salmon (138). 76). However, the alternative tendencies to feed in inland Thus a connection between body size and differential marine waters or migrate to the ocean coast are evident migration is plausible. There are at least two obvious within populations of Chinook (85) and coho salmon (83), hypotheses related to body size and differential migration so the evidence for a genetic basis is mixed and ambigu- alternatives in salmon of migration to the coast and occu- ous, and conclusions await controlled experiments. Alter- pancy of interior marine waters. First, juveniles of all sizes natively, recent developments in genetic analyses allow might enter inland marine waters and some factor other what is known as parentage-based tagging of hatchery than size determines whether they remain or migrate to produced salmon. That is, all parents used for spawning the coast. In this scenario, those remaining grow slower, are genotyped and then fisheries are sampled so that indi- for ecological reasons, than do those along the coast. vidual adult salmon can be linked to not only their pop- Second, small (or large) size may predispose juveniles to ulation of origin (as prior tagging programs have done) follow one migration alternative or the other. Studies on but also to their parents. This remarkable capacity now the migration pathways of individuals of known size have permits detailed assessment of the spatial and temporal not been conducted. However, cohorts of juvenile salmon patterns of salmon at sea in areas where fishing occurs (i.e., those migrating to sea in a given year from a given (88, 132). Application of this approach revealed that hatchery or river or origin) that were larger on average 12   Thomas P. Quinn tended to produce more fish that remained in Puget Sound decades have been slight, and in general these waters are rather than migrating to the coast in Chinook salmon (85). characterized by very moderate seasonal changes. For However, the effect was not consistent among regions, example, from 1970 – 2010, the mean surface tempera- and was not detected in coho salmon using similar anal- tures at Race Rocks, British Columbia in June ranged from yses (83), so evidence that large size influences differ- 9.1 to 11.4 and the seasonal variation was from a mean ential migration in these salmon is at present mixed. It monthly low of 7.6° in winter to a high of 11.3°. Conditions thus seems that poorer growing conditions in the inland within Puget Sound may be more variable but it still seems marine waters reduce growth, rather than that small fish unlikely that thermal conditions alone are responsible for tend to remain there while larger members of the cohort the changes in migratory behavior. Rather, there are prob- migration to the coast. ably other ecological processes that are either causally connected with temperature or coinciding over the period of record, that affect the fish. 4.3 How do environmental conditions affect differential migration? 4.4 Are differential migration patterns alter- In the case of juvenile Chinook and coho salmon cohorts natives, or points along a continuum? entering Puget Sound in a given year, the proportions of the two species that remain there rather than migrat- In some cases, differential migration is a matter of discrete ing farther out to the coastal ocean were positively cor- alternative feeding areas or distances (50, 134), but in other related between years (83, 85). Moreover, in years when cases it is a matter of degree, for example the latitudinal sea surface temperatures in late spring (when the juve- clines in sex ratio reported in some migratory birds (48, niles enter marine waters) were cooler, larger proportions 49). In some taxa, new research is challenging previous remained as residents whereas warmer temperatures were paradigms. For example, it was concluded that “Mysticete associated with larger proportions of distant migrants, in [whale] migration should be thought of as a continuum of both salmon species. These finding were all consistent different strategies” (139). In the case of Pacific salmon, with environmental influences on migration, though the there has been a tendency to view those remaining in mechanism is unclear. The changes in temperature among inland marine waters as distinct from those migrating to Table 1: Summary of variation among Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus) species in the prevalence of anadromy and partial migration (within the native range, discounting transplants and populations artificially landlocked), life history (iteroparity or semelparity), general marine migration pattern, and extent differential migration. Species Anadromy Life history Marine migration Differential migration Pink Invariably so Semelparous Extensive, offshore Negligible salmon Chum Invariably so Semelparous Extensive, offshore Negligible salmon Sockeye Typical, but non-anadromous Semelparous Extensive, offshore Negligible salmon populations are common Almost invariably so; in a few Primarily nearshore; north- Two