Another one for the list*, climate change causes half-breed trout

Drawing of two trout swimmingStudy Finds Climate Change Accelerates Hybridization Between Native, Invasive Trout

MISSOULA – A new article by researchers from the University of Montana, the U.S. Geological Survey and Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks asserts that climate warming is increasing the hybridization of trout – interbreeding between native and non-native species – in the interior western United States.

Clint Muhlfeld, a research assistant professor in the UM Division of Biological Sciences’ Flathead Lake Biological Station and research ecologist with the USGS Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center in Glacier National Park, is the lead author of the article, titled “Invasive hybridization in a threatened species is accelerated by climate change,” which was published in the latest issue of Nature Climate Change. Co-authors are Ryan Kovach, a postdoctoral scholar at UM’s Flathead Lake Biological Station, and Leslie Jones, a UM doctoral student who works with Muhlfeld and USGS.

Specifically, rapid increases in stream temperature and decreases in spring flow over the past several decades contributed to the spread of hybridization between native westslope cutthroat trout and the introduced rainbow trout – the world’s most widely introduced invasive fish – across the Flathead River system in Montana and British Columbia, Canada.

Experts have hypothesized that climate change could decrease worldwide biodiversity through cross-breeding between invasive and native species, but this study is the first to directly and scientifically support this prediction. The study was based on 30 years of research by scientists with UM, USGS and Montana FWP.

Hybridization has contributed to the decline and extinction of many native fishes worldwide, including all subspecies of cutthroat trout in western North America, which have enormous ecological and socioeconomic value. The researchers used long-term genetic monitoring data coupled with high-resolution climate and stream temperature predictions to measure whether climate warming enhances interactions between native and non-native species through hybridization.

“Climatic changes are threatening highly prized native trout as introduced rainbow trout continue to expand their range and hybridize with native populations through climate-induced ‘windows of opportunity,’ putting many populations and species at greater risk than previously thought,” Muhlfeld said.

“The study illustrates that protecting genetic integrity and diversity of native species will be incredibly challenging when species are threatened with climate-induced invasive hybridization,” he said.

Westslope cutthroat trout and rainbow trout both spawn in the spring and can produce fertile offspring when they interbreed. Over time, a mating population of native and non-native fish will result in only hybrid individuals with substantially reduced fitness because their genomes have been altered by non-native genes that are maladapted to the local environment. Protecting and maintaining the genetic integrity of native species is important for a species’ ability to be resilient and better adapt to a rapidly changing climate.

Historical genetic samples revealed that hybridization between the two species was largely confined to one downstream Flathead River population. However, the study noted, during the past 30 years, hybridization rapidly spread upstream, irreversibly reducing the genetic integrity of native westslope cutthroat trout populations. Genetically pure populations of westslope cutthroat trout are known to occupy less than 10 percent of their historical range.

The rapid increase in hybridization was associated with climatic changes in the region. From 1978 to 2008, the rate of warming nearly tripled in the Flathead basin, resulting in earlier spring runoff, lower spring flooding and flows, and warming summer stream temperatures. Those locations with the greatest changes in stream flow and temperature experienced the greatest increases in hybridization.

Relative to cutthroat trout, rainbow trout prefer these climate-induced changes and tolerate greater environmental disturbance. These conditions likely have enhanced rainbow trout spawning and population numbers, leading to massive expansion of hybridization with westslope cutthroat trout.

“The evolutionary consequences of climate change are one of our greatest areas of uncertainty because empirical data addressing this issue are extraordinarily rare,” Kovach said. “This study is a tremendous step forward in our understanding of how climate change can influence evolutionary process and ultimately species biodiversity.”

Overall, aquatic ecosystems in western North America are predicted to experience earlier snowmelt in the spring, reduced late spring and summer flows, warmer and drier summers, and increased water temperatures – all of which indicate increased hybridization between these species.

Additional UM-affiliated authors are UM Wildlife Biology Program Director Winsor Lowe, UM Associate Professor of Conservation Ecology Gordon Luikart and Regents Professor Emeritus Fred Allendorf. Authors not affiliated with UM are Robert Al-Chokhachy with the USGS Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center, Matthew Boyer with Montana FWP in Kalispell and Robb Leary with Montana FWP in Missoula.

