Reduced physiological plasticity in a fish adapted to stable temperatures.

Plasticity can allow organisms to maintain consistent performance across a wide range of environmental conditions. However, it remains largely unknown how costly plasticity is and whether a trade-off exists between plasticity and performance under optimal conditions. Biological rates generally increase with temperature, and to counter that effect, fish use physiological plasticity to adjust their biochemical and physiological functions. Zebrafish in the wild encounter large daily and seasonal temperature fluctuations, suggesting they should display high physiological plasticity. Conversely, laboratory zebrafish have been at optimal temperatures with low thermal fluctuations for over 150 generations. We treated this domestication as an evolution experiment and asked whether this has reduced the physiological plasticity of laboratory fish compared to their wild counterparts. We measured a diverse range of phenotypic traits, from gene expression through physiology to behavior, in wild and laboratory zebrafish acclimated to 15 temperatures from 10 °C to 38 °C. We show that adaptation to the laboratory environment has had major effects on all levels of biology. Laboratory fish show reduced plasticity and are thus less able to counter the direct effects of temperature on key traits like metabolic rates and thermal tolerance, and this difference is detectable down to gene expression level. Rapid selection for faster growth in stable laboratory environments appears to have carried with it a trade-off against physiological plasticity in captive zebrafish compared with their wild counterparts.

Are model organisms representative for climate change research? Testing thermal tolerance in wild and laboratory zebrafish populations.

Model organisms can be useful for studying climate change impacts, but it is unclear whether domestication to laboratory conditions has altered their thermal tolerance and therefore how representative of wild populations they are. Zebrafish in the wild live in fluctuating thermal environments that potentially reach harmful temperatures. In the laboratory, zebrafish have gone through four decades of domestication and adaptation to stable optimal temperatures with few thermal extremes. If maintaining thermal tolerance is costly or if genetic traits promoting laboratory fitness at optimal temperature differ from genetic traits for high thermal tolerance, the thermal tolerance of laboratory zebrafish could be hypothesized to be lower than that of wild zebrafish. Furthermore, very little is known about the thermal environment of wild zebrafish and how close to their thermal limits they live. Here, we compared the acute upper thermal tolerance (critical thermal maxima; CTmax) of wild zebrafish measured on-site in West Bengal, India, to zebrafish at three laboratory acclimation/domestication levels: wild-caught, F1 generation wild-caught and domesticated laboratory AB-WT line. We found that in the wild, CTmax increased with increasing site temperature. Yet at the warmest site, zebrafish lived very close to their thermal limit, suggesting that they may currently encounter lethal temperatures. In the laboratory, acclimation temperature appeared to have a stronger effect on CTmax than it did in the wild. The fish in the wild also had a 0.85-1.01°C lower CTmax compared to all laboratory populations. This difference between laboratory-held and wild populations shows that environmental conditions can affect zebrafish's thermal tolerance. However, there was no difference in CTmax between the laboratory-held populations regardless of the domestication duration. This suggests that thermal tolerance is maintained during domestication and highlights that experiments using domesticated laboratory-reared model species can be appropriate for addressing certain questions on thermal tolerance and global warming impacts.