. 2013 Apr 25;3(6):1590–1602. doi: 10.1002/ece3.562

Table 3.

Ten morphological traits of possible adaptive value, measured as the distance between specific landmark pairs (Fig. 2)

Morphological trait	Landmarks	Expected direction	Observed direction
Eye diameter	14–15	P > L¹^,²	P > L	P < 0.001	***
Snout length	1–14	P > L¹^,²	P = L	P = 0.06	NS
Maxilla length	1–16	P > L¹^,²	P > L	P < 0.001	**
Head length	1–4	P > L¹^,²	P > L	P < 0.001	***
Head depth	2–17	P > L²^,³	P > L	P < 0.001	***
Body depth anterior	6–7	P > L¹^,²	P > L	P < 0.001	**
Body depth posterior	8–9	L > P¹	P = L	P = 0.59	NS
Caudal peduncle depth	10–11	L > P¹, P = L², P > L³	P ≥ L	P < 0.05	NS
Dorsal fin length	6–18	P > L², L > P³	P > L	P < 0.001	***
Pectoral fin length	5–19	P > L¹^,²^,³	P > L	P < 0.001	***

These traits were selected based on significance of differences between littoral and profundal morphs of other salmonid fish species. The expected and observed directions of differences are indicated for each trait (P: profundal, L: littoral). P-values for the observed differences between littoral and profundal specialists are based on t-tests of each size-corrected trait and stars indicate significance levels after Bonferroni correction (* P < 0.05, ** P < 0.01, *** P < 0.001, NS: P > 0.05).

Klemetsen et al. (2002) Evidence for genetic differences in the offspring of two sympatric morphs of Arctic charr. J Fish Biol 60:933-950.

Kahilainen and Østbye (2006) Morphological differentiation and resource polymorphism in three sympatric whitefish Coregonus lavaretus (L.) forms in a subarctic lake. J Fish Biol 68:63–79.

Zimmerman et al. (2006) Phenotypic diversity of lake trout in Great Slave Lake: differences in morphology, buoyancy, and habitat depth. Trans Am Fish Soc 135:1056–1067.