The study was supported by the Great Northern Landscape Conservation Cooperative, the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Northwest Climate Science Center, the National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center, the National Science Foundation and Bonneville Power Administration.

The article can be viewed online at http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2252. For more information call Muhlfeld at 406-600-9686 or email cmuhlfeld@usgs.gov.

###

* The Warm List – seen here: http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
bushbunny

Do they taste the same? We have some brown and rainbow trout in Oz, but the brown don’t seem to thrive as well and they actually breed rainbow trout in farms then release them in the wild.Depends if they are in a lake or in fast running cold creeks. We have a trout season in NSW, and no trout fishing is allowed as it is their breeding season. June until early October. I like trout next to Tasmanian salmon, so long as they don’t smoke it. Then it tastes like kippers to me.

Do they marry Bonos?

TobiasN

My question is, did Clint Muhlfeld apply for a grant to study trout, get turned down? And then did he apply again – this time mentioning climate change- and then got money? Oh, and the resulting paper got publicity …

bushbunny

TobiasN yes good question. It was stated many years ago, if you mention climate change in your thesis, you will get a grant. Otherwise No.

All the global warming believers are half breed – part human, part Martian. Seriously? What a farce.

Steve E

What does climate change have to do with it? There are always consequences when you introduce new species into an ecosystem. When will they ever learn?

They use to call that natural selection on which fish adapts to the environment better. Adapt or die even if your offspring become a new bread of fish.

It just goes to show that horny salmon are like horny male humans – they like hot foreign chicks that wiggle their butts at them. It’s a story as old as animals…

davesivyer

So what?

Pamela Gray

Good heavens. Must we have issues with black trout marrying white trout???? Really????? What a load of hooey. At issue here are the earlier attempts to introduce non-native fish into streams and rivers whose native population was severely diminished. So who came up with putting non-native fish in these rivers? The guvmnt did that. So live with it. The same thing will happen between coyotes and non-native wolves in Oregon. When will we understand that in terms of nature, it is best we leave well enough alone. Native fish population down? Then stop fishing. If a state doesn’t want the consequences of that, let the state decide to stock with non-native fish and live with the consequences of cross breeding. If part of that drainage system is federal land (an oxymoron in a Union of states), let them keep the federal land pristine. As for the river part that is state land, county land, private land, whatever, they that owns it should get to choose. And if migration happens, well sh** happens.

If evolution is good and climate change causes faster evolution, isn’t climate change good?

bushbunny

That’s what happens when you introduce a non native species. Look at the cane toad in Oz. At one town the stupid people killed all the black snakes the only species that can kill them. Look at the shark that has invaded fresh water the Bull Shark, it adapted to salt and fresh water.

Bill Illis

Hybridized trout are stocked in lakes and rivers all over the world. The offspring or the initial eggs they lay are typically not fertile. Most trout taste very similar so it doesn’t make much difference. Salmon are a closely related species so can also be cross-bred. Fish stocking stations can make this an easy business but you probably don’t want to know how it is done.
There were two larger lakes where I grew up that were stocked with Splake. Splake is a cross-breed between a brook trout and lake trout and it is a hardy trout that grows quickly and can reach 20 pounds.
Any native species trout that CAN cross-breed, WILL cross-breed and HAVE cross-bred and it has ALWAYS happened in nature and it has nothing to do with global warming.

ossqss

I am speechless. Ok,,,, my fingers just quit!
Oh the pain!
Xerox Pamela’s comment here>

Gary

Over time, a mating population of native and non-native fish will result in only hybrid individuals with substantially reduced fitness because their genomes have been altered by non-native genes that are maladapted to the local environment. Protecting and maintaining the genetic integrity of native species is important for a species’ ability to be resilient and better adapt to a rapidly changing climate.

These statements don’t make logical sense. If the non-native fish genes are maladapted to the local environment, how can these fish be successful breeders? Assuming native species are highly adapted to local environments, then how can they be more resilient when the environment changes rapidly?
Fishermen prize the native cutthroat trout for their challenge and rarity. Introducing rainbows was a mistaken attempt to expand fishing opportunities. Temperature changes only add to the problem.

