Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2023 Apr 7;18(4):e0284125. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0284125

Impact of temperature on Downs herring (Clupea harengus) embryonic stages: First insights from an experimental approach

Lola Toomey 1,*, Carolina Giraldo 1, Christophe Loots 1, Kélig Mahé 1, Paul Marchal 1, Kirsteen MacKenzie 1
Editor: A K Shakur Ahammad2
PMCID: PMC10081806  PMID: 37027381

Abstract

Among all human-induced pressures, ocean warming is expected to be one of the major drivers of change in marine ecosystems. Fish species are particularly vulnerable during embryogenesis. Here, the impact of temperature was assessed on embryonic stages of Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus), a species of high socio-economic interest, with a particular focus on the under-studied eastern English Channel winter-spawning component (Downs herring). Key traits linked to growth and development were experimentally evaluated at three temperatures (8°C, 10°C and 14°C), from fertilization to hatching, in standardized controlled conditions. Overall negative impacts of increased temperature were observed on fertilization rate, mean egg diameter at eyed stage, hatching rate and yolk sac volume. A faster developmental rate and a change in development stage frequency of newly hatched larvae were also observed at higher temperature. Potential parental effects were detected for four key traits (i.e. fertilization rate, eyed survival rate, mean egg diameter and hatching rate), despite a limited number of families. For instance, a large variability among families was shown in survival rate at eyed stage (between 0 and 63%). Potential relationships between maternal characteristics and embryo traits were therefore explored. We show that a substantial proportion of variance (between 31 and 70%) could be explained by the female attributes considered. More particularly, age, traits linked to life history (i.e. asymptotic average length and Brody growth rate coefficient), condition and length were important predictors of embryonic key traits. Overall, this study constitutes a stepping-stone to investigate potential consequences of warming on Downs herring recruitment and provides first insights on potential parental effects.

1. Introduction

Since the industrial revolution, greenhouse gas emissions have drastically altered the oceans [1, 2]. The sixth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) shows that human-induce changes are larger than previously expected [2]. Among the human-induced changes [24], ocean warming caused by carbon dioxide emissions is a major driver of change in marine ecosystems [48], with sea surface temperatures increasing by 0.25–1°C on average (depending on location), and consequences are already visible at all levels of biological organization [2, 8, 911]. Fish, which are poikilothermic, are particularly affected by seawater temperature changes as their metabolism relies on temperature-dependent reactions [12, 13]. Changes in physiology and behavior, for instance, have been reported, with consequences for spatial distribution, abundance (i.e. mortality), reproductive ability, and growth [1419]. These changes due to climate change stressors (e.g. ocean warming) can impact the fisheries sector, with potential economic consequences, and threaten human food security [15, 20]. Evaluating species’ vulnerability is therefore crucial to implement appropriate management measures and develop tools to mitigate negative consequences.

Assessing the response of species to ocean warming is a major and complex challenge. In situ studies can allow for long-term monitoring of populations [21], but the marine environment is complex and the effects of different environmental factors on individual phenotypes are confounded [22]. Experiments under controlled conditions are therefore essential to disentangle effects and study interactions between drivers [23, 24], to improve understanding of phenomena observed in situ and potentially improve predictive models, while providing a stepping-stone to further work at expanded ecological levels.

Species’ vulnerability to global warming is dependent upon the most temperature-sensitive stages in the life cycle. Embryos are sensitive life stages due to lower thermal tolerances, partly linked to ontogenetic changes in aerobic capacity [25]. Early-life stages (ELS), which include both embryos and larvae, are particularly vulnerable to warming as behavioral responses are limited (no or limited swimming ability [8]). ELS mortalities also strongly determine recruitment variability [26, 27], the understanding of which is essential for fisheries management [28]. Finally, conditions experienced during embryogenesis can also have consequences on later-stage performances [29, 30]. The embryonic period has therefore been the focus of many studies for marine species of fisheries interest [31].

Among the species of interest, Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus) is a socio-economically important pelagic fish species, with a wide geographic distribution and various life-history strategies depending on the surrounding environment [32, 33]. Atlantic herring usually reach maturity between two and three years old and are considered a single-batch spawner with a demersal egg phase [32, 34]. These herring have great plasticity in reproduction strategies and exhibit reproductive homing behavior [34, 35]. In the North Sea, four spawning components have been described based on their reproductive timing and spawning grounds: Shetland/Orkney, Buchan, and Banks, which all spawn largely in autumn, and Downs, which largely spawn in winter [34, 36, 37]. These components share the same feeding grounds outside of their reproductive seasons [33, 36, 37], and are thus managed as a single stock unit [34].

Responses to different climate change drivers are particularly well-studied in several stock components of Atlantic herring [31]. Studies on ELS have mainly focused on the impacts of temperature and salinity, often individually (e.g. [3844]). Variable impacts of temperature rise have been experimentally shown for various traits linked to different biological functions. For instance, higher temperature accelerated development, impaired hatching rate and resulted in smaller larvae at hatching in Norwegian populations [39, 41]. With increased temperature, smaller larvae also emerged at hatching for Baltic herring, but the impact on hatching rate was more limited when the same temperature range was considered [44]. Overall, the response to temperature varies across studies and stock components. Most of the studies investigating the impact of temperature on ELS have focused on Norwegian, Baltic or Western Scotland stock units, with very few studies focused on North Sea components. Differential responses may, however, be expected at the intraspecific scale and lead to divergent recommendations for conservation and management of wild components [7, 45]. Indeed, inter-population differentiation is common across fish species, whether marine (e.g. [46, 47]) or freshwater species (e.g. [48, 49]). In addition to differentiation seen across life stages (inter-individual variation), intraspecific variation in temperature tolerance can originate from phenotypic plasticity (i.e. the ability of a genotype to produce different phenotypes in response to environmental changes) and/or heritable genetic differences [45]. Different responses to warming could therefore be seen across the different herring spawning components/stock units.

Parental effects may also affect the response to stressors, as they influence various early-life history traits and may have a substantial impact on recruitment [50]. Although paternal effects have recently received more attention and are nonnegligible [50, 51], maternal effects have been widely investigated and appear to be particularly important and often predominant [39, 5255]. These effects are usually defined as non-genetic contribution to offspring and contribute greatly to population phenotypic variation [52]. They are attributed to numerous characteristics (e.g. age, condition or length), that trigger variability in embryonic and larval quality [39]. Finding potential maternal predictors of offspring quality could contribute to the estimation of fish larvae production and recruitment success [56].

Downs herring are relatively understudied in comparison to other stock components (but see inter-stock units study in [57, 58]); unlike the other North Sea components, they spawn in winter in the eastern English Channel (EEC) and southern part of the North Sea. These herring have different life-history strategies and ecological niches in comparison to other well-studied stock components, such as Norwegian or Baltic herring, and require further component-specific study. The Downs component is poorly considered in recruitment evaluation, despite being a major contributor to the North Sea stock [59, 60]. Further information on Downs herring is thus essential to assess and manage the North Sea stock adequately. A preliminary evaluation of the response to climate change (warming and acidification) was previously conducted on Downs larval stages [61]. Here, the scope of that study was expanded by conducting assessment on the sensitive embryonic period and investigating potential parental effects on embryonic traits. We aimed to: (i) evaluate the effect of different water temperatures across major stages during embryogenesis, and (ii) provide first insights on parental effects and evaluate the relationships between maternal characteristics and embryo traits. To achieve these goals, embryonic development was tracked, from fertilization to hatching, across three temperature regimes under standardized controlled environmental conditions.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Temperature scenarios

Three temperature scenarios were tested in this study: 8°C, 10°C and 14°C. The first two temperatures are within the preference range of Atlantic herring larvae [37, 44]. These two scenarios represent current conditions encountered by wild embryos during their incubation and hatching period (mid-November 2021-January 2022; S1 Fig; [59, 62]), while the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea data (ICES) estimated the average 1992–2020 temperature in the EEC at 9.35 ± 2.20°C (ICES Data portal, accessed the 4th of May 2022) during the herring spawning period. Our first two temperature scenarios are therefore representative of temperatures experienced during the spawning season and constitute control scenarios. The 14°C regime corresponds to a future scenario following IPCC predictions and more precisely considering the SSP5-8.5 prediction (Shared Socioeconomic Pathway—fossil-fueled development [2]). This scenario forecasts a 3°C increase which, considering the upper value of the EEC average temperature range (11.55°C), led us to test 14°C.

2.2. Collection of biological material & the experimental phase

The experiment was performed at the Nausicaá aquarium in Boulogne-sur-Mer between December 2021 and January 2022. Wild, ready-to-spawn herring from the EEC were obtained from local fishers operating pelagic trawls. Herring were collected during the last haul before returning to harbor. Downs herring were collected at two different dates: 8th of December 2021 (first artificial fertilization experiment/first batch) and 17th of December 2021 (second artificial fertilization experiment/second batch). The two batches overlapped in experiment time. Ripe dead herring were transported on ice to the experimental facility. All individuals were measured (total length and standard length, ± sd, 0.1 cm) and weighed (wet weight, ± 0.1 g). Nine females (individually numbered as: F1 to F9; mean standard length: 26.3 ± 0.9 cm, mean wet weight: 228.5 ± 20.9 g) and 27 males (mean standard length: 26.1 ± 1.2 cm, mean wet weight: 219.8 ± 37.3 g) were collected for the first batch. Eleven females (individual numbers: F10 to F20; mean standard length: 24.8 ± 1.5 cm, mean wet weight: 180.6 ± 35.3 g) and 33 males (mean standard length: 22.7 ± 1.8 cm, mean wet weight: 165.8 ± 36.9 g) were used for the second batch.

Artificial fertilization was carried out following a protocol adapted from Joly et al. [63]. Eggs from the different females (n = 20) were stripped separately in seawater at 10°C and spread on 12 plastic plates (8 cm x 3.2 cm; mean 375 ± 150 eggs per plate; 240 plates considering all females). In order to avoid oxygenation issues during development, we deposited the eggs in single layers as much as possible. One plate per female was randomly chosen for imaging with a binocular microscope (Olympus® SZX16, at 20–40× magnification) for later estimation of mean oocyte diameter. In order to minimize male effects and optimize fertilization success (i.e. lower risks to use bad-quality males), three randomly chosen males were used to fertilize the eggs of each female. For each female, a different pool of males was used. Fertilization was performed by dissecting, weighing and incising male gonads, then spreading the milt across each egg plate out of the water by gently putting in contact the incised gonad and sticky eggs. Egg plates from each family (i.e. parental combination relatively to the different females (F1 to F20); three males x one female for each family) were then placed for ten minutes in three separate trays with seawater at 8, 10 or 14°C (four plates per temperature scenario and per female). After this incubation, plates were rinsed with seawater to remove non-adherent eggs and rapidly transferred into experimental systems at the same temperature as the incubation (S2 Fig; see 2.3). Females were dissected to remove the remaining gonad and weighed again to estimate the gonad weight. The liver and a piece of muscle taken from behind the dorsal fin were also sampled for all females to estimate the HepatoSomatic Index (HSI) and RNA:DNA ratios, respectively. Finally, sagittal otoliths (from left and right sides) were extracted from the cranial cavity of all fish and cleaned before storage in Eppendorf tubes for subsequent age estimation (see 2.4 for details on all functional traits assessments).

2.3. Experimental phase

The study was carried out in accordance with the recommendations in the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals of the National Institutes of Health. All procedures followed international and national guidelines for protection of animal welfare (Directive 2010/63/EU). All embryos were killed using an overdose of MS-222 (about 300 mg.L-1; endpoint: absence of heartbeat) and all efforts were made to minimize suffering.

Three identical aquatic partial reuse rearing systems were used to test three temperature regimes (S2 Fig). Each system received mechanically filtered (using inline cartridge filters of 10 μm, 5 μm and 1 μm) and UV-treated (Aqua Medic® Helix Max 2.3 36W UV Sterilizer, France) natural seawater from the Nausicaá cold seawater supply. Seawater was discharged into a 130 L aerated sump tank with a renewal rate of 4.28 L.min-1 (S2 Fig). From the sump tank, seawater was pumped in parallel to two 39.35 L black plastic incubators at a rate of 40 L.h-1, then returned to the sump by gravity (S2 Fig). Each incubator contained nine 1.86 L hatching cells, where the egg plates from different females were randomly placed (S2 Fig). Each aquatic rearing system was operated at a different temperature, i.e. 8°C, 10°C and 14°C. For the 8°C treatment, a TECO® TK-2000 aquarium chiller was used for temperature control. The 10°C treatment was temperature-controlled by the established water renewal rate of 4.28 L.min-1. Finally, for the 14°C treatment, water was heated using two Aqua Medic® 300 W Titanium heaters. Plastic plates containing eggs were randomly spread across hatching cells, incubators and temperature regimes (12 plates in total per female, four plates per temperature scenario and per female) and placed at the bottom of each hatching cell. Photoperiod was 12h/12h L:D (light/dark cycle) and light intensity was 20–30 lux across all treatments. Temperature, pH, salinity, dissolved oxygen and oxygen saturation were measured daily in each incubator (Table 1) using a YSI® professional plus multiparameter instrument. The experiment was ended for each temperature regime when all larvae had hatched and that remaining embryos that did not hatch were dead.

Table 1. Daily physical and chemical parameters followed along the experiment for each temperature regime.

Sd: standard deviation.

Temperature regime Parameter Mean Sd Inter-incubator sd
8°C Temperature (°C) 8.08 0.25 0.01
pH 7.89 0.12 0.03
Salinity 28.57 0.70 0.01
Oxygen (mg/L) 10.79 0.56 0.05
Oxygen saturation (%) 109.84 4.11 0.40
10°C Temperature (°C) 10.58 0.31 0.02
pH 7.93 0.05 0.01
Salinity 28.54 0.67 0.03
Oxygen (mg/L) 9.93 0.48 0.04
Oxygen saturation (%) 107.07 3.98 0.90
14°C Temperature (°C) 14.16 0.12 0.02
pH (n = 34) 7.91 0.06 0.01
Salinity 28.62 0.34 0.05
Oxygen (mg.L-1) 8.90 0.29 0.08
Oxygen saturation (%) 102.48 2.18 1.18

2.4. Functional traits assessment

2.4.1. Maternal traits

Measurements of total length (TL; cm), standard length (SL; cm) and wet weight (W; g) were taken for all breeders (20 females and 60 males). Fulton’s condition factor (CF), reflecting the individual nutritional condition (i.e. recent food availability), was calculated for each fish using the following formula:

CF=100*WTL3 (1)

Where W is the wet weight and TL the total length.