forms; moderately common; Coho lakes some fish mature without Semelparous ern populations more often residents in inland marine waters salmon going to sea offshore and migration to the ocean coast Primarily nearshore; north- Three moderately common Chinook Almost invariably so; some males Semelparous ern populations more often forms; residents in inland marine salmon mature without going to sea offshore waters, coastal, and offshore Semelparous, with Masu Populations may be anadromous, exceptions when not Primarily nearshore Negligible salmon nonanadromous, or mixed anadromous Rainbow Populations may be anadromous, Iteroparous Extensive, offshore Negligible trout nonanadromous, or mixed Cutthroat Populations may be anadromous, Limited to the area near the Iteroparous Negligible trout nonanadromous, or mixed natal stream Differential migration in Pacific salmon and trout: Patterns and hypotheses    13 the coast. This idea is based largely on recovery patterns Acknowledgements of tagged salmon in fisheries, and such data only indi- cate their location at capture, not their movement history. The ideas in this review have resulted from countless con- More recently, telemetry has indicated that most salmon versations with many collaborators but I especially thank tagged in Puget Sound as residents remained there until Sandra O’Neill for spurring my interest in the migratory they reached sexual maturity, but some later moved out variants in Puget Sound salmon, and Josh Chamber- to the coast, and a few of those came back into Puget lin, Jessica Rohde, Anna Kagley, Furt Fresh, Fred Goetz, Sound prior to the normal return migration for spawning Joseph Smith, Martini Arostegui, and James Losee for their (140, 141). However, most of the salmon tracked remained collaboration and ideas regarding Puget Sound salmon within Puget Sound, and limited their movements to a movement research, and two very helpful anonymous small area (140, 142). These observations are consistent reviewers. Endowed Professorships from the H. Mason with the idea that the differential migration alternatives Keeler and the Richard and Lois Worthington endow- in Pacific salmon are more like modes along a continuum ments provided support for the gestation of these ideas rather than discrete, absolute alternatives, or the two tails and the field work to test them. of a single normal distribution of behavior. Finally, we may ask, “Why does this matter?” There is wide recognition that migratory animals link ecosys- References tems and provide important services of many kinds (9), though they may also play a role in disease transmission [1] Baker RR. The Evolutionary Ecology of Animal Migration. New (143). Many migratory species are threatened, often at York: Holmes and Meier; 1978. least in part because their migrations heighten vulnera- [2] Dingle H. Migration: The biology of life on the move. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996. 474 p. bility (6, 7). However, the diversity of migration patterns [3] Bairlein F. Migratory birds under threat. Science. may confer some greater resilience to the effects of human 2016;354:547-8. activities, including a changing climate (144). Migratory [4] Hardesty-Moore M, Deinet S, Freeman R, Titcomb GC, Dillon fishes often provide food for humans in addition to other EM, Stears K, et al. Migration in the Anthropocene: how ecosystem services, and there is increasing recognition collective navigation, environmental system and taxonomy shape the vulnerability of migratory species. Philosophical that variable migration patterns affect fisheries exploita- Transactions of the Royal Society, B. 2018;373:20170017. tion (24, 42, 145). Alternative migration patterns also [5] Tamario C, Sunde J, Petersson E, Tibblin P, Forsman A. affect uptake of chemical contaminants in species such as Ecological and Evolutionary consequences of environmental Pacific bluefin tuna, Thunnus orientalis (146, 147), striped change and management actions for migrating fish. Frontiers bass (148), Pacific herring (149), Atlantic salmon (150, in Ecology and Evolution. 2019;7:271. 151), and Chinook salmon (84). These contaminants can [6] Horns JJ, Şekercioğlu Ç. Conservation of migratory species. Current Biology. 2018;28:R980–R3. be a health concern for humans, and also a conservation [7] Runge CA, Martin TG, Possingham HP, Willis SG, Fuller RA. concern for the natural predators that feed on the salmon Conservating mobile species. Frontiers in Ecology and the (152). Thus differential migration patterns can be very Environment. 2014;12:395-402. consequential for the fishes themselves and their consum- [8] Wilcove DS, Wikelski M. Going, going, gone: Is animal ers, both human and otherwise. Understanding the causal migration disappearing? . PLoS Biology. 