“It’s worse than we thought!” On and on they go. Doom and gloom and oh-how-naughty-we are. Message to alarmists – Give it an effing rest!
That warmlist you supplied at the end of the post is getting mighty long. I share it with people to give them a laugh. The Earth listing alone is hilarious! Check it out.
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

dccowboy

“Protecting and maintaining the genetic integrity of native species is important for a species’ ability to be resilient and better adapt to a rapidly changing climate.”
Say what? Why exactly is that true? It seems to me that if the native cutthroat trout were more resilient and better able to adapt to a rapidly changing climate, then they would not be being bred out of existence by the Rainbow Trout hybrid. It is precisely because they are NOT more resilient and able to adapt that they are being displaced by the hybrid trout – who apparently ARE more resilient and better able to adapt than the Cutthroat. If they weren’t the native cutthroat trout would displace them and would be expanding their range.

Bruce Foutch

If my eyes aren’t deceiving me, things look a little different and not nearly so worrisome if we look at 100+ years of data…
Max raw temp and precipitation charts from USHCN for Great Falls, which is a large city not so far from the study area:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/cgi-bin/broker?id=243751&_PROGRAM=prog.gplot_meanclim_mon_yr2013.sas&_SERVICE=default&param=TMAXRAW&minyear=1891&maxyear=2013
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/cgi-bin/broker?id=243751&pvar=CPRECIP&_PROGRAM=prog.gplot_totalclim_mon_yr2013.sas&_SERVICE=default&minyear=1892&maxyear=2013
Both from here: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/cgi-bin/broker?_PROGRAM=prog.climsite_monthly.sas&_SERVICE=default&id=243751&_DEBUG=0
If someone finds a closer station, please post.

Last time I looked “biodiversity” meant “more species” which means that biodiversity increased with interbreeding, not decreased. The whole claim that “more diversity is better” is mostly meaningless, anyway.
The guy does sound a lot like a White (or Black, or Brown, or Yellow) supremist, doesn’t he?

Andrew N

Climate change has become the modern ‘god of gaps.’ We can’t explain our findings therefore it is caused by climate change. I always find it amusing to replace ‘climate change’ or any other synonym with ‘the Gods are [angry]’ which makes for far more entertaining reading.

Andrew N

Mod : Should be ‘the Gods are angry’ in my post…

Pamela Gray

Take a page from the history of the Mennonites. Marrying close cousins is not all it’s cracked up to be. Our native breeding stock is likely severely genetically weak exactly because of the lack of bedding down with that sexy young “different” thing wagging her tail at the stock of males ogling her.
Mennonites now ship their potential breeding stock of young male and female almost adults clear across the country. I wonder why.

SIGINT EX

[snip – don’t post this racist crap on my blog- Anthony]

“Over time, a mating population of native and non-native fish will result in only hybrid individuals with substantially reduced fitness because their genomes have been altered by non-native genes that are maladapted to the local environment.”
I agree with Gary. Having bred animals for a long time, there is a thing called “hybrid vigour” that suggests that cross-breeding improves hardiness and improves fitness, not the other way. I don’t care if we are talking cattle, horses, dogs or cats, it is demonstrable. I would think that it is the same in fish. By introducing new genes, there is more chance of producing hardiness in the end as any that breed the other direction soon disappear.
Further, since Rainbow Trout are spreading rapidly, according to this article, they must be HIGHLY adaptable in converse to the statements in this article. Further, assuming the hybrids can breed, the hybridized group will be even stronger.
Cutthroat trout are less adaptable. They require clear cold water and generally prefer the headwaters so they don’t have to compete with other species. There are 13 sub-species of Cutthroat Trout. It may be that restricted fishing as we have in Alberta has allowed them to expand their range in addition to intrusion to the “mixing” region by Rainbow Trout. We have catch and release in many Cutthroat areas. In the Bow River that runs through Calgary, Alberta there are five species of fish: Bull, Brown, Rainbow, Cutthroat and Brook trout – AND Cut-Bow HYBRIDS!!
http://www.thebowriver.com/trout_identification.htm
Nothing new here. Move along.
Going down to my trout pond next to the house to catch a Rainbow for supper.