The GonadoSomatic Index (GSI), indicative of the reproductive maturity, was calculated for all fish using the following formula:

GSI=100*WGW (2)

Where WG is the weight of the gonad (g, ± 0.1 g) and W the total wet weight of the fish. For females, WG was estimated by calculating the difference between total wet weight and wet weight after strip spawning and removing the rest of the gonad.

The HepatoSomatic Index (HSI), indicating energy reserves of individuals, was estimated for females using the following formula:

HSI=100*WLW (3)

Where WL is the weight of the liver (g, ± 0.1 g) and W the total wet weight.

The mean oocyte diameter was assessed by measuring the longest (i.e. oocyte length, ± 0.1 mm) and shortest diameters (i.e. oocyte width, ± 0.1 mm) of 30 oocytes per female (n = 600 in total) using ImageJ (version 1.8.0_172 [64]). Oocyte ellipticity (OE) was calculated using the following formula:

OE=100*(LoWo)(Lo+Wo) (4)

Where Lo is the oocyte longest length (mm) and Wo the longest width perpendicular to Lo (mm).

Otolith images were captured using a Sony® XCD-U100CR camera, with a dark background and under reflected light. Calibrated images were processed using ICY software (version 2.4.0.0 [65]). The age was estimated by counting the number of annual growth increments from the nucleus to the edge of the sagittal otolith. Length between the otolith nucleus and each growth increment (i.e. increment length) and between the nucleus and the edge (i.e. otolith radius) were also measured, always along the longest growth axis.

Since age is an integrative predictor, female life histories were also investigated. To do so, lengths-at-ages were retro-calculated from otolith measurements using the Biological Intercept model [66, 67]:

TLi=Lcap+RiRcapLcapL0RcapR0 (5)

Where TLi is the total length at age i, Lcap the total length of the fish at capture, Ri the distance between the nucleus and the last increment at age i, Rcap the otolith radius at capture, R0 is the radius of first otolith increment (i.e. at hatching; mean value: 14.75 μm) which corresponds here to the mean of values found in literature [39, 6875] and L0 the average length at hatching of larvae measured in this study. These back calculated data were then analyzed by fitting a von Bertalanffy growth model using a non-linear mixed effect model (following [67]). Von Bertalanffy growth parameters were calculated for each fish using Eq 6:

TLi=TL1eK*tt0 (6)

Where: TL is the asymptotic average total length, K is the Brody growth rate coefficient and t0 is the theoretical age at which the average length is zero. Body growth patterns obtained in this study for the different females were compared to other Clupeidae (data extracted from FishBase [76]) with an auximetric plot (log10 plot of K versus TL). This procedure allowed us to verify the validity of our estimates.

Muscle RNA:DNA was evaluated for each female as it is an indicator of recent fish growth and condition [77, 78]. About 10 mg of fish muscle was sampled and placed in 200 μL of Tris-SDS (0.1 M NaCl, 50 nM Tris-HCl pH 7.8–8.5, 10 mM EDTA). Muscle was crushed with a glass rod and total RNA and DNA were extracted following a protocol modified from [79]. Three glass beads were added per sample to disrupt tissue, and tubes were vortexed for 15 min, then centrifuged for 10 min at 4°C and at 8000 g. 360 μL of Phenol/Chloroform/Isoamyl alcohol 25:24:1 (pH 7.8–8.2 at 20°C) was then added and tubes were centrifuged at 4°C 10 min at 3800 g after vortexing for 5 min. The nucleic acid phase (top layer) was then transferred to a new Eppendorf tube. The tube containing phenol/chloroform/isoamyl alcohol was vortexed again for 5 min then centrifuged (4°C, 3800 g, 10 min), and the remaining upper layer was transferred to the nucleic acid tube to optimize the collection of DNA and RNA. Then, 180 μL of chloroform/isoamyl alcohol were added to the nucleic acid tube, which was then vortexed for 5 min and centrifuged (4°C, 3800 g, 5 min). The upper phase was transferred to a new tube to measure DNA and RNA contents. DNA and RNA concentrations were measured with a Qubit® fluorometer using the Biotium AccuGreen High Sensitivity dsDNA quantification kit and the Biotium AccuBlue® Broad Range RNA quantification kit, respectively, following manufacturer guidelines.

2.4.2. Embryonic traits

Fertilization rate, measured as the ratio between developed eggs (i.e. eggs that got fertilized and survived) and the total number of eggs deposited per plate, was evaluated for all plastic plates (four plates per family and per temperature regime; 20 families evaluated; total of plates: n = 240) under a binocular microscope (Olympus® SZX16, at 2–10× magnification) at one dpf (day(s) post-fertilization). Grey eggs with no sign of cell division or eggs which had stopped development following [80] were classified as unfertilized. Because of very low fertilization rates, numerous families were excluded after this check and only six families (one from the first batch, five from the second batch) were considered for further trait evaluation. Two plates per family were checked daily to follow daily development. Further traits were measured at two development stages [80]: eyed stage (i.e. when the eye is fully pigmented) and hatching. At eyed-stage, the mean between the longest and shortest diameters across the egg shell allowed evaluation of the mean egg diameter of 2–17 eggs per family and per temperature (variable n due to low survival rates from two families, particularly at 14°C; total n = 189). Survival rate was also estimated for all plates by evaluating the number of eggs that reached the eyed stage relative to the number of eggs that were fertilized (six families; four plates per family and per temperature regime; total of plates: n = 71; one plate excluded because of an initial null fertilization rate). Two more families (from the second batch) were excluded from analyses after the eyed-stage because of very low survival rates. Development rates until the eyed-stage and until hatching were calculated in terms of half-days post-fertilization for each plate and each family (variable n due to the exclusion of plates with null fertilization or null survival rate; n = 57 plates at eyed stage considering all temperatures, n = 34 plates at hatching considering all temperatures). Hatching rate was then estimated by evaluating the number of hatched larvae relative to the number of eggs that had reached eyed stage. Plates that were regularly manipulated to follow development (two plates per family) were excluded from the hatching rate assessment to avoid potential manipulation bias. Hatching rate was therefore evaluated for two plates per family and per temperature (two plates x four families x three temperatures; total n = 23 plates considering all temperatures, because one plate was excluded due to an initially null fertilization rate). Hatching was checked twice per day (morning, afternoon) and hatched larvae were sampled (globally 5–20 larvae/female/temperature), killed with an overdose of MS-222, transferred into 1.5 mL Eppendorf tubes with seawater and frozen at -80°C (methodology similar to [81]). Larvae were later thawed and photographed with an Olympus® SZX16 camera in order to measure (± 0.1 mm) total length (i.e. from the tip of the upper jaw to the end of the notochord), yolk sac height (mm), yolk sac length (mm) and myotomal depth (mm) using ImageJ software. In order to avoid a potential confounding effect from hatching date on key larval traits, only larvae from peak hatching (>50%) were used in the measurement analyses. Yolk Sac Volume (YSV, mm3) was calculated using the following formula:

YSV=π6*YSL*YSH2 (7)

Where YSL is the yolk sac length (mm) and YSH is the yolk sac height (mm).

The newly hatched larvae were classified following [82]: stage 1a when the yolk sac height was lower than 2.5x the mytotomal depth and stage 1b when the yolk sac height was between 1x to 2.5x the myotomal depth. Finally, to assess larval dry weight, larvae were rinsed with distilled water and dried in Eppendorf tubes at -30°C for one hour with a Christ® laboratory freeze-dryer Alpha-1-4-LCSplus. Dried larvae were then weighed to the nearest μg using a Sartorius® ME microbalance.

2.5. Statistical analyses

All analyses were performed in R 4.1.1 [83]. Statistical significance was assigned at α = 0.05. Because of the limited number of families and variable number of families/plates/eggs/larvae during development, analyses of the two objectives (i.e. temperature effect and potential relationships between female and embryo traits) were performed separately.

2.5.1. Temperature effect

Proportional traits (i.e. fertilization rate, eyed-stage survival rate, and hatching rate) were calculated per plate and plates were therefore considered as statistical replicates (n = 2–4 plates per family and per temperature regime). For other traits (i.e. mean egg diameter at eyed stage, larval length at hatching, myotomal depth at hatching, dry weight at hatching and yolk sac volume at hatching), measurements were made directly on individual eggs and larvae. These latter were thus considered as statistical replicates. Linear mixed models with normal distribution (R-package lme4 [84]) were used to assess the impact of temperature (fixed effect) on continuous response traits (i.e. mean egg diameter at eyed stage, larval length at hatching, myotomal depth at hatching, dry weight at hatching and yolk sac volume at hatching). For traits expressed as proportions varying between zero and one (fertilization rate, eyed-stage survival rate, and hatching rate) and traits expressed as counted days (i.e. half-days to reach eyed stage and days to reach hatching), generalized mixed linear models were used following a binomial or a Poisson distribution, respectively. In initial models, family, batch and incubator were added as random factors. Plate was also added as a random factor for egg and larval traits analyses. Comparisons of AIC (Akaike Information Criterion) between all model variants (with/without fixed and random effects) and evaluation of variances of random factors allowed selection of the best model.

For models with normal distribution, homoscedasticity and normality of the residuals were checked graphically using predicted versus residual and Q-Q plots, and tested using the Breusch-Pagan and Shapiro-Wilk tests, respectively. If necessary, the response variable was log-transformed to respect assumption requirements (for myotomal depth and length at hatching). When there was no influence of random factors, one-way analysis of variance was used (ANOVA F test), followed by, if statistically significant, Tukey’s HSD post-hoc tests to evaluate differences between temperatures. If at least one random factor was kept in the model, ANOVA was performed on the linear mixed model followed by, if necessary, a post-hoc test (estimated marginal means; R-package emmeans [85]) to compare temperature regimes. For all post-hoc tests, p-values were corrected using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.

For binomial or Poisson generalized linear mixed models, overdispersion was checked using the R-package RVAideMemoire [86]. Since there was evidence of overdispersion for all binomial models, quasibinomial distribution was used. Wald tests were performed to assess the significance of the temperature factor, followed if necessary by estimated marginal means post-hoc tests. For all post-hoc tests, p-values were corrected using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.

2.5.2. Relationships between female characteristics and embryo traits

These preliminary analyses could not integrate paternal traits since pools of males were used for each fertilization. The attention was therefore focused on maternal traits, which are often considered as predominant (see introduction). Pearson’s correlation analyses were used to assess relationships between female attributes. A multiple linear model was built for each embryonic trait to evaluate relationships with female traits (predictors, here TL, SL, W, CF, HSI, GSI, RNA:DNA, age, K, TL∞, oocyte mean diameter and OE). Models were only built for response traits in which a family or a batch random effect was significant in the previous section (i.e. fertilization rate, survival rate at eyed stage, mean egg diameter and hatching rate). Binomial generalized linear models were used for fertilization rate, survival rate and hatching rate while a normal distribution was used for mean egg diameter. Predictor variables were scaled for each model. Temperature was included as a predictor to take into account temperature effect on the response variable. Full models were built (i.e. with all predictors) and then variables were removed according to three criteria: (i) collinearity (using the R-package car [87]) by calculating GVIF (Generalized Variance Inflation Factor) and GVIF1/2*Df (with df: the number of degrees of freedom [88]) with a threshold set to 5, ii) identification of the parsimonious model (removal of non-significant predictors), and (iii) biological relevance according to the response trait considered and based on literature. For mean egg diameter, assumptions of homoscedasticity and normality of residuals were checked graphically, along with linearity and the absence of outliers (R-package performance [89]). For proportion variables, overdispersion was checked, which led to the use of quasibinomial distribution. Model outputs were checked using the R-package jtools [90].

3. Results

All male trait values are available in S3 Fig and a variability can be seen across male pools used to fertilize the different female eggs.

3.1. Temperature impact on embryo traits

Temperature had a statistically significant effect on eight functional traits (Table 2). Fertilization rate (Fig 1a) and mean egg diameter (Fig 1b) decreased with increasing temperature. Embryo survival rate at eyed-stage was significantly higher at 10°C compared to 8°C or 14°C (Fig 1c). Development rates to reach eyed stage and hatching rate were different between temperatures (Fig 1d and 1f). Overall, larvae developed faster in terms of half-days post-fertilization when temperature was higher. In addition, hatching rate was lower at 10°C and 14°C compared to 8°C (Fig 1e). Finally, there was a differentiation in the development stage frequency of newly hatched larvae among temperature regimes. More larvae reached stage 1b at 14°C compared to the two control temperatures (Fig 1g). The yolk sac volume of newly hatched larvae was also larger for larvae at control temperatures (Table 2, Fig 1h). In contrast, no statistical difference was found for larval length at hatching (F = 1.42, df = 2, P = 0.24), larval myotomal depth (F = 2.08, df = 2, P = 0.13), or larval dry weight at hatching (F = 2.56, df = 2, P = 0.08) between temperature regimes (Table 2).

Table 2. Impact of temperature on fertilization rate and embryonic traits of Downs herring (Clupea harengus).

P-values in bold are statistically significant (statistical significance was assigned at α = 0.05). F: ANOVA F-test; χ2: Wald test; * indicates traits that were log transformed.

Parsimonious model F/χ2 Df P-value
Fertilization rate ~ temperature + (1|family) χ2 = 50.80 2 <0.001
Mean egg diameter ~ temperature + (1|family) + (1|batch) F = 28.82 2 <0.001
Survival rate ~ temperature + (1|family) χ2 = 19.93 2 <0.001
Number of half-days to reach eyed stage ~ temperature χ2 = 26.25 2 <0.001
Hatching rate ~ temperature + (1|batch) χ2 = 13.94 2 <0.001
Length* ~ temperature F = 1.42 2 0.24
Myotomal depth* ~ temperature F = 2.08 2 0.13
Dry weight at hatching ~ temperature F = 2.56 2 0.08
Yolk sac volume ~ temperature F = 3.04 2 0.05
Number of half-days to reach hatching ~ temperature χ2 = 32.97 2 <0.001
Development stage at hatching ~ temperature χ2 = 11.31 2 <0.05

Fig 1. Impact of temperature (8°C, 10°C and 14°C) on Downs herring (Clupea harengus) a) fertilization rate, b) eyed-stage mean egg diameter, c) eyed-stage survival rate, d) number of half-days required to reach eyed-stage, e) hatching rate, f) number of half-days required to reach hatching, g) development stage of newly hatched larvae and h) yolk sac volume.