2008;6(7):e188. [9] Bauer S, Hoye BJ. Migratory animals couple biodiversity mechanisms is vital in salmon, because their genotype and ecosystem functioning worldwide. Science. and phenotype are altered by the hatchery production 2014;344:1242552. that has increasingly come to dominate many populations [10] Polis GA, Anderson WB, Holt RD. Toward an integration of complexes (153). To the extent that migration patterns are landscape and food web ecology: the dynamics of spatially influenced by body size, date of seawater entry, and gen- subsidized food webs. Annual Review of Ecology and otype, we may be affecting migration patterns. Finally, Systematics. 1997;28:289–316. [11] Lack D. Bird migration and natural selection. Oikos. climate-driven changes in temperature and flow regimes 1968;19:1-9. are altering both the selective forces on migration patterns [12] Lack D. The problem of partial migration. British Birds. and timing, and some of the cues that trigger migration. 1944;37:122-30, 43-50. [13] Terrill SB, Able KP. Bird migration terminology. Auk. 1988;105:205-6. [14] Chapman BB, Brönmark C, Nilsson J-A, Hansson L-A. The ecology and evolution of partial migration. Oikos. 2011;120:1764–75. 14   Thomas P. Quinn [15] Berg JE, Hebblewhite M, St. Clair CC, Merrill EH. Prevalence parr. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. and mechanisms of partial migration in ungulates. Frontiers 2010;67:955-65. in Ecology and Evolution. 2019;7:325. [32] Morita K, Tamate T, Kuroki M, Nagasawa T. Temperature-de- [16] Menz MHM, Reynolds DR, Gao B, Hu G, Chapman JW, Wotton pendent variation in alternative migratory tactics and KR. Mechanisms and consequences of partial migration in its implications for fitness and population dynamics in a insects. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution. 2019;7:403. salmonid fish. Journal of Animal Ecology. 2014;83:1268–78. [17] Chapman BB, Hulthén K, Brodersen J, Nilsson PA, Skov C, [33] Silverstein JT, Shimma H, Ogata H. Early maturity in amago Hansson L-A, et al. Partial migration in fishes: causes and salmon (Oncorhynchus masu ishikawai): an association with consequences. Journal of Fish Biology. 2012;81:456–78. energy storage. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic [18] Chapman BB, Skov C, Hulthén K, Brodersen J, Nilsson PA, Sciences. 1997;54:444-51. Hansson L-A, et al. Partial migration in fishes: definitions, [34] Shearer KD, Swanson P. The effect of whole body lipid on methodologies and taxonomic distribution. Journal of Fish early sexual maturation of 1+ age male chinook salmon Biology. 2012;81:479–99. (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Aquaculture. 2000;190:343-67. [19] Tsukamoto K, Nakai I, Tesch W-V. Do all freshwater eels [35] Sloat MR, Reeves GH. Individual condition, standard migrate? Nature. 1998;396:635-6. metabolic rate, and rearing temperature influence steelhead [20] Gillanders BM, Izzo C, Doubleday ZA, Ye Q. Partial migration: and rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) life histories. growth varies between resident and migratory fish. Biology Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. Letters. 2015;11:20140850. 2014;71:491–501. [21] Tibblen P, Koch-Schmidt P, Larsson P, Stenroth P. Effects of [36] Sloat MR, Fraser DJ, Dunham JB, Falke JA, Jordan CE, McMillan salinity on growth and mortality of migratory and resident JR, et al. Ecological and evolutionary patterns of freshwater forms of Eurasian perch in the Baltic Sea. Ecology of maturation in Pacific and Atlantic salmonines. Reviews in Fish Freshwater Fish. 2012;21:200-6. Biology and Fisheries. 2014;24:689–707. [22] Kerr LA, Secor DH, Piccoli PM. Partial migration of fishes [37] Ketterson ED, Nolan V. The evolution of differential bird as exemplified by the estuarine-dependent white perch. migration. Current Ornithology. 1983;1:357—402. Fisheries. 2009;34:114-23. [38] Cristol DA, Baker MB, Carbone C. Differential migration [23] Boucher EM. Disentangling reproductive biology of the revisited: latitudinal segregation by age and sex class. Patagonian toothfish Dissostichus eleginoides: skipped Current Ornithology. 1999;15:33-88. vs obligatory annual spawning, foraging migration vs [39] Clark J. Seasonal movements of striped bass contingents of residential life style. Environmental Biology of Fishes. Long Island Sound and the New York Bight. Transactions of 2018;101:1343–56. the American Fisheries Society. 1968;97:320-43. [24] Ziegler CM, Zacharias JP, Frisk MG. Migration diversity, [40] Secor DH. Specifying divergent migrations in the concept spawning behavior, and habitat utilization of winter of stock: the contingent hypothesis. Fisheries Research. flounder. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 1999;43:13-34. 2019;76:1503–14. [41] Secor DH, Rooker JR, Zlokovitz E, Zdanowicz VS. Identification [25] Rounsefell GA. Anadromy in North American Salmonidae. of riverine, estuarine, and coastal contingents of Hudson Fishery Bulletin. 1958;58:171-85. River striped bass based upon otolith elemental fingerprints. [26] Quinn TP, Myers KW. Anadromy and the marine migrations of Marine Ecology Progress Series. 2001;211:245-53. Pacific salmon and trout: Rounsefell revisited. Reviews in Fish [42] Secor DH, O’Brien MHP, Gahagan BI, Watterson JC, Fox DA. Biology and Fisheries. 