Gary Pearse

Are they strong, adapted to their environment and taste good? Hey we are mixing the world’s humans too and we call this homogenization process “diversity” (for some reason) don’t we.

Not clear to me that hybridization would not have occurred anyway,with or without stream warming. They provide no data on how much the streams warmed, nor any kind of correlation data between the warming and hybridization, The streams have a temp variance throughout the year,so why would a few degrees warmer make any difference? They provide no biological reason for claiming what they claim. Only a correlation, of unknown strength. There could be a thousand other potential reasons for the hybridization. This is a perfect example of why natural experiments have problems when it comes to ascribing causality – since you cannot control the experimental conditions, you can’t assume increases in A cause increases in B. This is a shallow, unconvincing study.

MikeinAppalachia

I think they did not provide data on stream warming (maybe) because they didn’t use it. Here from the write-up “…The researchers used long-term genetic monitoring data coupled with high-resolution climate and stream temperature predictions to measure whether climate warming enhances interactions………”. “Predictions” rather than data?

Harold

Onose. Aquatic miscegenation. Must preserve the purity of the trout races.

IF… there is some newly detected trout hybridization,
I am very open to labeling it as anthropomorphic salmonid variation.
But with the human factors in fish stocking and boat traffic so confounding the data, to attribute it to Climate Change is a load of CARP.

Bruce Foutch

In my view, it is not that native trout are less able to cope with climatic changes as mentioned by others here. They obviously have been doing so since the last ice age and before. It is much more about how introductions of non-native species often have disastrous intended and unintended consequences within the environments they are released into. It is not really a question of being more resilient or adaptive. In fact, put and take hatchery trout here in California often do not survive the winter, but still negatively impact the viability of native populations.
Here is an interesting essay on the Government’s planting of non-native hatchery fish species within Yellowstone National Park, which began in 1881.
http://www.visitmt.com/history/yellowstone.asp
This scenario was repeated throughout the West and many native-fish self-supporting streams became put and take streams, planted with hatchery trout of dubious genetic heritage. It was never a question of these streams losing their ability to sustain native populations, it was always the push by fisherman and fish and game commissions to ensure everyone could take home their ‘limit’ of fish, even if they were soft, tasteless, genetically altered fish; bred for fast growth and ease of catching. It has only been in the past few decades, with the wide adoption of catch and release fishing and a renewed appreciation for native, wild trout, that streams able to do so have been slowly restored to native fish only waters.
Of course, Yellowstone is, in fact, unique in that the Lake, Browns, Rainbows, and Brook Trout have all manged to become self-sustaining there and this has created the conflicting management problem of trying to restore the native Cutthroat while still retaining some of the non-native fisheries. I would imagine being a fisheries biologist in Yellowstone must seem an almost schizophrenic undertaking.

What a crock of s**t…I have lived in Idaho ‘forever’…and fish the Henry’s fork. Below Ashton dam the water is released from bottom …water temps same now as 50 years ago. The ‘cuttbows’ are ferocious fish, very strong with great survival rates…much greater than their parents!! Up above at Henry’s lake the water temps vary greatly but cutthroats doin just fine there…Kids (scientist) will do the darndest things…(for money)!

Steve Reddish

Gary says:
May 27, 2014 at 7:01 pm
Gary, you wrote my 1st thought for a comment almost word for word the way I thought it, but you left out my response to:
“Experts have hypothesized that climate change could decrease worldwide biodiversity through cross-breeding between invasive and native species,…”
If introduced rainbow trout have hybridized with native cutthroat, there are now 3 species where once there was one. (in the Flathead drainage – 3 instead of 2 overall). If you are counting species to determine biodiversity, this is a gain, not a decrease. If biodiversity is your goal, more non-native species should be introduced in order to allow for additional hybridization.
If you are counting biodiversity by genetic codes in the gene pool of the hybrid trout compared to the native cutthroat, this is also a gain for the local trout population. (no change overall)
Even if the hybrid trout fully replaces both the cutthroat and the rainbow trout, this is still not a loss of biodiversity, because all the original gene codes would still be in the local gene pool. When conditions change again, the cutthroat and/or rainbow can re-emerge.
SR

Louis

So warmed up trout are much more slutty than frigid trout. Has that been added to the long list of things caused by global warming?