Fig 1

Letters in capital correspond to post-hoc results with different letters indicating statistical difference (statistical significance assigned at α = 0.05) between temperature treatments. Black cross points in graphs d, f and h correspond to sample values and black dots to boxplot outliers. When there was a significant parental effect in the model, points were colored relatively to families (graphs a, b, c and e).

Family and/or batch random factors were important in models of four key traits: fertilization rate (range of values across families: 0–40.37%; S4 Fig), mean egg diameter (range of values: 1.47–2.08 mm), survival rate (range of values: 0–63.11%) and hatching rate (range of values: 0–94.11%) (Table 2; Fig 1).

3.2. Relationships between response variables and female traits

Trait measurements of females are available in Table 3 and life-history parameters (i.e. TL and K) are represented in Fig 2. Our life-history estimates are among values previously reported for Clupeidae (Fig 2).

Table 3. Traits measured for the different Downs herring (Clupea harengus) females.

TL: Total Length; SL: Standard Length; W: Wet weight; FC: Fulton Condition index; GSI: Gonadosomatic index; HSI: Hepatosomatic index; sd: standard deviation.

Female Batch TL (cm) SL (cm) W (g) FC GSI (%) HSI (%) Age (years) Mean oocyte diameter (mm) Mean oocyte ellipticity RNA:DNA ratio
F1 1st 27.5 24.5 209.7 1.01 27.71 0.33 7 1.5 0.02 2.09
F2 1st 29.5 26.5 227.0 0.88 26.65 0.26 5 1.6 0.03 2.36
F3 1st 28.0 25.2 226.7 1.03 33.08 0.31 7 1.6 0.03 1.78
F4 1st 29.7 27.0 232.3 0.89 23.63 0.82 7 1.7 0.02 1.88
F5 1st 31.0 28.0 269.6 0.90 22.70 0.26 7 1.6 0.02 1.97
F6 1st 29.2 26.5 249.2 1.00 31.38 0.60 8 1.6 0.03 1.34
F7 1st 29.0 26.2 220.1 0.90 15.26 0.59 6 1.6 0.04 1.71
F8 1st 28.0 26.3 197.9 0.90 26.07 0.91 7 1.6 0.03 1.50
F9 1st 30.0 26.5 224.2 0.83 24.84 0.18 8 1.7 0.03 2.27
F10 2nd 29.0 26.2 200.5 0.82 23.24 0.35 4 1.4 0.04 1.22
F11 2nd 26.2 23.5 157.2 0.87 26.08 0.19 4 1.5 0.03 1.96
F12 2nd 26.5 23.6 144.6 0.78 28.49 0.21 3 1.5 0.03 1.74
F13 2nd 27.5 25.5 208.7 1.00 32.19 0.29 3 1.6 0.03 2.16
F14 2nd 29.5 26.6 249.8 0.97 29.54 0.56 5 1.6 0.03 1.76
F15 2nd 25.4 22.7 135.6 0.83 20.21 0.22 3 1.6 0.03 1.41
F16 2nd 26.6 24.1 178.5 0.95 30.36 0.22 4 1.5 0.04 1.43
F17 2nd 26.4 23.7 160.2 0.87 29.34 0.19 4 1.5 0.02 1.80
F18 2nd 30.0 27.0 204.6 0.76 20.77 0.73 8 1.5 0.03 2.10
F19 2nd 27.4 24.3 145.9 0.71 21.18 0.21 5 1.5 0.04 1.52
F20 2nd 29.5 26.5 201.2 0.78 18.99 0.35 10 1.4 0.04 2.45
Inter-female mean 28.3 25.5 202.4 0.89 25.60 0.39 5.75 1.6 0.03 1.82
Inter-female Sd 1.5 1.4 36.9 0.09 4.70 0.22 1.98 0.1 0.005 0.34

Fig 2. Auximetric plot (K versus TL) for Downs herring (Clupea harengus) females (first batch in red, second batch in blue) and Clupeidae FishBase data (in grey).

Fig 2

Both axes are log10 transformed.

Overall, all regressions between female attributes and embryonic traits were statistically significant and explained a substantial proportion of variance (between 31 and 70%; Table 4).

Table 4. Multiple regression results evaluating the relationships between embryonic traits and female trait predictors for Downs herring (Clupea harengus).

SL: standard length; FC: Fulton condition index; HSI: Hepatosomatic index; TL∞: Asymptotic average length; K: Brody growth rate coefficient; F: ANOVA F-test; χ2: Wald test; df: degrees of freedom; t: t-test; P: P-value. For temperature, which is qualitative, 8°C is considered here as the comparison standard. P-values in bold are statistically significant (at α = 0.05).

Response variable Model variables F/ χ2(df, df residuals) P model Pseudo- R2 / Adjusted R2 Predictor estimates β Standard error t P
Fertilization rate SL χ2 = 2067.32(6, 232) <0.001 0.31 10.10 1.40 7.19 <0.001
FC 5.92 0.74 7.99 <0.001
HSI -0.32 0.15 -2.17 <0.05
TL 2.48 0.43 5.78 <0.001
10°C -0.15 0.13 -1.19 0.24
14°C -0.53 0.14 -3.64 <0.001
Eyed-stage survival rate SL χ2 = 771.87(5,65) <0.001 0.70 25.45 2.09 12.15 <0.001
K -2.49 0.29 -8.47 <0.001
10°C 0.64 0.17 3.64 <0.001
14°C 0.12 0.20 0.60 0.55
Mean egg diameter at eyed stage Age F = 12.67(3,45) <0.001 0.42 0.18 0.04 4.62 <0.001
10°C -0.05 0.02 -2.07 <0.05
14°C -0.10 0.02 -4.13 <0.001
Hatching rate Age χ2 = 90.00(3,22) <0.001 0.52 3.04 0.52 5.88 <0.001
10°C -1.31 0.37 -3.49 <0.001
14°C -1.31 0.43 -3.03 <0.01

Fertilization rate was higher for larger (SL, β = 10.10, P < 0.001) and in better condition (FC, β = 5.92, P < 0.001) females. It was also was positively affected by TL∞ (β = 2.48, P < 0.001); in contrast, it was lower for females with a higher HSI (β = -0.32, P < 0.05) and at high temperatures (β = -0.53 at 14°C, P < 0.001) (Table 4). Eyed-stage survival rate was higher in larger females (β = 25.45, P < 0.001) and at 10°C (β = 0.64, P < 0.001) while it was negatively affected by K (β = -2.49, P < 0.001) (Table 4). Finally, mean egg diameter and hatching rate were both higher in older females (mean egg diameter: β = 0.18, P < 0.001; hatching rate: β = 3.04, P < 0.001) (Table 4). In contrast, temperature had a negative effect on these two traits (mean egg diameter: β = -0.05 at 10°C and β = -0.10 at 14°C, P < 0.05; hatching rate: β = -1.31 at 10°C and -1.31 at 14°C, P < 0.01) (Table 4).

4. Discussion

Global sea surface temperatures are projected to increase between 0.7 and 3°C by the end of the century [91]. A large number of studies have previously investigated the impact of temperature on herring stocks, at larval (e.g. [92, 93]) or embryonic stages (e.g. [41, 42, 44]), but very few studies have focused on Downs herring (but see [57, 61, 94]). In order to better assess future impacts on Downs herring ELS, the effect of temperature on embryonic key traits was quantified across three temperature regimes. A strong impact of temperature was found on several key traits, particularly for the most extreme scenario, at 14°C. A strong variability in trait values across families was also showed for four key traits, fertilization rate, eyed survival rate, mean egg diameter, and hatching rate. Some female attributes are potentially useful for, at least partly, predicting embryo development and survival. In the following sections, we discuss these results regarding (i) temperature impact on key traits and variability across families, (ii) potential relationships between maternal characteristics and embryo traits, (iii) fertilization and survival rates and their determinants, and (iv) future perspectives from this work.

4.1. Impact of temperature on Downs herring key traits & variability across families

There was therefore a need to further explore the potential response of Downs embryos to warming, especially knowing that sea surface temperatures have already increased over time in the English Channel [95, 96].

The impact of temperature on fertilization rate is not often evaluated in experimental studies using wild dead fish as initial biological material. Indeed, the fertilization step is frequently performed at a control temperature before gradually increasing temperature afterwards (e.g. [44]). This method is used to guarantee the availability of initial biological material or to synchronize embryonic development to study the larval response afterwards. In the present study, there was a strong inter-family variability within each temperature regime (e.g. at 10°C, variation between 0 and 40.4%), but the response to temperature also differed among families (e.g. fertilization rate decreased with rising temperature in F13 but no difference between temperatures was seen in F5; S4 Fig). As the response to warming differs among progenies, studying temperature impact on fertilization rate requires accounting for intra-stock unit variability. Yet, an overall decrease could still be seen with increasing temperature (Fig 1). Several mechanisms could explain such a decrease, for instance, an impact of temperature could exist on sperm motility [97100]. Since fertilization rate is evaluated after 24h, this effect could also reflect the negative impact of high temperature on cell cleavage [101]. However, these mechanisms require further study in Downs herring. The present results are different from those of Leo et al. [41], which showed a lack of temperature impact in Norwegian herring. This difference could reflect geographic differentiation, but it could also originate from a lack of intra-population variability consideration in that study. In this latter, three females were used and all progenies showed a lack of temperature effect, but we cannot exclude that other female progenies could have presented different response patterns.

It was also showed that hatching rate decreases with higher temperature, in agreement with Leo et al. [41] (but see divergent results in Peck et al [44]), although with a greater effect in our study. Hatching rates at 8°C and 10°C were within the range of previous experimental values [46, 50, 56, 81, 94, 102105]. This decrease of hatching rate at high temperature was previously demonstrated for other species, such as Clupea pallasi [106] or Inimicus japonicus [107]. Similarly to fertilization rate, we found differences in hatching rate among families at the different temperatures. At 14°C, there was a negative impact of temperature on hatching rate of second-batch spawner offspring (F10, F11, F13; Fig 1; younger females which are potentially recruit spawners) while the impact was much reduced for the first-batch spawner progeny (likely repeat spawner [i.e. more experienced female which spawned in the previous years], F6; Fig 1). This effect could be linked to egg quality (i.e. ability of the egg to be fertilized and successfully develop into a normal embryo [99]) but, because of an insufficient number of females/families, this hypothesis requires further exploration.

Survival rate at eyed stage, contrary to the response seen in other key traits, was higher at 10°C compared to 8 and 14°C (Fig 1). However, survival rates were highly variable within each temperature regime and the temperature difference appears largely due to the variability seen among families (i.e. the embryos of some families showing higher survival rates at 10°C, Fig 1). Overall, survival rate is more variable among families than among temperatures. von Nordheim et al. [108] observed strong mortalities at higher temperatures (i.e. 11–13°C compared to 4–6°C) but this study was performed on Baltic herring. Survival rates may be linked to female attributes and egg quality [56] and/or thermal preferences could vary between stock units; no information is available, however, regarding the Downs component, and the comparison of thermal preferences between stock units is often limited by a lack of common methodology. The lack of strong mortality rate at 14°C compared to control temperatures throughout the experiment could reflect that there was no limitation in oxygen supply (i.e. oxygen demand, due to metabolic costs, rises when temperature increases). This was likely due to the capacity of the experimental system to maintain oxygen saturation levels above 100% in all treatments (Table 1). In nature, oxygen solubility decreases with rising temperature, posing a potential risk to organisms unable to seek more suitable areas, such as embryos present in benthic substrates. Moreover, temperature rise can also be associated in the wild with other stress sources such as increased occurrence of fungal spores or algal blooms [108, 109]. Therefore, further work needs to evaluate the combined impact of temperature and co-occurring stressors to reflect more accurately potential future consequences in the natural environment.

Temperature also affected growth traits. Mean egg diameter at eyed stage decreased with increasing temperature (Fig 1), which is congruent with Høie et al. [39] and might be related to differential growth rates because of temperature-mediated metabolic reactions. It has previously been shown that larvae hatching from larger eggs have a competitive advantage and better survival chances [30]. An additional study is required to assess if this difference at eyed-stage triggers differential growth trajectories across larval stages. The lack of temperature effect on larval length, larval dry weight and myotomal depth at hatching does not align with the eyed-stage mean egg diameter results, however larvae at 14°C are largely at stage 1b, with lower yolk sac reserves, while larvae at 8 or 10°C are mostly at stage 1a. Therefore, the comparison of larval characteristics at hatching is biased as they are evaluated at different development stages; inter-temperature differences in larval traits could thus be seen at later development stages. Our results are consistent with those of Blaxter and Hempel [57] for Downs herring, which showed no body weight difference at hatching between two temperature regimes (8 and 12°C). In other stocks, a trend towards hatched larval length reduction with warming was assessed (e.g. [39, 41, 110]) but Peck et al. [44] found no difference in larval length at hatch between 8 and 14°C. Overall, variable patterns can be seen across the literature and herring stock units in response to warming. Additional morphological traits could be considered with bigger sampling sizes and additional methodologies such as deformity rate (e.g. using radiographs or staining methods), which could have consequences on later growth and survival from inefficient larval swimming abilities leading to lower efficiency to capture preys or avoid potential predators, or embryonic heart rate which would reflect metabolic activity [108, 111].

Globally, temperature seems to affect development rate more than growth rate. It has an inverse relationship with the development duration from fertilization to a specific stage/event (i.e. eyed-stage, hatching). The observed faster development at higher temperature is congruent with previous studies on Atlantic herring (e.g. [57, 112]). An effect of temperature on relative organogenesis timing has previously been demonstrated in Atlantic herring [80, 113115]. In many fish, hatching enzymes have been shown to have lower activity at colder temperatures, extending the time spent inside the egg [116]. Variations in development speed have previously been shown across stock units and years relatively to temperature [32, 110]. The difference in development duration between temperatures could also be seen in larval stage at hatching and in yolk sac volume. There was a trend towards lower reserves available at hatching at 14°C (i.e. majority of stage 1b larvae at the highest temperature regime), which could be explained by faster development requiring more energy mobilization and therefore a faster consumption of yolk reserves. This is also congruent with the smaller mean diameter of eggs at eyed-stage at higher temperatures since smaller eggs provide less reserves to larvae at hatching [30, 57]. The present conclusions regarding the link between yolk sac reserves and temperature are contrary to those of Blaxter and Hempel [117] and Høie et al. [39] who found that larvae had a bigger yolk sac at higher temperatures (i.e. majority of stage 1a larvae at high temperatures). Those studies suggested a more efficient use of yolk reserves at lower temperatures since hatching occurred at a later stage of ontogeny. However, these studies were performed on Baltic and Norwegian herring stocks and could illustrate geographic differentiation in developmental response to temperature. Impact on yolk sac volume needs to be investigated further, alongside yolk sac consumption efficiency. Indeed, higher temperatures during herring egg incubation could have significant impacts if prey availability is limited (i.e. higher risk of starvation because of lower reserves available at hatching). In addition, higher prey availability could be required after yolk absorption at warmer temperatures [118]. In contrast, faster development could allow earlier feeding which can be an advantage over late hatching larvae and against predation if they reach bigger sizes more rapidly. Importantly, temperature experienced during embryogenesis can also influence fitness later in the life cycle (e.g. growth, age at maturation, reproductive investment [29]). The assessment of temperature effects should therefore be continued for the subsequent life stages. In particular, it would be interesting to assess the impact of warming on breeders since they also present a narrower thermal tolerance [25]. Temperature could influence reproductive dynamics [112] and negatively impact gametogenesis and egg quality (e.g. negative impact on fertility, chorion integrity, sperm DNA integrity or velocity; see review in [101]). Additional studies are thus required to better evaluate potential future implications in the wild for Downs herring.