2004;14:421-42. Differential migration in Chesapeake Bay striped bass. PLoS [27] Spares AD, Dadswell MJ, Dickinson MP, Stokesbury MJW. A ONE. 2020;15(5):e0233103. critical review of marine adaptability within the anadromous [43] Shaw AK. Causes and consequences of individual variation in Salmoninae. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries. animal movement. Movement Ecology. 2020;8(12):1-12. 2015;25:503–19. [44] Quinn TP. The Behavior and Ecology of Pacific Salmon and [28] Kendall NW, McMillan JR, Sloat MR, Buehrens TW, Quinn Trout, second edition. Seattle: University of Washington TP, Pess GR, et al. Anadromy and residency in steelhead Press; 2018. and rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss: a review of the [45] Jonsson B, Jonsson N. Ecology of Atlantic Salmon and Brown processes and patterns. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Trout: Habitat as a Template for Life Histories. New York: Aquatic Sciences. 2015;72:319-42. Springer; 2011. 708 p. [29] Johnson JR, Baumsteiger J, Zydlewski J, Hudson JM, Ardren [46] Berg LS. Vernal and hiemal races among anadromous W. Evidence of panmixia between sympatric life history fishes. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada. forms of coastal cutthroat trout in two lower Columbia River 1959;16:515-37. tributaries. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. [47] Quinn TP, McGinnity P, Reed TE. The paradox of ‘premature 2010;30:691-701. migration’ by adult anadromous salmonid fishes: Patterns [30] Narum SR, Zendt JS, Frederiksen C, Campbell N, Matala and hypotheses. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic A, Sharp WR. Candidate genetic markers associated Sciences. 2016;73:1015-30. with anadromy in Oncorhynchus mykiss of the Klickitat [48] Catry P, Lecoq M, Araújo A, Conway G, Felgueiras M, King River. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. JMB, et al. Differential migration of chiffchaffs Phylloscopus 2011;140:843-54. collybita and P. ibericus in Europe and Africa. Journal of Avian [31] Morita K, Nagasawa T. Latitudinal variation in the growth Biology. 2005;36:184-90. and maturation of masu salmon (Oncorhynchus masou) Differential migration in Pacific salmon and trout: Patterns and hypotheses    15 [49] Jenkins K, Cristol DA. Evidence of differential migration by sex Sockeye Salmon in British Columbia waters and in the Gulf in white-throated sparrows (Zonotrichia albicollis). The Auk. of Alaska. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 2002;119:539-43. 2014;143:1386-403. [50] Chapman DD, Feldheim KA, Papastamatiou YP, Hueter RE. [63] Jensen HM. Recoveries of immature chum salmon tagged There and back again: a review of residency and return in southern Puget Sound. Fisheries Research Papers, migrations in sharks, with implications for population Washington Department of Fisheries. 1956;1(4):32. structure and management. Annual Reviews of Marine [64] Hiramatsu K, Ishida Y. Random movement and orientation Science. 2015;7:547-70. in pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) migrations. [51] Omori KL, Fisher RA. Summer and fall movement of cownose Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. ray, Rhinoptera bonasus, along the east coast of United 1989;46:1062-6. States observed with pop-up satellite tags. Environmental [65] Jensen HM. Migratory habits of pink salmon found in the Biology of Fishes. 2017;100:1436-49. Tacoma Narrows area of Puget Sound. Fisheries Research [52] Crête-Lafrenière A, Weir LK, Bernatchez L. Framing the Papers, Washington Department of Fisheries. 1956;1(4):21-4. Salmonidae family phylogenetic portrait: A more complete [66] Haw F, Wendler HO, Deschamps G. Development of picture from increased taxon sampling. Public Library Washington State salmon sport fishery through 1964. of Science. 2012;7(10):e46662. doi:10.1371/journal. Washington Department of Fisheries, Research Bulletin 7, pone.0046662. 1967. [53] Radchenko VI, Beamish RJ, Heard WR, Temnykh OS. Ocean [67] Losee JP, Kendall NW, Dufault A. Changing salmon: an ecology of Pink Salmon In: Beamish RJ, editor. The Ocean analysis of body mass, abundance, survival, and productivity Ecology of Pacific Salmon and Trout. Bethesda: American trends across 45 years in Puget Sound. Fish and Fisheries. Fisheries Society; 2018. p. 15-160. 2019;20:934-51. [54] Urawa S, Beacham TD, Fukuwaka M, Kaeriyama M. Ocean [68] Riddell BR, Brodeur RD, Bugaev AV, Moran P, Murphy JM, ecology of Chum Salmon. In: Beamish RJ, editor. The Ocean Orsi JA, et al. Ocean ecology of Chinook Salmon. In: Beamish Ecology of Pacific Salmon and Trout. Bethesda: American RJ, editor. The Ocean Ecology of Pacific Salmon and Trout. Fisheries Society; 2018. p. 161-318. Bethesda: American Fisheries Society; 2018. p. 555-696. [55] Farley Jr EV, Beacham TD, Bugaev AV. Ocean ecology of [69] Beamish RJ, Weitkamp LA, Shaul LD, Radchenko VI. Ocean Sockeye Salmon. In: Beamish RJ, editor. The Ocean Ecology ecology of Coho Salmon. In: Beamish RJ, editor. The Ocean of Pacific Salmon and Trout. Bethesda: American Fisheries Ecology of Pacific Salmon and Trout. Bethesda: American Society; 2018. p. 319-90. Fisheries Society; 2018. p. 391-554. [56] Taylor EB, Foote CJ, Wood CC. Molecular genetic evidence [70] Clarke WC, Blackburn J. Effect of growth on early sexual for parallel life-history evolution within a Pacific salmon maturation in stream-type chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus (sockeye salmon and kokanee, Oncorhynchus nerka). tshawytscha). Aquaculture. 1994;121:95-103. Evolution. 1996;50:401-16. [71] Taylor EB. Precocial male maturation in laboratory-reared [57] Welch DW, Melnychuk MC, Rechisky ER, Porter AD, Jacobs populations of chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha. MC, Ladouceur A, et al. Freshwater and marine migration Canadian Journal of Zoology. 1989;67:1665-9. and survival of endangered Cultus Lake sockeye salmon [72] Unwin MJ, Kinnison MT, Quinn TP. Exceptions to semelparity: (Oncorhynchus nerka) smolts using POST, a large-scale postmaturation survival, morphology and energetics of male acoustic telemetry array Canadian Journal of Fisheries and chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Canadian Aquatic Sciences. 2009;66:736-50. Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 1999;56:1172-81. [58] Neville CM, Johnson SC, Beacham TD, Whitehouse T, Tadey [73] Wahle RJ, Chaney E, Pearson RE. Areal distribution of marked J, Trudel M. Initial estimates from an integrated study Columbia River basin spring chinook salmon recovered in examining the residence period and migration timing of fisheries and at parent hatcheries. Marine Fisheries Review. juvenile sockeye salmon from the Fraser River through 1981;43(12):1-9. coastal waters of British Columbia. North Pacific Anadromous [74] Healey MC. Coastwide distribution and ocean migration Fish Commission Bulletin. 2016;6:45–60. patterns of stream- and ocean-type chinook salmon, [59] Groot C, Bailey RE, Margolis L, Cooke K. Migratory patterns Oncorhynchus tshawytscha. Canadian Field-Naturalist. of sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) smolts in the Strait 1983;97(4):427-33. of Georgia, British Columbia, as determined by analysis [75] Waples RS, Teel DJ, Myers JM, Marshall AR. Life-history of parasite assemblages. Canadian Journal of Zoology. divergence in chinook salmon: historic contingency and 1989;67:1670-8. parallel evolution. Evolution. 2004;58:386-403. [60] Groot C, Cooke K. Are the migrations of juvenile and adult [76] Sharma R, Quinn TP. Linkages between life history type and Fraser River sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) in migration pathways in freshwater and marine environments near-shore waters related? Canadian Special Publication of for Chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha. Acta Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 1987;96:53-60. Oecologica. 2012;41:1-13. [61] Farley EV, Jr., Murphy JM, Wing BW, Moss JH, Middleton A. [77] Trudel M, Fisher J, Orsi JA, Morris JFT, Thiess ME, Sweeting Distribution, migration pathways, and size of western Alaska RM, et al. Distribution and migration of juvenile Chinook juvenile salmon along the eastern Bering Sea shelf. Alaska salmon derived from coded wire tag recoveries along the Fishery Research Bulletin. 2005;11:15-26. continental shelf of western North America. Transactions of [62] Beacham TD, Beamish RJ, Candy JR, Wallace C, Tucker S, the American Fisheries Society. 2009;138:1369-91. Moss JH, et al. Stock-specific migration pathways of juvenile 16   Thomas P. Quinn [78] Weitkamp LA. Marine distributions of Chinook salmon from [93] Kato F. Life histories of masu and amago salmon the west coast of North America determined by coded wire (Oncorhynchus masou and Oncorhynchus rhodurus). In: tag recoveries. Transactions of the American Fisheries Groot C, Margolis L, editors. Pacific salmon life histories. Society. 2009;139:147-70. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press; 1991. p. [79] Weitkamp L, Neely K. Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) 448-520. ocean migration patterns: insight from marine coded-wire [94] Morita K. General biology of masu salmon. In: Beamish tag recoveries. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic RJ, editor. The Ocean Ecology of Pacific Salmon and Trout. Sciences. 2002;59:1100-15. Bethesda, MD: American Fisheries Society; 2018. p. 703-30. [80] Jordan DS, Evermann BW. The Fishes of North and Middle [95] Tsiger VV, Skirin VI, Krupyanko NI, Kashlin KA, Semenchenko America. Washington, D. C.: Smithsonian Institution; 1896. AY. Life history form of male masu salmon (Oncorhynchus [81] Pressey RT. The sport fishery for salmon on Puget Sound. masou) in South Primor’e, Russia. Canadian Journal of Fisheries Research Papers, Washington Department of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 1994;51:197-208. Fisheries. 1953;1(1):33-48. [96] Nagasawa T. Ocean life history of Masu Salmon from ocean [82] Beamish RJ, McFarlane GA, Thomson RE. Recent declines in entry to upstream migration. In: Beamish RJ, editor. The the recreational catch of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) Ocean Ecology of Pacific Salmon and Trout. Bethesda, MD: in the Strait of Georgia are related to climate. Canadian American Fisheries Society; 2018. p. 731-66. Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 1999;56:506–15. [97] Smith GR, Stearley RF. The classification and scientific names [83] Rohde J, Fresh KL, Quinn TP. Factors affecting partial of rainbow and cutthroat trouts. Fisheries. 1989;14(1):4-10. migration in Puget Sound Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus [98] Behnke RJ. Native trout of western North America. Bethesda: kisutch). North American Journal of Fisheries Management. American Fisheries Society; 1992. 2014;34:559-70. [99] Bisson PA, Sullivan K, Nielsen JL. Channel hydraulics, habitat [84] O’Neill SM, West JE. Marine distribution, life history traits, use, and body form of juvenile coho salmon, steelhead, and and the accumulation of polychlorinated biphenyls in cutthroat trout in streams. Transactions of the American Chinook salmon from Puget Sound, Washington. Transactions Fisheries Society. 1988;117:262-73. of the American Fisheries Society. 2009;138:616-32. [100] Baumsteiger J, Hankin D, Loudenslager EJ. Genetic [85] Chamberlin JW, Essington TE, Ferguson JW, Quinn TP. analyses of juvenile steelhead, coastal cutthroat trout, The influence of hatchery rearing practices on salmon and their hybrids differ substantially from field identifi- migratory behavior: Is the tendency of Chinook salmon cations. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. to remain within Puget Sound affected by size and date of 2005;134:829-40. release? . Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. [101] Kennedy BM, Baumsteiger J, Gale WL, Ardren WR, Ostrand 2011;140:1398-408. KG. Morphological, physiological, and genetic techniques for [86] Hecht BC, Campbell NR, Holecek DE, Narum SR. Genome-wide improving field identification of steelhead, coastal cutthroat association reveals genetic basis for the propensity to trout, and hybrid smolts. Marine and Coastal Fisheries. migrate in wild populations of rainbow and steelhead trout. 2009;1:45-56. Molecular Ecology. 2012. [102] Campton DE, Utter FM. Natural hybridization between [87] Arostegui MC, Quinn TP, Seeb LW, Seeb JE, McKinney GJ. steelhead trout (Salmo gairdneri) and coastal cutthroat trout Retention of a chromosomal inversion from an anadromous (Salmo clarki clarki) in two Puget Sound streams. Canadian ancestor provides the genetic basis for alternative Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 1985;42:110–9. freshwater ecotypes in rainbow trout. Molecular Ecology. [103] Losee JP, Seamons TR, Jauquet J. Migration patterns of 2019;28:1412–27. anadromous Cutthroat Trout in South Puget Sound: A [88] Beacham TD, Wallace C, Jonsen K, McIntosh B, Candy JR, fisheries management perspective. Fisheries Research. Willis D, et al. Variation in migration pattern, broodstock 2017;187:218-25. origin, and family productivity of coho salmon hatchery [104] Goetz FA, Baker B, Buehrens T, Quinn TP. Diversity of populations in British Columbia, Canada, derived from movements by individual anadromous coastal cutthroat parentage-based tagging. Ecology and Evolution. 2019. trout in Hood Canal, Washington. Journal of Fish Biology. [89] Jensen HM. Puget Sound salmon investigation. Washington 2013;83:1161-82. Department of Fisheries, 1948. [105] Zydlewski GB, Zydlewski J, Johnson J. Patterns of migration [90] Milne DJ. The difference in the growth rate of coho salmon and residency in coastal cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarkii on the east and west coasts of Vancouver Island in 1950. clarkii from two tributaries of the lower Columbia River. Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Progress Report of the Journal of Fish Biology. 2009;75:203-22. Pacific Coast Stations. 1950;85:80-2. [106] Saiget DA, Sloat MR, Reeves GH. Spawning and movement [91] Zimmerman MS, Irvine JR, O’Neill M, Anderson JH, Greene behavior of migratory coastal cutthroat trout on the western CM, Weinheimer J, et al. Spatial and temporal patterns in Copper River Delta, Alaska. North American Journal of smolt survival of wild and hatchery Coho Salmon in the Salish Fisheries Management. 2007;27:1029-40. Sea. Marine and Coastal Fisheries. 2015;7:116-34. [107] Pearcy WG, Brodeur RD, McKinnell SM, Losee JP. Ocean [92] Ruff CP, Anderson JH, Kemp IM, Kendall NW, McHugh PA, ecology of anadromous coastal cutthroat trout. In: Beamish Velez-Espino A, et al. Salish Sea Chinook salmon exhibit RJ, editor. The Ocean Ecology of Pacific Salmon and Trout. weaker coherence in early marine survival trends than coastal Bethesda, MD: American Fisheries Society; 2018. p. 905-30. populations. Fisheries Oceanography. 2017;26:625–37. [108] Pearcy WG, Brodeur RD, Fisher JP. Distribution and biology of juvenile cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarki clarki and Differential migration in Pacific salmon and trout: Patterns and hypotheses    17 steelhead O. mykiss in coastal waters off Oregon and [123] Nathan R, Getz WM, Revilla E, Holyoak M, Kadmon R, Saltze D, Washington. Fishery Bulletin. 1990;88:697-711. et al. A movement ecology paradigm for unifying organismal [109] Pearcy WG, Fisher JP. Distribution and abundance of juvenile movement research. Proceedings of the National Academy of salmonids off Oregon and Washington, 1981-1985. Corvalis, Sciences. 2008;105:19052-9. Oregon: National Marine Fisheries Service, 1990. [124] Shaw AK. Drivers of animal migration and implications [110] Krentz LK. Habitat use, movement, and life history variation in changing environments. Evolutionary Ecology. of coastal cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarki clarki in 2016;30:991-1007. the Salmon River estuary, Oregon. Corvallis: Oregon State [125] Liedvogel A, Åkesson S, Bensch S. The genetics of migration University; 2007. on the move. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 2011;26:561-9. [111] Moore ME, Berejikian BA, Goetz FA, Berger AG, Hodgson SS, [126] Pulido F. Evolutionary genetics of partial migration – Connor EJ, et al. Multi-population analysis of Puget Sound the threshold model of migration revis(it)ed. Oikos. steelhead survival and migration behavior. Marine Ecology 2011;120:1776-83. Progress Series. 2015;537:217-32. [127] Wood CC. Life history variation and population structure in [112] Melnychuk MC, Welch DW, Walters CJ, Christensen V. Riverine sockeye salmon. American Fisheries Society Symposium. and early ocean migration and mortality patterns of juvenile 1995;17:195-216. steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) from the Cheakamus [128] Wood CC, Foote CJ. Evidence for sympatric genetic divergence River, British Columbia. Hydrobiologia. 2007;582:55-65. of anadromous and nonanadromous morphs of sockeye [113] Goetz FA, Jeanes E, Moore ME, Quinn TP. Comparative salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka). Evolution. 1996;50:1265-79. migratory behavior and survival of wild and hatchery [129] Dodson JJ, Aubin-Horth N, Thériault V, Páez DJ. The steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) smolts in riverine, evolutionary ecology of alternative migratory tactics in estuarine, and marine habitats of Puget Sound, Washington. salmonid fishes. Biological Reviews. 2013;88:602-25. Environmental Biology of Fishes. 2015;98:357-75. [130] Weitkamp L. Marine distributions of coho and Chinook [114] Chapman ED, Hearn AR, Singer GP, Brostoff WN, LaCivita PE, salmon inferred from coded wire tag recoveries. American Klimley AP. Movements of steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) Fisheries Society Symposium. 2012;76:191-214. smolts migrating through the San Francisco Bay Estuary. [131] Quinn TP, Chamberlin J, Brannon EL. Experimental evidence of Environmental Biology of Fishes. 2015;98:1069–80. population-specific spatial distributions of Chinook salmon, [115] Romer JD, Leblanc CA, Clements S, Ferguson JA, Kent ML, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha. Environmental Biology of Fishes. Noakes D, et al. Survival and behavior of juvenile steelhead 2011;92:313-22. trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in two estuaries in Oregon, USA. [132] Beacham TD, Wallace C, Jonsen K, McIntosh B, Candy Environmental Biology of Fishes. 2013;96:849-63. JR, Willis D, et al. Insights on the concept of indicator [116] Myers KW. Ocean ecology of steelhead. In: Beamish RJ, populations derived from parentage-based tagging in a editor. The Ocean Ecology of Pacific Salmon and Trout. large-scale coho salmon application in British Columbia, Bethesda: American Fisheries Society; 2018. p. 779-904. Canada. Ecology and Evolution. 2020. [117] Moore ME, Goetz FA, Van Doornik DM, Tezak EP, Quinn TP, [133] Prince DJ, O’Rourke SM, Thompson TQ, Ali OA, Lyman Reyes-Tomassini JJ, et al. Early marine migration patterns HS, Saglam IK, et al. The evolutionary basis of premature of wild coastal cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki clarki), migration in Pacific salmon highlights the utility of steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), and their hybrids. genomics for informing conservation. Science Advances. PLoS one. 2010;5(9):E12881. 2017;3:e1603198. [118] Kelson SJ, Miller MR, Thompson TQ, O’Rourke SM, Carlson [134] Stewart BS. Ontogeny of differential migration and SM. Do genomics and sex predict migration in a partially sexual segregation in northern elephant seals. Journal of migratory salmonid fish, Oncorhynchus mykiss? Canadian Mammalogy. 1997;78:1101-16. Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 2019;76:2080-8. [135] Loseto LL, Richard P, Stern GA, Orr J, Ferguson SH. [119] Rundio DE, Williams TH, Pearse DE, Lindley ST. Male-biased Segregation of Beaufort Sea beluga whales during sex ratio of nonanadromous Oncorhynchus mykiss in a the open-water season. Canadian Journal of Zoology. partially migratory population in California. Ecology of 2006;84:1743-51. Freshwater Fish. 2012;21:293-9. [136] Woodworth BK, Newman AEM, Turbek SP, Dossman BC, [120] Ohms HA, Sloat MR, Reeves GH, Jordan CE, Dunham JB. Hobson KA, Wassenaar LI, et al. Differential migration and Influence of sex, migration distance, and latitude on the link between winter latitude, timing of migration, and life history expression in steelhead and rainbow trout breeding in a songbird. Oecologia. 