Steve Reddish

Furthermore, if cutthroats and rainbows can interbreed, they are just different varieties of the same critter, anyway. Is it a loss of dog diversity if your purebred chihuahua gets accidently bred by the neighbor’s pomeranian, or is it a gain both of biodiversity and of economic opportunity?
SR

pat

it isn’t all doom & gloom! lost of laughs in here:
VIDEO: BBC: Climate Change Mercenaries
Duration: 18 minutes
First broadcast:Tuesday 27 May 2014
Meet the climate change mercenaries – people trying to make a profit out of global warming.
Presenter Justin Rowlatt travels to Greenland where Prime Minister Aleqa Hammond hopes the retreating ice will create business opportunities – such as the successful gold prospecting by Joshua Hughes, chief geologist of Nuna Minerals.
We hear from Christian Bonfils, managing director of Nordic Bulk Carriers, about the opening up the fabled North West shipping passage across the Arctic.
Justin encounters some profitable creepy crawlies – the flies being reared by South African farmer Jason Drew to provide a valuable source of protein, and the sterile mosquitos bred by Hadyn Parry, head of Oxitech, to combat dengue fever.
And it’s not just insect farming. Greg Smirin of Climate Corporation explains his firm’s weather forecasting services and why they have just got together with agriculturual behemoth Monsanto***.
And Justin hears from a pair of winemakers – geologist Prof Richard Selley and general manager Chris White of Denbies wine – about the future for British viticulture…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01zdr15

pat

OOPS ….meant to type LOTS of laughs, not lost….
[No, lost the laughs reads better anyway .. 8<) .mod]
just for fun – the conference where Prince Charles has been pontificating on CAGW. note the dates:
InclusiveCapitalism.org: Conference on Inclusive Capitalism: Building Value, Renewing Trust
On 27 May 2014 at the Mansion House and Guildhall in London, the Lord Mayor of the City of London and E.L. Rothschild will host The Conference on Inclusive Capitalism: Building Value, Renewing Trust. The Conference has been organised by The Initiative for Inclusive Capitalism and the Financial Times.
LINK: View all Speakers
http://www.inclusivecapitalism.org/
surely the “Inclusive” crowd wouldn’t be making their way to the “Exclusive” Bilderberg Conference right now!
Bilderberg Conference 29 May – 01 June 2014 – Copenhagen Marriott, Denmark
LINK: Official Bilderberg 2014 list released!
https://secure.gn.apc.org/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=30

Eugene WR Gallun

“The researchers used long-term genetic monitoring data coupled with high-resolution climate and stream temperature predictions to measure…..”
i am having a big problem with “coupled with high-resolution climate and stream temperature predictions”. What is this “predictions” crap? Did they have actual data or did they just assign stream temperature based on what? — a model?
And the phrase “high-resolution”? High-resolution climate predictions???? Whose predictions? Must be those type of predictions that are measured to 1/100 of a degree. And high-resolution stream temperature predictions? What does that actually mean???
OK, here is what I think they did. For a long time they had been monitoring genetic data — give them that — but they were never monitoring stream temperature or even air temperature. So using an air temperature model (probably the nearest temperature measuring stations were a hundred miles away) they went back and filled in the blanks basically guessing what the stream temperatures must have been. They really have no hard data about what streams temperatures were over the long course of their study.
And Hot Damn! Lo And Behold! The areas that they knew had high rates of hybridization just happened to also be the areas to which they assigned higher stream temperatures! Perfect climate science!
Anyway that is my take. What else could those words at the top mean?
Eugene WR Gallun

most people do not know this,but, hatchery fish do not spawn! They just live their life’s and never have little fishy’s. Now, if you shock(electric charge into water, fish is stunned and floats to top to be netted)an area with spawning fish and keep just the largest,healthiest fish. Gather eggs and fertilize them at hatchery then keep youngsters till 6 to 8 inches long…very likely to survive..then release them in same area as mother taken…when old enough to spawn they will return to same area to do so !! As this is continually done with ‘strongest/healthiest’ fish your fishery will reflect this! This is how the fishermen in Idaho demanded it be done…even tho more expensive…ok’d to raise fishing license prices to pay for! All state of Idaho fishery upkeep and projects as this completely paid for thru license sales. This is why Idaho fly fishing is world renowned…cause of us dumb,get outta my fishin hole,red neck fisherpersons!

John F. Hultquist

Pamela at 6:48 mentions the early introductions to the western US of non-native fish. Some attempts have been documented and relate to eastern folks wanting to have the familiar things in their new locations. Trees, flowers, grape vines are just a few of the things. Bass were brought to Idaho (late 1800s?) via stagecoach – from my memory of reading this about 1977. Here is a link about Oregon with information compiled prior to 1946:
http://obpc0.tripod.com/id173.html
_______________________
And all should remember that evidence of warming is not evidence of a CO2 cause.
Thus, this makes me wonder: “coupled with high-resolution climate and stream temperature predictions …

Mrcxs

“The researchers used long-term genetic monitoring data coupled with high-resolution climate and stream temperature predictions to measure whether climate warming enhances interactions between native and non-native species through hybridization.”
Hmmm. Shouldn’t this read more like ” The researchers used long-term genetic monitoring along with long term stream temperature recordings….” ?

EJ

Why are we trying to stop evolution. Shouldn’t cross breeding be a good thing?

Well the article has a lot of garbage in it, but I really liked this gem:
From 1978 to 2008, the rate of warming nearly tripled in the Flathead basin
Let’s ask a few questions:
How much warming?
Three times almost nothing is…. almost nothing?
Nearly tripled… compared to what? A previous period in time? If so what period?
Why does the period end in 2008? Did the trends in temperature and cross breeding hold right through to 2013?
My guess is that they probably didn’t. If the data doesn’t support your theory, then discard the data. My expectation is that if you could find comparable habitats with comparable mixes of species in areas where no change in temperature has been recorded, you’d find very little difference in cross breeding. But of course if you FOUND such an area, it would leave one asking why there is warming in one area and not in the other and good lord what if someone finds an area where actual cooling took place and what were the results there? Looking for habitats to use as control populations to compare to doesn’t seem to be of interest to them, particularly if it involved finding areas where the climate change they are blaming for cross breeding doesn’t exist.
Willful blindness and all that.

Here I am repeating the repetitive posting of these looney purists stating their view of evolution:

“…Over time, a mating population of native and non-native fish will result in only hybrid individuals with substantially reduced fitness because their genomes have been altered by non-native genes that are maladapted to the local environment. Protecting and maintaining the genetic integrity of native species is important for a species’ ability to be resilient and better adapt to a rapidly changing climate…”

As ‘Wayne Delbeke’ and Gary plus several others have pointed out, hybridizing makes for stronger faster growing progeny. Which also serves as a simple description of rainbow trout used in so many hatcheries. add to that rainbow trout are easier to catch than more difficult species, e.g. brown trout.
There are two views of the ‘purist trout’ concept.
One) Seeks to maintain the populations of pure trout
——-a) to preserve the population of ‘wild’ genes, especially to preserve genes that we do not understand their functions and benefits
——-b) fisherpeople often love these same populations for their unique beauty and behavior traits.
——-c) many of the ‘pure’ populations thrive in sterile waters or high altitude or near frozen solid waters where the more common trout don’t fare as well.
Two) Seek pure strains because any fish grown and sown by man equals gene modified food and therefore are evil!
——-a) this is related to the view above where the evolution theory is turned inside-out to justify their research.
Trout and their many relations have similar texture and bone structures, but their taste is strongly dependent on their food. The color orange in many of the Salmoniformes is often due to a diet high in crustaceans and insect that are high in carotenoids. Something that many of the fish farms have figured out and have added carotene to their fish feed.
There is clear benefit to preserving genetic pools because in that diversity are advantages that can be utilized, e.g. ‘Whirling disease’ which is ‘Myxobolus cerebralis’ a parasite; a disease deadly to young fish fry like rainbow trout fry yet brown trout are resistant.
There is also a blindness where so called professionals breed large quantities of hatchery trout and plant them in areas where they are technically an ‘invasive species’ and out compete the native species.
Now I’m not a biologist studying trout genetics but there is a lot of apparent confusion in species identification and classification. Exactly what makes for specific trout species may not survive extensive DNA examination. Salmonidae are a very mutable and adaptable family and their family members live from the arctic circle south to Mexico in North America and South to Northern Africa from Eurasia. In whatever water Salmonidae are planted they will perform their best to survive.
May the best hybrid pass on their successful genes! Not that I read any actual proof in the above research article, but a lot of ‘climate change’ ergo ‘CO2’ causes it…