Based on the present results, warming could have negative consequences for Downs herring recruitment because of lower fertilization rate, lower hatching rate and faster development at higher temperatures. The lower performances seen at the highest temperature could be a first insight of adaptability limitation. The strong inter-family variability of key trait response to temperature illustrates, however, a potential plastic response to warming. It suggests that within one stock unit there is a range of potential responses to warming, which could be indicative of an adaptive potential to warming of Downs herring, but this hypothesis requires further evaluation with a larger number of families. It appears crucial to account for intra-population variability when investigating the response of a stock component to stressor(s). Downs herring being located during spawning at the southern boundary of the Northeast Atlantic range, they could adopt other strategies to avoid warmer temperatures such as northward migration or changes in spawning timing or grounds [119, 120]. Shifts in spawning season would be particularly interesting to further investigate. They would be congruent with the hypothesis of a match between spawning temperature and embryo thermal preference [13]. Phenological shifts in spawning due to changes in temperature have been shown for a wide range of taxa (see examples in [101, 121]), including Baltic herring [122]. Overall, shifts in spawning timing and faster development across embryogenesis could potentially trigger an even stronger mismatch with planktonic prey sources. This could have profound consequences on the North Sea ecosystem dynamics, as herring is at the center of the trophic chain (bottom-up regulation of seabirds and top-down regulation of zooplanktonic species [123]).

4.2. Parental effects and first insights on relationships between maternal attributes and embryo traits

Inter-family variability was found for four key traits (i.e. fertilization rate, eyed-stage survival rate, eyed-stage mean egg diameter and hatching rate; Fig 1; Table 1). The lack of parental effect for some traits, such as larval morphological traits, could be due to the limited number of larvae and families studied (but see a lack of female effects demonstrated in other stocks, e.g. [50]). This study represents thus a preliminary work towards the evaluation of parental effects and further studies should be performed to validate/refute our first observations.

Due to our experimental design, we evaluated an overall parental effect, where paternal traits could not be fully isolated and studied. However, it is often considered that maternal effects are particularly important and often predominant [39, 5255, 124]. This work initiated therefore the identification of potential relationships between maternal attributes and embryo traits. More precisely, due to the design of our experiment, maternal effects could not be separated from genetic female effects. We therefore investigated the potential global female effect (i.e. contribution of both non-genetic and genetic effects).

Inter-family variability could reflect differences in egg quality. A good egg quality refers to an embryo that survives and develops into a viable larva [99]. Decades of research in the aquaculture field have allowed identification of various quality indicators such as egg morphology (e.g. egg size, symmetry) or egg content (e.g. lipid and protein contents) [125, 126]. Egg size usually reflects female investment in offspring and is often considered a fitness determinant in many fish species [55]. Other traits linked to offspring viability, such as fertilization success, survival rate at eyed-stage or hatching rate, are usually used to assess quality [99, 126, 127]. With the present data, it can be seen, for instance, that the progeny F6, belonging to the first batch, had one of the highest fertilization rates, the highest mean egg diameter, a higher survival rate at eyed-stage and a better hatching rate across temperatures (Fig 1, S4 Fig) compared to embryos from other families. Overall, eggs from this specific family present a better quality than those from other families originating from the second batch. This specific family also appears as less affected by temperature increase (Fig 1, S4 Fig) and there is thus further work to lead on the link between offspring quality and temperature response. Overall, there is therefore an interest in the identification of predictors to identify good quality females prior to embryonic assessment.

In fish species, egg quality is affected by several attributes such as fish age, size or body condition, which is partly linked to underlying parental nutrition status and environmental conditions experienced during sexual maturation [99, 127, 128]. In this study, we investigated whether embryonic survival and developmental success could be linked to specific female attributes across temperature regimes. Some of these traits, such as FC or GSI, represent proxies for female condition/reproductive investment. Some female attributes do not appear as useful egg quality predictors. The ratio RNA:DNA, for instance, does not appear as relevant but it is an indicator that has not often been used in breeders (e.g. [77]) and that is usually employed for larvae quality assessment (e.g. [129]). On the contrary, some female traits are strongly correlated and are therefore interchangeable (e.g. W and FC / W and SL / W and age / GSI and FC / oocyte diameter and W positively correlated, K and TL / oocyte ellipticity and mean oocyte diameter negatively correlated; S5 Fig). Overall, it could be stated that higher fertilization rate, eyed survival rate, mean egg diameter and hatching rate were obtained in older, larger and/or in better condition females (Table 3). This is congruent with the big old fat fecund female fish (BOFFFFs) hypothesis [130]. Age-related egg quality variations are well-known from literature, especially when comparing recruit and repeat spawners (see e.g. [57]; other species examples in [101]). In most cases, older females produce eggs of higher quality than younger females [53, 131]. Several criteria could explain age-related variations in fish species, such as younger females having lower condition, allocating less energy to spawning because of growth demands, experiencing poorer habitats or exhibiting a partially activated endocrine system [101, 132]. Egg composition in terms of quality and quantity (e.g. cholesterol, fatty acids, free aminoacids profiles) could be an interesting predictor to study since it reflects the availability and quality of food and the subsequent energy budget of the female. In small pelagic fishes, the amount of lipid reserves constitutes a good indicator since lipids are stored into the ovaries during oogenesis and are the main constituent of the egg yolk [133]. This criterion would be useful to explore underlying mechanisms defining maternal effects (see e.g. [56, 134]). Looking at other significant predictors, the positive relationship between fertilization rate and TL and the inverse relationship between K and eyed survival rate show that life history is also an important factor to consider. These results might illustrate different strategies with some females investing more energy into reproduction than growth. Finally, a negative relationship was highlighted between HSI, a proxy for energetic reserves, and fertilization rate. This is consistent with the fact that liver provides lipids for gonadal development [135, 136]. In that way, hepatic energetic reserves of females are low during the last step of the reproductive cycle [137].

Globally, the present results provide first insights on potential egg quality indicators and could help to optimize fertilization and embryonic development for future experiments. Indeed, despite the challenges, working with dead biological material is practical, and improved female selection could greatly improve chances to obtain a sufficient number of viable eggs. A complementary experiment with a larger number of females, which would integrate additional predictors, such as egg composition and fertility, is necessary to validate/refute these preliminary conclusions. In addition, other criteria could also influence reproductive performance such as exposure to persistent organic pollutants [138], even though this could be partly reflected by condition index. A more exhaustive assessment of female state should thus be led. Repeating this experiment is also essential since there could be a potential noteworthy impact of conditions experienced by parents/grandparents (i.e. transgenerational effects [139]), triggering a potential inter-annual variability in egg quality. Indeed, the energy budget of females depends on nutrition but also on environmental abiotic factors. These latter affect the neuroendocrine system that controls energy expenditure and metabolism of the breeders [133]. In this way, thermal regimes experienced by parents affect early development and contribute to shape future juveniles fitness, which could partly explain differences between batches. This could trigger inter-annual variations in fertilization and survival rates, as previously shown in Baltic Sea herring [56]. Overall, this study represents a first step in the study of parental effects, and likely mostly maternal effects, in Downs herring. These results may have implications for fisheries management; indeed, fisheries act as a selective pressure that often leads to remove larger/older individuals, which can eventually lead to truncated age structure of the stock [130, 140142]. Female attributes can greatly influence the quantity and quality of offspring, and therefore the stock recruitment success. In this study, since older/bigger females produce eggs of better quality, it can be argued that the preservation of Atlantic herring stock structure (large age range), and underlying genetic diversity, is crucial for recruitment.

Finally, while this study was focused on female traits, male effects cannot be excluded. Milt from three males was used to fertilize eggs of each female in order to minimize potential male effects and optimize fertilization success. Looking, however, at morphological characteristics of males, there is a wide variability in male condition, particularly when comparing age, wet weight or gonadosomatic index (S3 Fig). In addition, eggs could be more easily fertilized by the sperm of some specific males [143] and potential paternal effects could therefore play a role in embryo trait expression. Variability seen in embryonic traits originating from different females might also, therefore, be partly due to male effects, through a global family effect. The importance of paternal effects, which are genetic effects (i.e. contribution of the milt is DNA), was previously demonstrated for several species (e.g. [53, 144, 145]), including Atlantic herring [50, 146]. Our models assessing relationships between female attributes and embryo traits only explain a part of the variability. Integrating male quality traits (e.g. sperm mobility, sperm velocity, DNA integrity [101]) could allow to increase the accuracy of the predicting models. However, other studies also reported a lack of paternal effect for some traits [39, 46]. Moreover, no correlation was found between the male characteristics (e.g. size, GSI, sperm characteristics) and fertilization rate in another reproductive component from the Irish Sea [147]. The importance of male effects remains therefore uncertain for Atlantic herring. Ruling out paternal effects in future studies would require fertilizing all eggs with one single male, which was not technically possible in this study because of the fertilization protocol used (i.e. too long time between the first plate fertilization and the last one as the sperm gets activated as soon as it gets in contact with the first wet eggs). Future studies integrating specific male quality indicators (e.g. sperm motility, DNA integrity) are necessary to improve our understanding of the contribution of males to their offspring quality.

4.3. Fertilization and survival rates: Multifactorial traits

A striking feature of our study is the low fertilization and survival rates, which resulted in a large decrease of the number of families studied during embryonic development. Low fertilization rates (<40%) in standardized experimental conditions have previously been reported for Atlantic herring (e.g. [46, 103, 105, 110, 147]). Still, higher fertilization rates have been estimated, particularly in the case of Baltic Sea herring (e.g. [108]), as well as higher survival rates for other stock components [44, 56, 104, 108]. The low fertilization and survival rates obtained in this study could result from a combination of ecological and methodological features, as discussed below.

Firstly, a low rate of fertilization could be specific to Downs herring, as very limited information is available for this stock component. The direct comparison of Down herring results with other stock components (e.g., Baltic Sea herring) is limited because of the divergent life-history strategies and experienced environmental conditions. In addition, North Sea herring has experienced below-average recruitment since 2015 despite being exploited at maximum sustainable yield level. This pattern would be congruent with low fertilization and survival rates of the Downs component, which has markedly increased in recent years, contributing to 25% of the total North Sea herring spawning stock biomass in 2020 [148]. To our knowledge, no information is available regarding fertilization success in the field or subsequent survival of embryos. Two experimental studies, however, previously reported higher average fertilization rates: 42% in Joly et al. [63] and 75% in Illing et al. [149]. In these studies, breeders were sampled earlier in the spawning season in the first case (i.e. mid-November) or freshly captured fish were used in the second case. Higher average fertilization rate from Joly et al. [63] could be linked to fluctuating egg quality across the spawning season. In Joly et al. [63], females were sampled in November 2018 and could correspond to older females providing better quality eggs. No information regarding age is available in Joly et al. [63], but females used therein were larger than fish collected in our first batch (beginning of December). The variation in fertilization rate could also reflect inter-annual variability in egg quality and/or spawning timing. Indeed, looking back at water temperature in the eastern English Channel, Downs herring experienced slightly colder temperatures (1°C less) in 2018 compared to 2021 at the beginning of the spawning season [62]. This difference could have delayed maturation and spawning timing in 2021. Mature individuals were identified using classical morphological criteria (e.g. eggs hydrated, fluent males) but it is possible that those criteria are not sufficient to select ready-to-spawn individuals among mature fish. This reinforces the need to identify better proxies for fertilization success, which we initiated in this study. Second, the freshness of the biological material could also be limiting since the breeders in our study, in contrast with Illing et al. [149], were obtained dead from commercial fishing vessels and no information was available on the exact capture time, except that biological material originated from the last haul before returning to harbor. Although fish were collected after the catch had been landed on the deck and eggs were fertilized rapidly, time post-capture and the effect of rapid temperature change between ice-storage and seawater could both have substantial impacts on fertilization success and subsequent embryonic survival. Indeed, delayed fertilization after ovulation can lead to ova ageing and ultimately to over-ripening of the eggs [150]. Over-ripening phenomenon has been shown to be detrimental to egg quality and to impact fertilization success but also developmental success (e.g. lower survival rate, higher deformity rate; see [150] and references therein). A better solution would consist of stripping freshly captured fish and perform fertilization at sea using incubation boxes in which temperature can be controlled [125]. This method involves large logistic and financial resources, however, and even in this ideal scenario, fertilization rates could be biased since stripped and artificially fertilized eggs can be damaged in the process compared to naturally spawned eggs. Collecting dead fish from fishers represents a practical alternative and, as previously mentioned, the development of egg quality proxies will allow selecting the best females to optimize fertilization success and embryonic survival. Finally, as mentioned previously, male effects could partly determine fertilization success and it is possible that males used here for fertilization trials were not of best quality. In future studies, male effects should be considered and sperm quality should be evaluated (e.g. sperm motility). Overall, several ecological and methodological factors could have impacted fertilization success and subsequent survival rates. These factors do not, however, affect the differences seen across temperature regimes since eggs from each family were incubated in each temperature regime, and all abiotic factors, except for temperature, were the same across rearing systems (Table 1).