2016;181:413-22. (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and [137] Myers RA, Hutchings JA, Gibson RJ. Variation in male parr Aquatic Sciences. 2014;71:70-80. maturation within and amoung populations of Atlantic [121] Pavlov DS, Savvaitova KA. On the problem of ratio of salmon, Salmo salar. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and anadromy and residence in salmonids (Salmonidae). Journal Aquatic Sciences. 1986;43:1242-8. of Ichthyology. 2008;48:778-91. [138] Larsen DA, Beckman BR, Strom CR, Parkins PJ, Cooper KA, [122] Pavlov DS, Savvaitova KA, Kuzishchin KV, Gruzdeva MA, Fast DE, et al. Growth modulation alters the incidence of Mal’tsev AY, Stanford JA. Diversity of life strategies and early male maturation and physiological development of population structure of Kamchatka mykiss Parasalmo mykiss hatchery-reared spring Chinook salmon: a comparison with in the ecosystems of small salmon rivers of various types. wild fish. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. Journal of Ichthyology. 2008;48:37-44. 2006;135:1017-32. 18   Thomas P. Quinn [139] Geijer CKA, Notarbartolo de Sciara G, Panigada S. Mysticete [148] Zlokovitz ER, Secor DH. Effect of habitat use on PCB body migration revisited: are Mediterranean fin whales an burden in Hudson River striped bass (Morone saxatilis). anomaly. Mammal Review. 2016;46:284-96. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. [140] Kagley AN, Smith JM, Fresh KL, Frick KE, Quinn TP. Residency, 1999;56((Suppl. 1)):86-93. partial migration, and late egress of sub-adult Chinook [149] West JE, O’Neill SM, Ylitalo GM. Spatial extent, magnitude, salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and comparisons and patterns of persistent organochlorine pollutants in with coho salmon (O. kisutch) in Puget Sound, Washington. Pacific herring (Clupea pallasi) populations in the Puget Fishery Bulletin. 2017;115:544-55. Sound (USA) and Strait of Georgia (Canada). Science of the [141] Rohde J, Kagley AN, Fresh KL, Goetz FA, Quinn TP. Partial Total Environment. 2008;394:369-78. migration and diel movement patterns in Puget Sound Coho [150] Svendsen TC, Vorkamp K, Rønsholdt B, Frier J-O. Salmon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. Retrospective determination of primary feeding areas 2013;142:1615-28. of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) using fingerprinting of [142] Arostegui MC, Smith JM, Kagley AN, Spilsbury-Pucci D, Fresh chlorinated organic contaminants. ICES Journal of Marine KL, Quinn TP. Spatially clustered movement patterns and Science. 2008;65:921-9. segregation of sub-adult Chinook Salmon within the Salish [151] Svendsen TC, Vorkamp K, Svendsen JC, Aarestrup K, Frier Sea. Marine and Coastal Fisheries. 2017;9:1-12. J-O. Organochlorine fingerprinting to determine foraging [143] Altizer S, Bartel R, Han BA. Animal migration and infectious areas of sea-ranched Atlantic salmon: a case study from disease risk. Science. 2011;331:296-302. Denmark. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. [144] Gilroy JJ, Gill JA, M. Butchart SHM, Jones VR, Franco AMA. 2009;29:598-603. Migratory diversity predicts population declines in birds. [152] Cullon DL, Yunker MB, Alleyne C, Dangerfield NJ, O’Neill S, Ecology Letters. 2016;19:308-17. Whiticar MJ, et al. Persistent organic pollutants in Chinook [145] Braccini M, Aires-da-Silva A, Taylor I. Incorporating movement salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha): implications for in the modelling of shark and ray population dynamics: resident killer whales of British Columbia and adjacent approaches and management implications. Reviews in Fish waters. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. Biology and Fisheries. 2016;26:13-24. 2009;28:148-61. [146] Colman JA, Nogueira JI, Pancorbo OC, Batdorf CA, Block BA. [153] Naish KA, Taylor JE, Levin PS, Quinn TP, Winton JR, Huppert D, Mercury in Pacific bluefin tuna (Thunnus orientalis): bioaccu- et al. An evaluation of the effects of conservation and fishery mulation and trans-Pacific Ocean migration. Canadian Journal enhancement hatcheries on wild populations of salmon. of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 2015;72:1015-23. Advances in Marine Biology. 2007;53:61-194. [147] Madigan DJ, Baumann Z, Carlisle AB, Snodgrass O, Dewar H, Fisher NS. Isotopic insights into migration patterns of Pacific bluefin tuna in the eastern Pacific Ocean. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 2018;75:260-70.

Journal

Animal Migrationde Gruyter

Published: Jan 1, 2021

Keywords: Partial migration; Anadromy; Life history; Phylogeny; Conservation; Oncorhynchus

There are no references for this article.