JJ

“Climatic changes are threatening highly prized native trout as introduced rainbow trout continue to expand their range …”

“Highly prized” by whom? Fishermen prefer rainbows, as they are harder to catch and put up more of a fight when you do hook one. That is why the same fish and game department that now wrings its hands over trout hybridization spent the better part of a century operating fish hatcheries to introduce rainbows by the millions to the same fisheries.
Cuts are stupid, easy to catch fish. That difference is one of the fundamental reasons why rainbows are able to out compete them. Take out the fishermen, and ninety-nine percent of the rest of the people couldn’t tell a cut from a rainbow, let alone prize one over the other. Cuts are only “highly prized” by native species fetishists. Caring about the preservation of native species isn’t a bad thing, but lets call it for what it is.

Over time, a mating population of native and non-native fish will result in only hybrid individuals with substantially reduced fitness because their genomes have been altered by non-native genes that are maladapted to the local environment.

Words fail. When you see absolute bullshit like that, you understand that you are not dealing with science, but agenda driven story telling. They will literally say *anything* – even sentences that explicitly contradict themselves – to meet the propaganda goal.
Close your eyes and accept that 30 years of data are meaningful. Pretend that confounding variables have all been identified and adequately controlled. Imagine that correlation does equal causation, and that CAGW exists. On these same facts, you can instead optimistically conclude that “Hybrid vigor is expected to save trout fisheries from evil climate change.” That headline won’t advance your career, however…

What isn’t said is that Cutthroat Trout typically live in shallow headwaters with lots of bank vegetation cover. They often burrow into the gravel in winter to avoid freezing to death and ice scour in the spring. They are a cold water fish typically found in relatively high altitudes but when they move to deeper pools and warmer water, they interbreed with Rainbows – producing Cut-Bows. This is not new. I am nearly 70 and I can remember fishing Cutthroats, Rainbows, and Cut-bows when I was only 9 or 10 years old in the Alberta foothills like 60 years ago. This ain’t new folks.
From 1982:
http://www.nwrc.usgs.gov/wdb/pub/hsi/hsi-005.pdf

“bushbunny says: May 27, 2014 at 6:56 pm

Look at the shark that has invaded fresh water the Bull Shark, it adapted to salt and fresh water.”

The cane toad is a perfect example of an invasive species in a number of locales.
However the bull shark is not an invasive species whether on salt or fresh water. They’ve been found in the Mississippi river regularly and in several other North America rivers along with fresh water rivers around the world. Inshore shark attacks often blamed on great white sharks are believed to actually be bull sharks cruising in waters too fresh for more pelagic sharks like the great white.

Stephen Rasey said:
May 27, 2014 at 8:01 pm
But with the human factors in fish stocking and boat traffic so confounding the data, to attribute it to Climate Change is a load of CARP.
————
HAH! 🙂

Rbravery

“From 1978 to 2008, the rate of warming nearly tripled in the Flathead basin, resulting in earlier spring runoff, lower spring flooding and flows, and warming summer stream temperatures.”
What has happened since 2008? As I understand it the winters in the US have been a little bit on the chilly side of late…

urederra

It is the canary in the coalmine.
😛

@Jaffa – Global warming is the devil for the religious alarmists. Notice how everything is now ‘Global Warming’ did it instead of the devil making you do it.