4.4. Perspectives

Overall, despite the low number of families, the present results suggest that some female attributes appear as important determinants for reproductive success, as previously shown in other Atlantic herring stocks (e.g. [39, 56, 57]), and also in other species [52, 134, 151, 152]. We also showed some differences in the response to temperature regimes across families (e.g. for fertilization rate) and this potential plasticity should be further explored by considering a higher number of families. The present results may not be representative of the reproductive component as a whole and the natural intra-population variability was likely under-estimated, but this work represents an important first step towards the assessment of responses to climate change mediated by potential parental effects. The present results will allow to explore parental effects in further detail by: (i) considering additional attributes (e.g. egg composition) to find additional reliable estimates for the production of eggs and larvae in recruitment assessments, (ii) thoroughly exploring the different characteristics and offspring quality of recruit vs repeat spawners (i.e. variability across spawning season), and (iii) assessing offspring quality variability across years. Future evaluations should also integrate potential male effects to disentangle properly maternal from paternal effects. Regarding the climate change impact, several further research directions also appear to be important to explore. We here assessed the impact of rising temperature using three regimes with constant temperatures. Even more than rising temperature, an important stress factor to study is the increase in extreme event frequency [91]. We therefore believe that an essential further step consists of investigating the impact of temperature variations. Finally, our study constitutes a single stressor, focused on temperature. This study should be extended to multi-stressor experiments by considering additional sources of stress such as acidification, hypoxia, salinity, UV changes, or concentration of heavy metals or contaminants [24, 111, 153].

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Temperature recorded from a Marel Carnot buoy (code 6200443) in front of Boulogne-sur-Mer between mid-November 2021 and mid-January 2022 (Coriolis data; Lefebvre, 2015).

(PDF)

S2 Fig. Experimental set-up.

(PDF)

S3 Fig. Morphological characteristics from pools of males (n = 3 per pool) used for the fertilization of eggs from the different females.

(PDF)

S4 Fig. Boxplots of fertilization rate across the different families.

Colors correspond to the three temperature scenarios: 8°C (blue), 10°C (green) and 14°C (red).

(PDF)

S5 Fig. Correlation plot of female attributes.

Positive correlations are indicated in red while negative correlations are indicated in blue. Color intensity and circle size are proportional to correlation coefficients.

(PDF)

Acknowledgments

This work would not have been possible without the help of the FROM Nord (Fonds Régional d’Organisation du Marché du poisson) for providing fish for pre-trials and of the CME (Coopérative Maritime Etaploise, Boulogne-sur-Mer) for furnishing biological material for experiments. Authors thank the Nausicaá aquarium (Centre national de la Mer) for hosting our experiment and more particularly Dominique Mallevoy and Florent Kapps for logistic support. Authors also acknowledge the laboratory of Oceanology and Geosciences of ULCO University and Sebastien Monchy for logistic and scientific supports for DNA and RNA extractions. Finally, authors are grateful to Léa Joly for her help with experimental design, Valérie Lefebvre and Guillaume Lescoute for their help with experiment preparation and egg fertilization and to Thibaut Kersaudy, Geoffrey Bled Defruit and Solene Telliez for extraction and ageing data from the otoliths.

Abbreviations

DNA

Deoxyribonucleic acid

EEC

Eastern English Channel

ELS

Early-Life Stages

FC

Fulton condition index

GSI

Gonadosomatic index

HSI

Hepatosomatic index

IPCC

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

K

Brody growth rate coefficient

OE

Oocyte ellipticity

RNA

Ribonucleic acid

SL

Standard Length

TL

Total length

TL∞

Asymptotic average length

W

Wet weight

YSV

Yolk sac volume

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files.

Funding Statement

This work was financially supported by the European Union (ERDF), the French State, the French Region Hauts-de-France and Ifremer, in the framework of the project CPER MARCO 2015-2021. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Brierley AS, Kingsford MJ. Impacts of Climate Change on Marine Organisms and Ecosystems. Curr Biol. 2009;19: R602–14. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2009.05.046 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.IPCC. Technical Summary. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Pörtner H-O, Roberts DC, Tignor M, Poloczanska ES, Mintenbeck K, Alegría A, et al., editors. Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. 2021. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGII_FinalDraft_FullReport.pdf
  • 3.Cao L, Wang S, Zheng M, Zhang H. Sensitivity of ocean acidification and oxygen to the uncertainty in climate change. Environ Res Lett. 2014;9: 064005. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/9/6/064005 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Poloczanska ES, Burrows MT, Brown CJ, Molinos JG, Halpern BS, Hoegh-Guldberg O, et al. Responses of marine organisms to climate change across oceans. Front Mar Sci. 2016;3: 62. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2016.00062 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Cheung WWL, Lam VWY, Sarmiento JL, Kearney K, Watson R, Pauly D. Projecting global marine biodiversity impacts under climate change scenarios. Fish Fish. 2009;10: 235–251. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-2979.2008.00315.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Howes EL, Joos F, Eakin CM, Gattuso JP. An updated synthesis of the observed and projected impacts of climate change on the chemical, physical and biological processes in the oceans. Front Mar Sci. 2015;2: 36. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2015.00036 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Pörtner HO, Farrell AP. Ecology: Physiology and climate change. Science (80-). 2008;322: 690–692. doi: 10.1126/science.1163156 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Rijnsdorp AD, Peck MA, Engelhard GH, Möllmann C, Pinnegar JK. Resolving the effect of climate change on fish populations. ICES J Mar Sci. 2009;66: 1570–1583. doi: 10.1093/icesjms/fsp056 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Graham CT, Harrod C. Implications of climate change for the fishes of the British Isles. J Fish Biol. 2009;74: 1143–1205. doi: 10.1111/j.1095-8649.2009.02180.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Parmesan C. Ecological and evolutionary responses to recent climate change. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst. 2006;37: 637–669. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.37.091305.110100 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Pörtner HO, Peck MA. Climate change effects on fishes and fisheries: Towards a cause-and-effect understanding. J Fish Biol. 2010;77: 1745–1779. doi: 10.1111/j.1095-8649.2010.02783.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Nilsson GE, Lefevre S. Physiological challenges to fishes in a warmer and acidified future. Physiology. 2016;31: 409–417. doi: 10.1152/physiol.00055.2015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Schulte PM. The effects of temperature on aerobic metabolism: Towards a mechanistic understanding of the responses of ectotherms to a changing environment. J Exp Biol. 2015;218: 1856–1866. doi: 10.1242/jeb.118851 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Brander KM. Global fish production and climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2007. pp. 19709–19714. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0702059104 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Hollowed AB, Barange M, Beamish RJ, Brander K, Cochrane K, Drinkwater K, et al. Projected impacts of climate change on marine fish and fisheries. ICES J Mar Sci. 2013;70: 1023–1037. doi: 10.1093/icesjms/fst081 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Maltby KM, Rutterford LA, Tinker J, Genner MJ, Simpson SD. Projected impacts of warming seas on commercially fished species at a biogeographic boundary of the European continental shelf. J Appl Ecol. 2020;57: 2222–2233. doi: 10.1111/1365-2664.13724 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Perry AL, Low PJ, Ellis JR, Reynolds JD. Ecology: Climate change and distribution shifts in marine fishes. Science (80-). 2005;308: 1912–1915. doi: 10.1126/science.1111322 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Petitgas P, Ulrich C, Auber A, Gourguet S, Huret M, Mazurais D, et al. Conséquences du changement climatique sur les écosystèmes marins exploités par la pêche et la conchyliculture. Etudes Mar. 2020;18: 40–53. https://archimer.ifremer.fr/doc/00657/76942/78148.pdf [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Roessig JM, Woodley CM, Cech JJ, Hansen LJ. Effects of global climate change on marine and estuarine fishes and fisheries. Rev Fish Biol Fish. 2004;14: 251–275. doi: 10.1007/s11160-004-6749-0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Cheung WWL. The future of fishes and fisheries in the changing oceans. J Fish Biol. 2018;92: 790–803. doi: 10.1111/jfb.13558 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Parr TW, Sier ARJ, Battarbee RW, Mackay A, Burgess J. Detecting environmental change: Science and society—Perspectives on long-term research and monitoring in the 21st century. Sci Total Environ. 2003;310: 1–8. doi: 10.1016/S0048-9697(03)00257-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Boyd PW, Brown CJ. Modes of interactions between environmental drivers and marine biota. Front Mar Sci. 2015;2: 9. doi: 10.3389/FMARS.2015.00009/BIBTEX [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Todgham AE, Stillman JH. Physiological responses to shifts in multiple environmental stressors: Relevance in a changing world. Integr Comp Biol. 2013;53: 539–544. doi: 10.1093/icb/ict086 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Baumann H. Experimental assessments of marine species sensitivities to ocean acidification and co-stressors: How far have we come?. Can J Zool. 2019;97: 399–408. doi: 10.1139/cjz-2018-0198 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Dahlke FT, Wohlrab S, Butzin M, Pörtner HO. Thermal bottlenecks in the life cycle define climate vulnerability of fish. Science (80-). 2020;369: 65–70. doi: 10.1126/science.aaz3658 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Bogner DM, Kaemingk MA, Wuellner MR. Consequences of hatch phenology on stages of fish recruitment. PLoS One. 2016;11: e0164980. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0164980 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.De Groot AAC. Early life history and recruitement in fish populations. Springer. Aquaculture. 1997. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Sharma R, Porch CE, Babcock EA, Maunder MN, Punt AE. Recruitment: Theory, estimation, and application in fishery stock assessment models. Fish Res. 2019;217: 1–4. doi: 10.1016/j.fishres.2019.03.015 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Jonsson B, Jonsson N. Phenotypic plasticity and epigenetics of fish: Embryo temperature affects later-developing life-history traits. Aquat Biol. 2019;28: 21–32. doi: 10.3354/ab00707 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Pakkasmaa S, Jones M. Individual-level analysis of early life history traits in hatchery-reared lake trout. J Fish Biol. 2002;60: 218–225. doi: 10.1111/j.1095-8649.2002.tb02399.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Catalán IA, Auch D, Kamermans P, Morales-Nin B, Angelopoulos N V., Reglero P, et al. Critically examining the knowledge base required to mechanistically project climate impacts: A case study of Europe’s fish and shellfish. Fish Fish. 2019;20: 501–517. doi: 10.1111/faf.12359 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Geffen AJ. Advances in herring biology: From simple to complex, coping with plasticity and adaptability. ICES J Mar Sci. 2009;66: 1688–1695. doi: 10.1093/icesjms/fsp028 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Stephenson RL, Melvin GD, Power MJ. Population integrity and connectivity in Northwest Atlantic herring: A review of assumptions and evidence. ICES J Mar Sci. 2009;66: 1733–1739. doi: 10.1093/icesjms/fsp189 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Dickey-Collas M, Nash RDM, Brunel T, Van Damme CJG, Marshall CT, Payne MR, et al. Lessons learned from stock collapse and recovery of North Sea herring: A review. ICES J Mar Sci. 2010;67: 1875–1886. doi: 10.1093/icesjms/fsq033 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Ruzzante DE, Mariani S, Bekkevold D, André C, Mosegaard H, Clausen LAW, et al. Biocomplexity in a highly migratory pelagic marine fish, Atlantic herring. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 2006;273: 1459–1464. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2005.3463 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Farrell ED, Campbell N, Carlsson J, Egan A, Gras M, Lusseau SM, et al. Herring in Divisions6.a, 7.b and 7.c: Scientific Assessment of the Identity of the Southern and Northern Stocks through Genetic and Morphometric Analysis Final Report. 2021. https://ec.europa.eu
  • 37.Mehner T, Busch S, Clemmesen C, Helland IP, Hölker F, Ohlberger J, et al. Ecological commonalities among pelagic fishes: Comparison of freshwater ciscoes and marine herring and sprat. Mar Biol. 2012;159: 2583–2603. doi: 10.1007/s00227-012-1922-9 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Batty RS, Blaxter JHS, Fretwell K. Effect of temperature on the escape responses of larval herring, Clupea harengus. Mar Biol. 1993;115: 523–528. doi: 10.1007/BF00349358 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Høie H, Folkvord A, Johannessen A. Maternal, paternal and temperature effects on otolith size of young herring (Clupea harengus L.) larvae. J Exp Mar Bio Ecol. 1999;234: 167–184. doi: 10.1016/S0022-0981(98)00154-3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Holliday FGT, Blaxter JHS, Lasker R. Oxygen Uptake of Developing Eggs and Larvae of the Herring (Clupea Harengus). J Mar Biol Assoc United Kingdom. 1964;44: 711–723. doi: 10.1017/S0025315400027880 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Leo E, Dahlke FT, Storch D, Pörtner HO, Mark FC. Impact of Ocean Acidification and Warming on the bioenergetics of developing eggs of Atlantic herring Clupea harengus. Conserv Physiol. 2018;6: coy050. doi: 10.1093/conphys/coy050 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Overnell J. Temperature and efficiency of development during endogenous feeding in herring embryos and yolk-sac larvae. J Fish Biol. 1997;50: 358–365. doi: 10.1111/j.1095-8649.1997.tb01363.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Overnell J, Batty RS. Scaling of enzyme activity in larval herring and plaice: effects of temperature and individual growth rate on aerobic and anaerobic capacity. J Fish Biol. 2000;56: 577–589. doi: 10.1111/j.1095-8649.2000.tb00756.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Peck MA, Kanstinger P, Holste L, Martin M. Thermal windows supporting survival of the earliest life stages of Baltic herring (Clupea harengus). ICES J Mar Sci. 2012;69: 529–536. doi: 10.1093/icesjms/fss038 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.McKenzie DJ, Zhang Y, Eliason EJ, Schulte PM, Claireaux G, Blasco FR, et al. Intraspecific variation in tolerance of warming in fishes. J Fish Biol. 2021;98: 1536–1555. doi: 10.1111/jfb.14620 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Berg F, Slotte A, Andersson L, Folkvord A. Genetic origin and salinity history influence the reproductive success of Atlantic herring. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2019;617–618: 81–94. doi: 10.3354/meps12680 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Fangue NA, Hofmeister M, Schulte PM. Intraspecific variation in thermal tolerance and heat shock protein gene expression in common killifish, Fundulus heteroclitus. J Exp Biol. 2006;209: 2859–2872. doi: 10.1242/jeb.02260 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Chavarie L, Dempson JB, Schwarz CJ, Reist JD, Power G, Power M. Latitudinal variation in growth among Arctic charr in eastern North America: Evidence for countergradient variation? Hydrobiologia. 2010;650: 161–177. doi: 10.1007/s10750-009-0043-z [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Toomey L, Dellicour S, Kapusta A, Żarski D, Buhrke F, Milla S, et al. Split it up and see: using proxies to highlight divergent inter-populational performances in aquaculture standardised conditions. BMC Ecol Evol. 2021;21: 1–14. doi: 10.1186/s12862-021-01937-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Bang A, Grønkjær P, Clemmesen C, Høie H. Parental effects on early life history traits of Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus L.) larvae. J Exp Mar Bio Ecol. 2006;334: 51–63. doi: 10.1016/j.jembe.2006.01.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Probst WN, Kraus G, Rideout RM, Trippel EA. Parental effects on early life history traits of haddock Melanogrammus aeglefinus. ICES J Mar Sci. 2006;63: 224–234. doi: 10.1016/j.icesjms.2005.11.015 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Green BS. Chapter 1 Maternal Effects in Fish Populations. Advances in Marine Biology. Academic Press; 2008. pp. 1–105. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Green BS, McCormick MI. Maternal and paternal effects determine size, growth and performance in larvae of a tropical reef fish. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2005;289: 263–272. doi: 10.3354/meps289263 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Johnston TA, Leggett WC. Maternal and environmental gradients in the egg size of an iteroparous fish. Ecology. 2002;83: 1777–1791. doi: 10.1890/0012-9658(2002)083[1777:MAEGIT]2.0.CO;2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Mousseau TA, Fox CW. The adaptive significance of maternal effects. Trends Ecol Evol. 1998;13: 403–407. doi: 10.1016/s0169-5347(98)01472-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Laine P, Rajasilta M. The hatching success of Baltic herring eggs and its relation to female condition. J Exp Mar Bio Ecol. 1999;237: 61–73. doi: 10.1016/S0022-0981(98)00213-5 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Blaxter JHS, Hempel G. The influence of egg size on herring larvae (Clupea harengus l.). ICES J Mar Sci. 1963;28: 211–240. doi: 10.1093/icesjms/28.2.211 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.van Damme CJG, Dickey-Collas M, Rijnsdorp AD, Kjesbu OS. Fecundity, atresia, and spawning strategies of Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus). Can J Fish Aquat Sci. 2009;66: 2130–2141. doi: 10.1139/F09-153 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Fässler SMM, Payne MR, Brunel T, Dickey-Collas M. Does larval mortality influence population dynamics? An analysis of North Sea herring (Clupea harengus) time series. Fish Oceanogr. 2011;20: 530–543. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2419.2011.00600.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Payne MR. Mind the gaps: A state-space model for analysing the dynamics of North Sea herring spawning components. ICES J Mar Sci. 2010;67: 1939–1947. doi: 10.1093/icesjms/fsq036 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Joly L. Impact of global change on the development and survival of Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus): a multi-stressors approach. University of Lille. 2022.
  • 62.Lefebvre A. MAREL Carnot data and metadata from Coriolis Data Centre. SEANOE. 2015.
  • 63.Joly LJ, Loots C, Meunier CL, Boersma M, Collet S, Lefebvre V, et al. Maturation of the digestive system of Downs herring larvae (Clupea harengus, Linnaeus, 1758): identification of critical periods through ontogeny. Mar Biol. 2021;168: 82. doi: 10.1007/s00227-021-03894-z [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Schneider CA, Rasband WS, Eliceiri KW. NIH Image to ImageJ: 25 years of image analysis. Nat Methods. 2012;9: 671–675. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.2089 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.De Chaumont F, Dallongeville S, Chenouard N, Hervé N, Pop S, Provoost T, et al. Icy: An open bioimage informatics platform for extended reproducible research. Nat Methods. 2012;9: 690–696. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.2075 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Campana SE. How reliable are growth back-calculations based on otoliths? Can J Fish Aquat Sci. 1990;47: 2219–2227. doi: 10.1139/f90-246 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Vigliola L, Meekan MG. The Back-Calculation of Fish Growth From Otoliths. 2009;270: 174–211. [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Arrhenius F, Hansson S. Growth and seasonal changes in energy content of young Baltic Sea herring (Clupea harengus L.). ICES J Mar Sci. 1996;53: 792–801. doi: 10.1006/jmsc.1996.0100 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Campana SE, Moksness E. Accuracy and precision of age and hatch date estimates from otolith microstructure examination. ICES J Mar Sci. 1991;48: 303–316. doi: 10.1093/icesjms/48.3.303 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Folkvord A, Rukan K, Johannessen A, Moksness E. Early life history of herring larvae in contrasting feeding environments determined by otolith microstructure analysis. J Fish Biol. 1997;51: 250–263. doi: 10.1111/j.1095-8649.1997.tb06102.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Fossum P, Moksness E. Estimated Hatching Date and Growth History of Norwegian Spring Spawning Herring (Clupea Harengus L.) From Otolith Data of Larvae of the 1990 Yearclass. 1991 [cited 20 Apr 2022]. https://imr.brage.unit.no/imr-xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/104918/CM_1991_H_14.pdf?sequence=1
  • 72.Lough RG, Pennington M, Bolz GR, Rosenberg AA. Age and Growth of Larval Atlantic Herring, Clupea-Harengus L, in the Gulf of Maine Georges Bank Region Based on Otolith Growth Increments. Fish Bull. 1982;80: 187–199. [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Moksness E. Differences in otolith microstructure and body growth rate of north sea herring (Clupea harengus l.) larvae in the period 1987–1989. ICES J Mar Sci. 1992;49: 223–230. doi: 10.1093/icesjms/49.2.223 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Moksness E, Fossum P. Distinguishing spring- and autumn-spawned herring larvae (Clupea harengus l.) by otolith microstructure. ICES J Mar Sci. 1991;48: 61–66. doi: 10.1093/icesjms/48.1.61 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Slotte A, Husebø Å, Berg F, Stenevik EK, Folkvord A, Fossum P, et al. Earlier hatching and slower growth: A key to survival in the early life history of Norwegian spring spawning herring. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2018;2018: 25–39. doi: 10.3354/meps12682 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Froese R, Pauly D. FishBase. World Wide Web electronic publication. In: FishBase. World Wide Web electronic publication. [Internet]. 2021. https://cir.nii.ac.jp/crid/1574231874729185152%0Ahttps://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/10029401838%0Awww.fishbase.org%0Ahttps://www.fishbase.se/search.php
  • 77.Mustafa S, Lagardère JP, Pastoureaud A. Condition indices and RNA: DNA ratio in overwintering European sea bass, Dicentrarchus labrax, in salt marshes along the Atlantic coast of France. Aquaculture. 1991;96: 367–374. doi: 10.1016/0044-8486(91)90165-4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Rinella DJ, Wipfli MS, Stricker CA, Heintz RA, Rinella MJ. Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) runs and consumer fitness: Growth and energy storage in stream-dwelling salmonids increase with salmon spawner density. Can J Fish Aquat Sci. 2012;69: 73–84. doi: 10.1139/F2011-133 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Yandi I, Altinok I. Defining the starvation potential and the influence on RNA/DNA ratios in horse mackerel (Trachurus mediterraneus) larvae. Helgol Mar Res. 2015;69: 25–35. doi: 10.1007/s10152-014-0414-3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Hill J, Johnston IA. Photomicrographic atlas of Atlantic herring embryonic development. J Fish Biol. 1997;51: 960–977. doi: 10.1111/j.1095-8649.1997.tb01535.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Franke A, Clemmesen C. Effect of ocean acidification on early life stages of Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus L.). Biogeosciences. 2011;8: 3697–3707. doi: 10.5194/bg-8-3697-2011 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Doyle MJ. A morphological staging system for the larval development of the herring, Clupea harengus l. J Mar Biol Assoc United Kingdom. 1977;57: 859–867. doi: 10.1017/S0025315400025212 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Team RC. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. 2021. https://www.r-project.org/.
  • 84.Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S. lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. 2015. https://cran.r-project.org/package=lme4
  • 85.Lenth R. Emmeans: estimated marginal means. R Packag version 142. 2019. https://cran.r-project.org/package=emmeans.
  • 86.Hervé M. RVAideMemoire: Testing and Plotting Procedures for Biostatistics. R package version 0.9–73. 2021. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/RVAideMemoire/RVAideMemoire.pdf
  • 87.Fox J, Weisberg S. R Companion to Applied Regression, Third edition. Sage, Thousand Oaks CA. Thousand Oaks CA Sage. 2019. https://socialsciences.mcmaster.ca/jfox/Books/Companion/ [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Fox J, Monette G. Generalized collinearity diagnostics. J Am Stat Assoc. 1992;87: 178–183. doi: 10.1080/01621459.1992.10475190 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 89.Lüdecke D, Ben-Shachar M, Patil I, Waggoner P, Makowski D. performance: An R Package for Assessment, Comparison and Testing of Statistical Models. J Open Source Softw. 2021;6: 3139. doi: 10.21105/joss.03139 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 90.Long JA. Jtools: Analysis and Presentation of Social Scientific Data. Cran. 2020. https://cran.r-project.org/package=jtools
  • 91.IPCC. Summary for Policymakers. In: IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate. Pörtner H-O, Roberts DC, Masson-Delmotte V, Zhai P, Tignor M, Poloczanska E, et al., editors. 2019. https://www.ipcc.ch/srocc/
  • 92.Moyano M, Illing B, Peschutter P, Huebert KB, Peck MA. Thermal impacts on the growth, development and ontogeny of critical swimming speed in Atlantic herring larvae. Comp Biochem Physiol -Part A Mol Integr Physiol. 2016;197: 23–34. doi: 10.1016/j.cbpa.2016.02.020 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 93.Sswat M, Stiasny MH, Jutfelt F, Riebesell U, Clemmesen C. Growth performance and survival of larval Atlantic herring, under the combined effects of elevated temperatures and CO2. PLoS One. 2018;13: e0191947. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0191947 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 94.Blaxter JHS, Hempel G. Utilization of yolk by herring larvae. J Mar Biol Assoc United Kingdom. 1966;46: 219–234. doi: 10.1017/S0025315400027090 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 95.L’Hévéder B, Speich S, Ragueneau O, Gohin F, Bryère P. Observed and projected sea surface temperature seasonal changes in the Western English Channel from satellite data and CMIP5 multi-model ensemble. Int J Climatol. 2017;37: 2831–2849. doi: 10.1002/joc.4882 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 96.Saulquin B, Gohin F. Mean seasonal cycle and evolution of the sea surface temperature from satellite and in situ data in the English Channel for the period 1986–2006. Int J Remote Sens. 2010;31: 4069–4093. doi: 10.1080/01431160903199155 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 97.Alavi SMH, Cosson J. Sperm motility in fishes. I. Effects of temperature and pH: A review. Cell Biology International. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2005. pp. 101–110. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 98.Bobe J. Egg quality in fish: Present and future challenges. Anim Front. 2015;5: 66–72. doi: 10.2527/af.2015-0010 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 99.Bobe J, Labbé C. Egg and sperm quality in fish. Gen Comp Endocrinol. 2010;165: 535–548. doi: 10.1016/j.ygcen.2009.02.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 100.Dadras H, Dzyuba B, Cosson J, Golpour A, Siddique MAM, Linhart O. Effect of water temperature on the physiology of fish spermatozoon function: a brief review. Aquac Res. 2017;48: 729–740. doi: 10.1111/are.13049 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 101.Alix M, Kjesbu OS, Anderson KC. From gametogenesis to spawning: How climate-driven warming affects teleost reproductive biology. J Fish Biol. 2020;97: 607–632. doi: 10.1111/jfb.14439 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 102.Gamble JC, Maclachlan P, Seaton DD. Comparative growth and development of autumn and spring spawned Atlantic herring larvae reared in large enclosed ecosystems. Mar Ecol—Prog Ser. 1985;26: 19–33. doi: 10.3354/meps026019 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 103.Holliday FGT, Blaxter JHS. The effects of salinity on the developing eggs and larvae of the herring. J Mar Biol Assoc United Kingdom. 1960;39: 591–603. doi: 10.1017/S0025315400013564 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 104.Kinne O, Rosenthal H. Effects of sulfuric water pollutants on fertilization, embryonic development and larvae of the herring, Clupea harengus. Mar Biol. 1967;1: 65–83. doi: 10.1007/BF00346697 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 105.Munk P, Rosenthal H. Variability in size of herring larvae at hatching–influence of egg deposition patterns and parental fish. Ices C. 1983;50. https://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/CM%20Doccuments/1983/L/1983_L33.pdf
  • 106.Villalobos C, Love BA, Olson MB. Ocean Acidification and Ocean Warming Effects on Pacific Herring (Clupea pallasi) Early Life Stages. Front Mar Sci. 2020;7: 597899. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2020.597899 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 107.Wen W, Huang X, Chen Q, Feng L, Wei L. Temperature effects on early development and biochemical dynamics of a marine fish, Inimicus japonicus. J Exp Mar Bio Ecol. 2013;442: 22–29. doi: 10.1016/j.jembe.2013.01.025 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 108.von Nordheim L, Kotterba P, Moll D, Polte P. Impact of Spawning Substrate Complexity on Egg Survival of Atlantic Herring (Clupea harengus, L.) in the Baltic Sea. Estuaries and Coasts. 2018;41: 549–559. doi: 10.1007/s12237-017-0283-5 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 109.von Nordheim L, Kotterba P, Moll D, Polte P. Lethal effect of filamentous algal blooms on Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus) eggs in the Baltic Sea. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshw Ecosyst. 2020;30: 1362–1372. doi: 10.1002/aqc.3329 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 110.Ojaveer E. Influence of temperature, salinity, and reproductive mixing of Baltic herring groups on its embryonal development. Rapp procès verbaux des réunions—Cons Int pour l’exploration la mer. 1981;178: 409–415. [Google Scholar]
  • 111.Dinnel PA, Middaugh DP, Schwarck NT, Farren HM, Haley RK, Hoover RA, et al. Methods for conducting bioassays using embryos and larvae of pacific herring, Clupea pallasi. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol. 2011;60: 290–308. doi: 10.1007/s00244-010-9600-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 112.Pankhurst NW, Munday PL. Effects of climate change on fish reproduction and early life history stages. Mar Freshw Res. 2011;62: 1015–1026. doi: 10.1071/MF10269 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 113.Johnston IA. Temperature influences muscle differentiation and the relative timing of organogenesis in herring (Clupea harengus) larvae. Mar Biol Int J Life Ocean Coast Waters. 1993;116: 363–379. doi: 10.1007/BF00350053 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 114.Johnston IA, Cole NJ, Vieira VLA, Davidson I. Temperature and developmental plasticity of muscle phenotype in herring larvae. J Exp Biol. 1997;200: 849–868. doi: 10.1242/jeb.200.5.849 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 115.Vieira VIA, Johnston IA. Influence of temperature on muscle-fibre development in larvae of the herring Clupea harengus. Mar Biol. 1992;112: 333–341. doi: 10.1007/BF00702480 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 116.Viader-Guerrero M, Guzmán-Villanueva LT, Spanopoulos-Zarco M, Estrada-Godínez JA, Maldonado-García D, Gracia-López V, et al. Effects of temperature on hatching rate and early larval development of longfin yellowtail Seriola rivoliana. Aquac Reports. 2021;21: 100843. doi: 10.1016/j.aqrep.2021.100843 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 117.Blaxter JHS, Hempel G. Biologische Beobachtungen bei der Aufzucht von Heringsbrut. Helgoländer Wissenschaftliche Meeresuntersuchungen. 1961;7: 260–283. doi: 10.1007/BF01880280 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 118.Petitgas P, Rijnsdorp AD, Dickey-Collas M, Engelhard GH, Peck MA, Pinnegar JK, et al. Impacts of climate change on the complex life cycles of fish. Fish Oceanogr. 2013;22: 121–139. doi: 10.1111/fog.12010 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 119.Hufnagl M, Peck MA. Physiological individual-based modelling of larval Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus) foraging and growth: Insights on climate-driven life-history scheduling. ICES J Mar Sci. 2011;68: 1170–1188. doi: 10.1093/icesjms/fsr078 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 120.Sims DW, Wearmouth VJ, Genner MJ, Southward AJ, Hawkins SJ. Low-temperature-driven early spawning migration of a temperate marine fish. J Anim Ecol. 2004;73: 333–341. doi: 10.1111/j.0021-8790.2004.00810.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 121.Drinkwater KF, Beaugrand G, Kaeriyama M, Kim S, Ottersen G, Perry RI, et al. On the processes linking climate to ecosystem changes. J Mar Syst. 2010;79: 374–388. doi: 10.1016/j.jmarsys.2008.12.014 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 122.Ory NC, Gröger JP, Lehmann A, Mittermayer F, Clemmesen C. Early Arrival of Spring-Spawner Atlantic Herring at Their Spawning Ground in the Kiel Fjord, Western Baltic, Relates to Increasing Sea Water Temperature. SSRN Electron J. 2022 [cited 20 Jul 2022].
  • 123.Fauchald P, Skov H, Skern-Mauritzen M, Johns D, Tveraa T. Wasp-Waist interactions in the North Sea ecosystem. PLoS One. 2011;6: e22729. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0022729 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 124.Christopher Chambers R. Maternal influences on variation in egg sizes in temperate marine fishes’. Am Zool. 1996;36: 180–196. doi: 10.1093/icb/36.2.180 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 125.Geffen AJ, Nash RDM. Egg development rates for use in egg production methods (EPMs) and beyond. Fish Res. 2012;117–118: 48–62. doi: 10.1016/j.fishres.2011.01.002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 126.Kamler E. Parent-egg-progeny relationships in teleost fishes: An energetics perspective. Rev Fish Biol Fish. 2005;15: 399–421. doi: 10.1007/s11160-006-0002-y [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 127.Brooks S, Tyler CR, Sumpter JP. Egg quality in fish: What makes a good egg? Rev Fish Biol Fish. 1997;7: 387–416. doi: 10.1023/A:1018400130692 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 128.Izquierdo MS, Fernández-Palacios H, Tacon AGJ. Effect of broodstock nutrition on reproductive performance of fish. Aquaculture. 2001;197: 25–42. doi: 10.1016/S0044-8486(01)00581-6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 129.Foley CJ, Bradley DL, Höök TO. A review and assessment of the potential use of RNA:DNA ratios to assess the condition of entrained fish larvae. Ecol Indic. 2016;60: 346–357. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.07.005 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 130.Hixon MA, Johnson DW, Sogard SM. BOFFFFs: On the importance of conserving old-growth age structure in fishery populations. ICES J Mar Sci. 2014;71: 2171–2185. doi: 10.1093/icesjms/fst200 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 131.Berkeley SA, Chapman C, Sogard SM. Maternal age as a determinant of larval growth and survival in a marine fish, Sebastes melanops. Ecology. 2004;85: 1258–1264. doi: 10.1890/03-0706 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 132.Mcbride RS, Somarakis S, Fitzhugh GR, Albert A, Yaragina NA, Wuenschel MJ, et al. Energy acquisition and allocation to egg production in relation to fish reproductive strategies. Fish Fish. 2015;16: 23–57. doi: 10.1111/faf.12043 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 133.Rajasilta M, Laine P, Paranko J. Current growth, fat reserves and somatic condition of juvenile Baltic herring (Clupea harengus membras) reared in different salinities. Helgol Mar Res. 2011;65: 59–66. doi: 10.1007/s10152-010-0201-8 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 134.Snyder JT, Murray CS, Baumann H. Potential for maternal effects on offspring CO2 sensitivities in the Atlantic silverside (Menidia menidia). J Exp Mar Bio Ecol. 2018;499: 1–8. doi: 10.1016/j.jembe.2017.11.002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 135.Brown ML, Murphy BR. Seasonal dynamics of direct and indirect condition indices in relation to energy allocation in largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides (Lacèpede). Ecol Freshw Fish. 2004;13: 23–36. doi: 10.1111/j.0906-6691.2004.00031.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 136.Slesinger E, Jensen OP, Saba G. Spawning phenology of a rapidly shifting marine fish species throughout its range. ICES J Mar Sci. 2021;78: 1010–1022. doi: 10.1093/icesjms/fsaa252 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 137.Fateh C, Lyamine M, Mostefa B. Reproductive cycle of the gilthead sea bream Sparus aurata Linnaeus, 1758 (Pisces Perciformes Sparidae) in the Gulf of Skikda (Algerian East coast). Biodivers J. 2018;9: 19–24. Available: https://www.biodiversityjournal.com/pdf/9(1)_19-24.pdf [Google Scholar]
  • 138.Horri K, Alfonso S, Cousin X, Munschy C, Loizeau V, Aroua S, et al. Fish life-history traits are affected after chronic dietary exposure to an environmentally realistic marine mixture of PCBs and PBDEs. Sci Total Environ. 2018;610–611: 531–545. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.08.083 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 139.Bernal MA, Ravasi T, Rodgers GG, Munday PL, Donelson JM. Plasticity to ocean warming is influenced by transgenerational, reproductive, and developmental exposure in a coral reef fish. Evol Appl. 2022;15: 249–261. doi: 10.1111/eva.13337 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 140.Berkeley SA, Hixon MA, Larson RJ, Love MS. Fisheries Sustainability via Protection of Age Structure and Spatial Distribution of Fish Populations. Fisheries. 2004;29: 23–32. doi: 10.1577/1548-8446(2004)29[23:fsvpoa]2.0.co;2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 141.Ohlberger J, Langangen Ø, Stige LC. Age structure affects population productivity in an exploited fish species. Ecol Appl. 2022. doi: 10.1002/eap.2614 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 142.Rouyer T, Ottersen G, Durant JM, Hidalgo M, Hjermann D, Persson J, et al. Shifting dynamic forces in fish stock fluctuations triggered by age truncation? Glob Chang Biol. 2011;17: 3046–3057. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02443.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 143.Huang AT, Alter K, Polte P, Peck MA. Disentangling seasonal from maternal effects on egg characteristics in western Baltic spring-spawning herring Clupea harengus. J Fish Biol. 2022;101: 1428–1440. doi: 10.1111/jfb.15210 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 144.Aich U, Jennions MD, Fox RJ. An experimental test of the role of male mating history on paternal effects in the livebearer fish Gambusia holbrooki. Biol Lett. 2020;16: 20190945. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2019.0945 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 145.Rideout RM, Trippel EA, Litvak MK. Relationship between sperm density, spermatocrit, sperm motility and spawning date in wild and cultured haddock. J Fish Biol. 2004;65: 319–332. doi: 10.1111/j.0022-1112.2004.00451.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 146.Evans JP, Geffen AJ. Male characteristics, sperm traits, and reproductive success in winter-spawning Celtic Sea Atlantic herring, Clupea harengus. Mar Biol. 1998;132: 179–186. doi: 10.1007/s002270050384 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 147.Geffen AJ. Variations in sperm motility of the Atlantic herring Clupea harengus. Mar Biol. 1999;134: 637–643. doi: 10.1007/s002270050579 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 148.ICES. Herring Assessment Working Group for the Area South of 62° N (HAWG). ICES Sci Reports. 2021.
  • 149.Illing B, Moyano M, Berg J, Hufnagl M, Peck MA. Behavioral and physiological responses to prey match-mismatch in larval herring. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci. 2018;201: 82–94. doi: 10.1016/j.ecss.2016.01.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 150.Samarin AM, Zarski D, Palińska-Zarska K, Krejszeff S, Blecha M, Kucharczyk D, et al. In vitro storage of unfertilized eggs of the Eurasian perch and its effect on egg viability rates and the occurrence of larval malformations. animal. 2017;11: 78–83. doi: 10.1017/S1751731116001361 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 151.Clemmesen C, Bühler V, Carvalho G, Case R, Evans G, Hauser L, et al. Variability in condition and growth of Atlantic cod larvae and juveniles reared in mesocosms: Environmental and maternal effects. J Fish Biol. 2003;62: 706–723. doi: 10.1046/j.1095-8649.2003.00060.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 152.Macchi GJ, Leonarduzzi E, Diaz M V., Renzi M, Rodrigues K. Maternal effects on fecundity and egg quality of the Patagonian stock of Argentine Hake (Merluccius hubbsi). Fish Bull. 2013;111: 325–336. doi: 10.7755/FB.111.4.3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 153.Gunderson AR, Armstrong EJ, Stillman JH. Multiple Stressors in a Changing World: The Need for an Improved Perspective on Physiological Responses to the Dynamic Marine Environment. Ann Rev Mar Sci. 2016;8: 357–378. doi: 10.1146/annurev-marine-122414-033953 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

A K Shakur Ahammad

14 Feb 2023

PONE-D-22-34768Impact of temperature on Downs herring embryonic stages: first insights from an experimental approachPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Lola,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 27 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

A. K. Shakur Ahammad, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. 

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: 

"This work was financially supported by the European Union (ERDF), the French State, the French Region Hauts-de-France and Ifremer, in the framework of the project CPER MARCO 2015-2021. "

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. 

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: 

"This work was financially supported by the European Union (ERDF), the French State, the French Region Hauts-de-France and Ifremer, in the framework of the project CPER MARCO 2015-2021. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear Authors,

The authors have evaluated the “Downs herring embryonic stages: first insights from an experimental approach, in relation to temperature”. This work has very good practical implications in increasing the seed production of herring fish. This work has been planned and executed well and the tables & figures are well represented.

Generally, this research is original and a nice contribution in the field of embryology. The Downs herring is an very important fish species for mariculture. Some of the important recent work may be added in the Manuscript.

The paper is well written and adds to existing literature on the subject. The introduction is well composed and has been developed on the right lines. All portion of your methodology is clear. The results have been presented well. The discussion has been well brought out but need to address the reviewer comments to justify your design and work. References are as required. There are some minor revision should be addressed. Please find the all reviewer comments through downloading the reviewed file.

With regards

Academic Editor

A. K. Shakur Ahammad

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Dear authors,

I have performed the review of your submitted work entitled "Impact of temperature on Downs herring embryonic stages: first insights from an experimental approach".

Overall, the submitted work is based upon a pertinent subject (Ocean warming effect on Herring embryonic development), allied to a detailed analyses of experimental data.

The work itself provides data that is relevant to move beyond the state of the art of the addressed topics. The significance of contents, scientific soundness, and overall interest to peers is high, altough minor revisions are in order, which could improve the overall output of what was done.

Please find attached, the submitted manuscript with comments included.

Sincerely yours,

The reviewer

Reviewer #2: The manuscript entitled “Impact of temperature on Downs herring embryonic stages: first insights from an experimental approach” is a well-written record of the impact of temperature on Downs herring embryonic stages in a practical way. The MS explains a scientifically planned research work, and the results were expressed with sufficient data. The research is a piece of novel information for the scientific community to understand the dynamics of the impact of temperature on Downs herring embryonic stages, which is much more relevant today. Even though the MS is written well, there are a few suggestions to improve MS. With below mentioned minor corrections; the MS may be considered for publication in the journal.

Title: The scientific name can be included in the title.

Abstract: Some of the values/statistics can be used in the abstract to explain the results of the present study to increase clarity. A sentence can be added at the end to demonstrate the relevance of the results or as a conclusion with the outcome of the study.

Introduction: I felt the introduction is very elaborate and needs to be concise. It can be started with the background information, research problem, present status of the research in that line, and what the present study aims to unravel.

Materials and Methods: Properly written with all required details.

Results and Discussion: Written well with good data representations.

Reviewer #3: This article aims to evaluate the effect of different water temperatures on the sensitive embryonic period and investigate potential parental effects on embryonic traits. The Ms in general presents well written and organized. For this reason, I think that after a minor revision this paper has to be published soon. Some comments are listed below:

Specific comments:

Line 175-176: All animal experiments should comply with the ARRIVE guidelines. It seems that all breeders were killed for GSI and muscle RNA:DNA studies, please revise it.

Line 223: Total Length, please use in lower case.

Line 282: Same as above. Sac Volume, please use in lower case.

Table 1: The authors should add explanations about experimental days under each temperature regime. To my knowledge, usually incubation time is given at half the day of yours (Blaxter, 1968).

2.5. Statistical analyses: Statistical measures such as SD or SE should be identified.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-22-34768_reviewer - Reviewed.pdf

PLoS One. 2023 Apr 7;18(4):e0284125. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0284125.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


20 Mar 2023

Editorial comments:

Ed#1: “1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf”

Author’s response: We checked the manuscript and modified it following requirements.

Ed#2: “2. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.”

Author’s response: Modifications were made.

Ed#3: “3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: "This work was financially supported by the European Union (ERDF), the French State, the French Region Hauts-de-France and Ifremer, in the framework of the project CPER MARCO 2015-2021." We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: "This work was financially supported by the European Union (ERDF), the French State, the French Region Hauts-de-France and Ifremer, in the framework of the project CPER MARCO 2015-2021. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Author’s response: The funding statement is correct. We removed this statement from the Acknowledgements section.

Ed#4: “4. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.”

Author’s response: The reference list was checked.

Additional editor comments:

Ed#5: The authors have evaluated the “Downs herring embryonic stages: first insights from an experimental approach, in relation to temperature”. This work has very good practical implications in increasing the seed production of herring fish. This work has been planned and executed well and the tables & figures are well represented. Generally, this research is original and a nice contribution in the field of embryology. The Downs herring is an very important fish species for mariculture. Some of the important recent work may be added in the Manuscript. The paper is well written and adds to existing literature on the subject. The introduction is well composed and has been developed on the right lines. All portion of your methodology is clear. The results have been presented well. The discussion has been well brought out but need to address the reviewer comments to justify your design and work. References are as required. There are some minor revision should be addressed. Please find the all reviewer comments through downloading the reviewed file..”

Author’s response: We thank you for your recommendations. We responded to each of the reviewers’ comments and modified accordingly the manuscript.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reviewer 1

R1#1: “I have performed the review of your submitted work entitled "Impact of temperature on Downs herring embryonic stages: first insights from an experimental approach". Overall, the submitted work is based upon a pertinent subject (Ocean warming effect on Herring embryonic development), allied to a detailed analyses of experimental data The work itself provides data that is relevant to move beyond the state of the art of the addressed topics. The significance of contents, scientific soundness, and overall interest to peers is high, altough minor revisions are in order, which could improve the overall output of what was done. Please find attached, the submitted manuscript with comments included.”

Author’s answer: We thank you for your detailed evaluation and we respond to all your specific comments below.

R1#2: “Suggestion: Maybe "settings" instead of "regimes"

Author’s answer: We removed regimes to simplify.

R1#3: “Suggestion: Maybe "Overall, ..." instead of "Global"

Author’s answer: Modification was made.

R1#4: “Suggestion: Maybe "observed" instead of "demonstrated"

Author’s answer: Modification was done.

R1#5: “Suggestion: Maybe "(eyed stage)" instead of "at eyed stage"”

Author’s answer: We kept the precision of the eyed stage because mean diameter could be measured at any time across development. Eyed stage is yet considered as a good comparison point across temperature scenarios since it is considered as a development stage.

R1#6: “Suggestion: Maybe "observable" instead of "highlighted"”

Author’s answer: We replaced “highlighted” by “observed”.

R1#7: “Suggestion: It would be more pertinent to include "ocean warming" instead of "climate change" or just simply "temperature"”

Author’s answer: You are right, we replaced it by ocean warming (temperature being already in the title).

R1#8: “Suggestion: maybe include "(IPCC)" after the highlighted text.”

Author’s answer: Modification was done.

R1#9: “Suggestion: maybe "ocean" instead of "water".”

Author’s answer: Modification was made.

R1#10: “Suggestion: maybe "a sea surface temperature (SST) increase" instead of "sea surface warming".”

Author’s answer: Modification was made but we did not add the acronym since it is not further used in the text.

R1#11: “Suggestion: maybe "climate change stressors (e.g. ocean warming)" instead of "climate change". Suggestion: maybe "could potentially" instead of "could".”

Author’s answer: Modifications were made.

R1#12: “Suggestion: maybe "ocean warming" instead of "warming".”

Author’s answer: The text was modified.

R1#13: “Please include a reference to sustain the underlying info of the sentence”

Author’s answer: A reference was added (Boyd & Brown, 10.3389/fmars.2015.00009).

R1#14: “Suggestion: I would use "drivers" instead of "stressors", once to some species, some could be stressors, while for others they could not pose or induce a stress response.”

Author’s answer: You are right, we modified the text.

R1#15: “Suggestion: I would use "while providing" instead of "and they provide".”

Author’s answer: Modification was done.

R1#16: “Suggestion: I would add afterwards "(ELS)" and use it subsequently throughout the text”

Author’s answer: Modification was done and we replaced it along the text.

R1#17: “Suggestion: I would use "fosused on the" instead of "investigated".”

Author’s answer: Modification was done

R1#18: “Suggestion: I would use "was" instead of "is".”

Author’s answer: Modification was done

R1#19: “Suggestion: I would use "These" instead of "Maternal effects".”

Author’s answer: Modification was done

R1#20: “Suggestion: I would use "in comparison to" instead of "to".”

Author’s answer: Modification was done

R1#21: “Are all these (lines 148-151) values refering to SD? if so, please include it.”

Author’s answer: Values correspond indeed to standard deviation, we specified it line 160.

R1#22: “Plastic plates or petri dishes? Please confirm. 25cm2 is the bottom area, right? if so, please include it.”

Author’s answer: Eggs were spread on plastic plates as mentioned in the text, not petri dishes. 25cm2 is indeed the bottom area. For clarity, we replaced the surface by length and height measurements (l. 168)

R1#23: “Please include model/brand and amplification.”

Author’s answer: Information were added to the text.

R1#24: “To what contaminants are the authors referring to? Some contaminants are not removable just with seawater. Moreover, the presence of some contaminants could have had a negative impact on embryo development and subsequent development stages.”

Author’s answer: Contaminants is probably not the most accurate term, we referred here to potential sperm/blood leftovers. Since it can be misinterpreted, we removed that term. Contaminants such as pollutants are mentioned in the discussion as a potential additional stressor (l. 634 and 747).

R1#25: “Which endpoint was used to assess if embryos were dead, upon MS-222 overdose exposure?”

Author’s answer: Herring embryos were considered dead when we could not observe any heartbeat. This was added to the text l.191, as well as the concentration used.

R1#26: “Suggestion: I would use "aquatic rearing systems" instead of just "rearing systems". there are other information (rearing systems) missing, namely: i) Were the rearing systems open, closed (RAS) or semi-open?; ii) Was there biological filtration?; iii) protein skimmers?”

Author’s answer: The text was modified to add “aquatic”. The system was semi-open (partial reuse), this information was added to the text. There was no specific biological filtration. Ammonia was controlled by water exchange. Oxygen was controlled with aeration. There was no need for protein skimmers as water was mechanically filtered down to 1 µm.

R1#27: “Suggestion: maybe it is better to change from "... UV-treated ... and mechanically filtered ..." to "... mechanically filtered ... and UV-treated". UV sterilization is always the last step of water treatment.”

Author’s answer: You are right, we modified the sentence.

R1#28: “The seawater was natural one, right? If so, please include it as natural seawater (NSW).”

Author’s answer: We modified it.

R1#29: “Suggestion: I would use "12h/12h L:D (light/dark cycle)" instead of just "12:12".”

Author’s answer: Modification was done.

R1#30: “What do the authors mean by "luminosity"? Maybe "illuminance" instead. Also lx, I do not understand the meaning of it. Maybe "LUX" instead. Please clarify.”

Author’s answer: Luminosity corresponds to light intensity, we modified the text. Lx corresponds to lux, we modified it.

R1#31: “Please include the measuring devices (model, brand).”

Author’s answer: We added the information to the text.

R1#31: “Please clarify because I do not understand the meaning of it, i.e. all larvae ... died in the egg??”

Author’s answer: We modified the text since it was not clear. What we meant is that the experiment ended when all larvae had hatched or when there was no more hatching (dead embryos). We were referring to embryos that died without hatching.

R1#32: “Suggestion: I would include (days post fertilization (dpf)" instead, both in the table caption and remaining text of the work”

Author’s answer: Since the table is independent from the text (journal guidelines), we introduced the abbreviation further in the text (line 273-274).

R1#33: “Could the authors provide the brand/model of the salinity measurement equipment that provides such accurate measurements? Moreover, are these salinity values representative of the collection areas, at the time of adult collection/trawling? Please clarify.”

Author’s answer: The brand of the multiparameter probe was added, as required earlier, line 209-210. These salinities are lower than the fishing zone since natural seawater is pumped close to the shore. However, salinity was shown to have no impact on fertilization rate above 20 according to Holliday & Blaxter (doi: 10.1017/S0025315400013564). According to the same paper, it can however impact morphological characteristics (egg diameter, length at hatching) and hatching rate. This parameter is therefore mentioned at the end of discussion as a driver to consider for future studies based on multi-driver approaches (l. 746).

R1#34: “Something is missing”

Author’s answer: Indeed, the small “i” (for total length at age i) disappeared during submission (word to pdf), we inserted it again.

R1#35: “Could the authors please clarify??”

Author’s answer: Since two out of the four plates were manipulated along development, there were excluded from hatching rate assessment to avoid biases. That is why hatching rate is calculated for two plates per family and per temperature regime (one hatching rate value per plate, therefore two values per family and per temperature scenario). Instead of “per female” it should be “per family”. Text and figures were modified since using “female” could be confusing. Overall we had: 2 plates x 4 families x 3 temperatures = 24 plates evaluated in total. One plate had a null fertilization rate and we thus we had a total of 23 plates. We modified the text to make it clearer.

R1#36: “YY axis description according to Figure 1caption”

Author’s answer: The figure axes were modified to match with the caption.

R1#37: “Please add afterwards "between temperature treatments."

Author’s answer: Text was modified.

R1#38: “Please provide reference(s)”

Author’s answer: This statement is not based on a specific article but results from what we can see directly on Figure 2. Figure 2 shows our estimates relatively to other Clupeidae. Data was extracted from Fishbase as mentioned in the material and methods l. 251.

R1#39: Suggestion: Please include "However" before "these"

Author’s answer: Text was modified.

R1#40: “Besides the reference, please indicate which ones, i.e. some examples”

Author’s answer: More specific examples were provided.

R1#41: “Please include link: https://archimer.ifremer.fr/doc/00657/76942/78148.pdf”

Author’s answer: Link was added

R1#42: please include link

Author’s answer: Link was added

R1#43: please include link:https://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/CM%20Doccuments/1983/L/1983_L33.pdf

Author’s answer: Link was added

R1#44: please include link: https://www.biodiversityjournal.com/pdf/9(1)_19-24.pdf

Author’s answer: Link was added

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reviewer 2:

R2#1: “Reviewer #2: The manuscript entitled “Impact of temperature on Downs herring embryonic stages: first insights from an experimental approach” is a well-written record of the impact of temperature on Downs herring embryonic stages in a practical way. The MS explains a scientifically planned research work, and the results were expressed with sufficient data. The research is a piece of novel information for the scientific community to understand the dynamics of the impact of temperature on Downs herring embryonic stages, which is much more relevant today. Even though the MS is written well, there are a few suggestions to improve MS. With below mentioned minor corrections; the MS may be considered for publication in the journal.”

Author’s answer: We thank you for your evaluation, we made all modifications required in the title/text and we respond to all your specific points below.

R2#2: “Title: The scientific name can be included in the title.”

Author’s answer: Following your recommendation, we added the scientific name to the title and therefore removed the scientific name from key words and replaced it by “Atlantic herring”.

R2#3: “Abstract: Some of the values/statistics can be used in the abstract to explain the results of the present study to increase clarity. A sentence can be added at the end to demonstrate the relevance of the results or as a conclusion with the outcome of the study.”

Author’s answer: Following your recommendation, we added some information in the abstract to results, as well as a conclusion.

R2#4: Introduction: I felt the introduction is very elaborate and needs to be concise. It can be started with the background information, research problem, present status of the research in that line, and what the present study aims to unravel.

Author’s answer: We thank the reviewer for their suggestions, but do not feel it appropriate at the stage of “Minor revisions” to rewrite the entire introduction as the text is inherently both sequential and relevant to the background and questions of the paper. Nevertheless, we have shortened the text throughout the introduction to be more concise.

R2#5: “Materials and Methods: Properly written with all required details. Results and Discussion: Written well with good data representations.”

Author’s answer: We thank you for your evaluation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reviewer 3:

R3#1: “Reviewer #3: This article aims to evaluate the effect of different water temperatures on the sensitive embryonic period and investigate potential parental effects on embryonic traits. The Ms in general presents well written and organized. For this reason, I think that after a minor revision this paper has to be published soon. Some comments are listed below”

Author’s answer: We thank you for your review and respond to all your points below.

R3#2: “Line 175-176: All animal experiments should comply with the ARRIVE guidelines. It seems that all breeders were killed for GSI and muscle RNA:DNA studies, please revise it.”

Author’s answer: Breeders were not killed since we got fish from fishermen and fish were already dead when reaching harbor. This specific point is raised in the discussion. We added it to material and methods line 159 to be clearer.

R3#3: “Line 223: Total Length, please use in lower case.”

Author’s answer: Modification was done.

R3#4: “Line 282: Same as above. Sac Volume, please use in lower case.”

Author’s answer: Modification was done.

R3#5: “Table 1: The authors should add explanations about experimental days under each temperature regime. To my knowledge, usually incubation time is given at half the day of yours (Blaxter, 1968).”

Author’s answer: Incubation times at the different temperatures are provided in Figure 2. For instance, it is in average 32 half-days at 8°C, which corresponds to 16 days. This is congruent with Blaxter (1968) and Blaxter & Hempel (1963, 1966). Days in Table 1 do not correspond to incubation times but to experimental duration considering batches 1 and 2. It takes therefore into account incubation time of batch 1 (which started 8th of December 2021) + incubation time of batch 2 (which started the 17th of December 2021), knowing that the two batches were overlapping. This seemed to be confusing so we removed it. Incubation time is now only represented in figure 1.

R3#6: “2.5. Statistical analyses: Statistical measures such as SD or SE should be identified..”

Author’s answer: This point was raised by Reviewer 1 (l.160) and we specified that we used SD. In all tables were variations are indicated, SD is indicated.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.pdf

Decision Letter 1

A K Shakur Ahammad

27 Mar 2023

Impact of temperature on Downs herring (Clupea harengus) embryonic stages: first insights from an experimental approach

PONE-D-22-34768R1

Dear Dr. Lola,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

A. K. Shakur Ahammad, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

A K Shakur Ahammad

30 Mar 2023

PONE-D-22-34768R1

Impact of temperature on Downs herring (Clupea harengus) embryonic stages: first insights from an experimental approach

Dear Dr. Toomey:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. A. K. Shakur Ahammad

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. Temperature recorded from a Marel Carnot buoy (code 6200443) in front of Boulogne-sur-Mer between mid-November 2021 and mid-January 2022 (Coriolis data; Lefebvre, 2015).

    (PDF)

    S2 Fig. Experimental set-up.

    (PDF)

    S3 Fig. Morphological characteristics from pools of males (n = 3 per pool) used for the fertilization of eggs from the different females.

    (PDF)

    S4 Fig. Boxplots of fertilization rate across the different families.

    Colors correspond to the three temperature scenarios: 8°C (blue), 10°C (green) and 14°C (red).

    (PDF)

    S5 Fig. Correlation plot of female attributes.

    Positive correlations are indicated in red while negative correlations are indicated in blue. Color intensity and circle size are proportional to correlation coefficients.

    (PDF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE-D-22-34768_reviewer - Reviewed.pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.pdf

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES