Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2020 Jul 17;15(7):e0235817. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0235817

Are long-term growth responses to elevated pCO2 sex-specific in fish?

Christopher S Murray 1,*, Hannes Baumann 2
Editor: Frank Melzner3
PMCID: PMC7367484  PMID: 32678858

Abstract

Whether marine fish will grow differently in future high pCO2 environments remains surprisingly uncertain. Long-term and whole-life cycle effects are particularly unknown, because such experiments are logistically challenging, space demanding, exclude long-lived species, and require controlled, restricted feeding regimes—otherwise increased consumption could mask potential growth effects. Here, we report on repeated, long-term, food-controlled experiments to rear large populations (>4,000 individuals total) of the experimental model and ecologically important forage fish Menidia menidia (Atlantic silverside) under contrasting temperature (17°, 24°, and 28°C) and pCO2 conditions (450 vs. ~2,200 μatm) from fertilization to ~ a third of this annual species’ life span. Quantile analyses of trait distributions showed mostly negative effects of high pCO2 on long-term growth. At 17°C and 28°C, but not at 24°C, high pCO2 fish were significantly shorter [17°C: -5 to -9%; 28°C: -3%] and weighed less [17°C: -6 to -18%; 28°C: -8%] compared to ambient pCO2 fish. Reductions in fish weight were smaller than in length, which is why high pCO2 fish at 17°C consistently exhibited a higher Fulton’s k (weight/length ratio). Notably, it took more than 100 days of rearing for statistically significant length differences to emerge between treatment populations, showing that cumulative, long-term CO2 effects could exist elsewhere but are easily missed by short experiments. Long-term rearing had another benefit: it allowed sexing the surviving fish, thereby enabling rare sex-specific analyses of trait distributions under contrasting CO2 environments. We found that female silversides grew faster than males, but there was no interaction between CO2 and sex, indicating that males and females were similarly affected by high pCO2. Because Atlantic silversides are known to exhibit temperature-dependent sex determination, we also analyzed sex ratios, revealing no evidence for CO2-dependent sex determination in this species.

Introduction

Human activities are rapidly increasing atmospheric and therefore surface ocean carbon dioxide (CO2) [1]. With the unmitigated production of anthropogenic CO2 (i.e., RCP8.5 emissions scenario) these levels could eclipse 2,000 ppmv within the next 300 years [2]. The rapid progression of modern ocean acidification (OA) may challenge physiological tolerance limits of many marine ectotherms [35]. In marine fish, responses to future pCO2 conditions have been complex. Experiments have demonstrated a range of positive, neutral, and negative impacts to survival, development, and behavior [68]. Potential effects on fish growth are of particular interest, given the established link between individual growth and fitness [911] and the theoretical expectation that hypercapnia demands increased energetic allocations to acid-base homeostasis while reducing hemoglobin-oxygen binding efficiency [1214], thus decreasing growth. For juvenile and adult fish, however, such metabolic tradeoffs have largely proved undetectable [15]. By contrast, laboratory studies on fish early life stages with still developing acid-base proficiency have demonstrated reduced growth in some but not most cases [1620]. Meta-analyses across fish species and life-stages have therefore concluded that there are no consistent growth effects of high pCO2 [6, 21].

While this may underscore the general CO2 tolerance of fish as highly mobile vertebrates, the variability in reported growth responses may also partially be due to methodological constraints [22]. First, OA experiments on fish have mainly studied short-term responses to high pCO2 within a single life-stage, thereby encompassing just a small fraction of a species’ lifespan. Elevated pCO2 conditions likely elicit a range of acclimation responses, including the differential expression of key regulatory enzymes [23, 24] and the maintenance of elevated bicarbonate in extra-cellular fluids [25]. While the energetic cost of these pathways may be too small to detect on short time scales [14, 26, 27], few studies have quantified how continuous energetic costs of CO2 acclimation may accumulate over time and thus perhaps result in detectable growth effects at later life stages [28, 29]. Second, most OA studies on fish have employed relatively low levels of replication and small sample sizes, which allows detecting major effects but limits statistical power to detect other, potentially more subtle shifts in response traits [30]. Third, laboratory OA studies often provide excess food rations to fish offspring to avoid the confounding effects of uneven food supply. While logistically practical, this approach may enable fish to increase consumption to match energetic requirements and thus mask negative growth effects. To date, most studies exploring a link between ration level and CO2 sensitivity have reported neutral responses [3133], but negative interactions have also been documented [34]. In short, the emergent consensus that high pCO2 environments do not affect fish growth may not be as robust as the current body of empirical data suggests. Moreover, temperature introduces further complexity when disentangling how CO2 affects fish metabolism. Efficient acclimation to hypercapnia may depend on thermal conditions [35] but here again a consensus regarding interactive effects of CO2 and temperature has remained elusive [36].

A so far underexamined aspect of OA is the potential for sex-specific physiological impacts [37]. Because sexes face different energetic tradeoffs associated with growth and reproduction [38, 39] the cost of CO2 acclimation could disproportionately affect one sex over the other. Female fish that have the added energetic cost of maturing oocytes may incur a larger growth deficit when continuously exposed to OA conditions. Given the positive relationship between female body size and reproductive success [38], data on sex-specific CO2 effects are critically needed [37]. Furthermore, a reduction in ocean pH could influence the sex ratios of species that exhibit environmental sex determination. While temperature is the most common abiotic cue that controls environmental sex determination in fish [40], in some freshwater teleosts, exposure to low pH conditions can result in a higher proportion of males in the population [4143]. In the Atlantic silverside (Menidia menidia), exposure to warm conditions (>17°C) during early larval development (between 8–21 mm total length) has a masculinizing effect [44] because warm temperatures suppress the expression of the feminizing enzyme aromatase which promotes the development of testes [45, 46]. Warm temperatures are typically correlated with more acidic conditions in productive nearshore environments [47], hence, temperature-dependent sex determination (TSD) in silversides could also be sensitive to pH. This hypothesis has so far remained untested.

Over the course of three years, we repeatedly reared large experimental populations of Atlantic silversides (>4,000 individuals total) from fertilization to more than a third of their lifespan under future (~2,200 μatm) versus present-day (~450 μatm) pCO2 conditions and three temperatures (17°, 24°, and 28°C). We administered non-excess feeding conditions by incrementally adjusting food rations based on the number and calculated biomass of individuals in each rearing tank. Sub-samples across developmental stages allowed examining if and when growth differences would manifest. Additionally, large random subsets of juveniles were sexed to determine sex ratios and potential sex-specific effects of high pCO2 environments. We hypothesized that long-term exposure to acidified conditions would cause small but continuous reallocation of energetic resources away from growth, resulting in smaller fish of lower condition. We further predicted that sub-optimal rearing temperatures (17° and 28°C) would exacerbate deleterious CO2 effects. Last, we predicted that acidified conditions incur greater growth deficits in females than males and produce more male biased populations.

Methods

Experimental CO2 and temperature conditions

Experiments were conducted in 700-L circular tanks. Two contrasting pCO2 conditions were tested; ambient (~450 μatm pCO2, pHNIST = ~8.05) versus high pCO2 corresponding to the upper-end projection for the next 280 years under RCP8.5 [~2,200 μatm pCO2, pHNIST = ~7.50, 2]. The two pCO2 levels were crossed with three temperature conditions: 17°, 24°, 28°C. The lower two temperatures (17° and 24°C) encompass the thermal experience of silversides during their spawning season at this latitude [48], with ~24°C considered to be the species’ optimal growth temperature [49]. Conversely, the warmest treatment (28°C) was chosen to represent a predicted 2–3°C increase in mean ocean temperature for the northwest Atlantic shelf [50]. A summary of the duration and the conditions applied during each trial is listed in Table 1.

Table 1. Summary of four long-term trials rearing M. menidia.

Trial Fert. date Temp pCO2 levels Replicate tanks Days reared Final N Final traits
1* 5/3/2015 17° 450, 2200 2 135 229–282 TL, wW, sex ratio
2 5/19/2016 17° 450, 2200 2 135 191–234 TL, wW, sex ratio
3 5/3/2016 24° 450, 2200 2 110 149–199 TL, wW, sex ratio
4 6/29/2017 24°,28° 450, 2200 1 88(28°), 103(24°) 121–189 TL, wW

Offspring were reared under two pCO2 conditions (μatm) and three temperatures (°C). Days reared was quantified from fertilization to the final sample.

* Note that trial 1 fish were resampled from Murray et al. 2017.

Treatment seawater was acidified by continuously bubbling mixes of air:100% CO2 into the bottom of each rearing vessel using gas proportioners (ColeParmer®). To maintain low, current-day pCO2 conditions, metabolically produced CO2 was scrubbed from treatment seawater by injecting CO2-stripped air into diffuser tubing at the rearing tank bottom. CO2 stripping was achieved by forcing compressed air through a series of cylinders containing granular soda lime (AirGas®). Rearing vessels were monitored daily for pHNIST and temperature using a handheld pH electrode with an imbedded temperature thermistor (Hach® Intellical PHC281 pH electrode with HQ11D handheld pH/ORP meter, calibrated bi-weekly using two-point NIST buffers). Continuous bubbling ensured that dissolved oxygen conditions remained at ~100% saturation. Temperature conditions were maintained by thermostats (Aqualogic®) controlling submersible heaters or in-line chillers (DeltaStar®).

We used pH and total alkalinity (AT) as the two directly measured carbonate parameters to calculate treatment pCO2 levels. At three time points during each rearing trial, 300-ml seawater samples were drawn from each rearing tank and filtered (to 10 μm) into borosilicate bottles. Salinity was measured at the time of collection by a refractometer. Bottles were stored in the dark at 3°C, and within two weeks of sampling duplicate measurements of AT were made on each seawater sample by endpoint titration (G20 Potentiometric Titrator, Mettler Toledo®). The accuracy (within ±1%) of our titration methodology was calibrated and confirmed by using Dr. Andrew Dickson’s certified reference material for AT in seawater (Batch Nrs. 147, 162, and 164, University of California San Diego, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/ocads/oceans/Dickson_CRM/batches.html). CO2SYS (V2.1, http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/co2sys) was used to calculate the partial pressure and fugacity of CO2 (pCO2, fCO2; μatm) as well as dissolved inorganic carbon (CT; μmol kg1-) and carbonate ion concentration (CO32-; μmol kg1-) from measured values of AT, pH, temperature, and salinity using K1 and K2 constants from [51] refitted by [52] and [53] for KHSO4. An overview of pH and carbonate chemistry measurements for each experiment is given in Table 2.

Table 2. Measurements of carbon chemistry and temperature from long-term CO2 exposure experiments on M. menidia.

Trial Tank Temp treatment pCO2 treatment Temp pH pCO2 Sal AT CT fCO2 CO32-
1 1 17 450 17.3±0.3 8.06±0.13 500±7 31 2,112±7 1,958±7 498±7 116.8±1.6
2 17 450 17.2±0.6 8.07±0.12 499±7 31 2,110±1 1,956±1 497±7 116.6±1.4
3 17 2200 17.5±0.4 7.42±0.11 2,295±65 31 2,102±10 2,138±13 2,287±65 31.3±0.6
4 17 2200 17.5±0.4 7.43±0.12 2,283±95 31 2,123±27 2,158±24 2,275±94 32.2±1.8
2 5 17 450 17±0.3 8.07±0.07 471±4 31 2013±18 1862±17 469±5 112±1
6 17 450 17±0.2 8.07±0.07 472±6 31 2007±25 1858±23 470±6 111±2
7 17 2200 17.2±0.3 7.47±0.08 2084±46 31 2008±44 2035±45 2077±47 32±1
8 17 2200 17.2±0.3 7.48±0.08 2055±31 31 2009±30 2035±30 2048±30 32±1
3 9 24 450 23.9±1 8.1±0.08 463±3 31 2041±21 1840±17 461±3 146±3
10 24 450 24±1 8.1±0.08 462±8 31 2023±28 1822±30 460±7 143±3
11 24 2200 24.2±0.8 7.49±0.06 2192±25 31 2058±9 2044±32 2185±25 41±2
12 24 2200 24.2±0.8 7.5±0.06 2113±20 31 2055±27 2053±20 2106±20 43±1
4 13 24 450 23.7±0.6 8.11±0.22 460±6 30 2057±16 1861±16 458±6 144±2
14 24 2200 23.7±0.6 7.47±0.10 2323±40 30 2065±27 2079±28 2315±40 38±1
15 28 450 27.7±0.6 8.12±0.17 459±13 31 2104±76 1865±59 458±13 172±15
16 28 2200 27.8±0.7 7.50±0.18 2289±57 31 2132±83 2123±77 2282±57 49±5

Mean (±s.d.) pH (NIST) and temperature (°C) were derived from daily measurements by handheld electrodes. Mean (±s.d.) salinity, total alkalinity (AT; μmol kg-1), dissolved inorganic carbon (CT; μmol kg-1), partial pressure and fugacity of CO2 (pCO2; fCO2; μatm), and carbonate ion concentration (CO32-; μmol kg-1) were quantified from replicated seawater samples. Salinity was measured via refractometer, AT from endpoint titrations, and pCO2, CT, fCO2 and CO32- were calculated in CO2SYS.

Field sampling and fertilization

Experimental protocols were approved by the University of Connecticut Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (Protocol Nr. A17-043), and the investigators received annual trainings for best practices in fish care. No additional permits were required for the collection of wild M. menidia or for access to our collection site. Experimental offspring were produced from four collections of wild, spawning ripe Atlantic silversides during their spring reproductive seasons in 2015, 2016, and 2017 (S1 Table). All spawners were collected by beach seine (30 × 2 m) from Mumford Cove, CT (41° 19.25’ N, 72° 1.09’W), a shallow embayment that opens to eastern Long Island Sound. Spawning ripe adults were transported to the Rankin Seawater Facility (University of Connecticut Avery Point) where they were separated by sex (by applying light abdominal pressure and inspecting the initial flow of gametes) and held for 24–48 h at low densities (<20 fish) in large aerated tanks (50 L, 17°-20°C, ambient pCO2, no food). For each of the four fertilizations, embryos were produced by strip-spawning according to established protocols for this species (S1 Table) [28, 54, 55]. Briefly, eggs from all females were stripped together into shallow plastic trays lined with 1-mm carbon fiber window screening. Milt from all males was collected into a single 300-ml plastic cup, mixed, and then poured over eggs. Fertilized eggs, attached to window screening via chorionic filaments, were then disinfected for 15 min in a 100-ppm buffered povidone-iodine solution (Ovadine, Western Chemical, Inc®) before distribution to rearing tanks. Spawned adults were euthanized with an overdose of MS-222 and the number and mean length of spawners used per sex are provided in S1 Table.

Experimental rearing

Experimental rearing methods closely followed protocols detailed in Murray et al. (2017). Trials 1–3 were conducted in four 700-L main tanks (N = 2 per CO2 treatment). For trial 4, space restrictions allowed only one rearing tank per CO2 × temperature treatment (Table 2). Within 2 hrs of fertilization, >600 fertilized embryos were randomly distributed into 3–4 20-L circular rearing vessels situated inside the 700-L main rearing tanks. At this stage, main tanks were filled with 300-L of filtered (to 1μm) and UV-sterilized seawater from the Long Island Sound (salinity ~31 psu). Treatment seawater was continuously filtered for solid and nutrient waste by 4-stage canister biofilters and 9-watt UV sterilizers (Polar Aurora®), then pumped directly into individual rearing vessels, which were outfitted with flow-through screening. Rearing vessels were tested daily for levels of nitrogenous waste (Saltwater Master Test Kit, API®) to maintain ammonia concentrations at uncritical levels below 0.25 ppm. All experiments were conducted at light conditions of 15h L:9h D. Rearing tanks were monitored daily for indicators of fish stress in response to experimental tank conditions (e.g., heavy and irregular breathing, erratic swimming behavior, loss of orientation, disease). If any of these signs appeared, all water parameters were immediately checked, and if the individual fish failed to recover within 24 h, they were removed from the rearing container and euthanized with an overdose of MS-222 (Western Chemical, Inc.).

Upon hatching, larvae were immediately provided ad libitum rations of newly hatched brine shrimp nauplii (Artemia salina, San Francisco strain, brineshrimpdirect.com) and small rations of a powdered weaning diet (Otohime Marine Fish Diet, size A1, Reed Mariculture®) to stimulate feeding. Thereafter, larvae were provided ad libitum daily rations of newly hatched nauplii only. Rearing vessels were cleaned daily for solid waste. When larvae reached ~10 mm total length (TL) they were counted and distributed at equal densities into three 50-L rearing tubs per main tank (200–250 larvae per tub). During trials 1–3, tubs were also sub-sampled for TL measurements (N ≥ 16), and larvae were immediately euthanized with an overdose of MS-222 and preserved in a 10% formaldehyde/freshwater solution saturated with sodium tetraborate buffer. TL was measured (nearest 0.01 mm) via calibrated microscope images using Image Pro Premier (V9.0, Media Cybernetics®). Rations of newly hatched nauplii were standardized to the known number of juveniles per tub. Larval feed was supplemented with small rations of powered food (Otohime Marine Fish Diet, size B1, Reed Mariculture®) in preparation for a diet shift. Tubs were checked daily for mortalities, which were counted and discarded, siphoned for waste, and 10% of the treatment seawater was exchanged. Larval mortality rates were typical for this species and similar across treatments [28, 30, 48].

After ~1200 degree-days of rearing (degree-day = rearing temperature * days reared post-hatch, ddph), surviving juveniles were counted, and sub-samples euthanized with an overdose of MS-222 and preserved for TL measurements via calipers (N ≥ 10, nearest 0.1 mm). The remaining fish were placed back into their original main tanks containing 350 L of seawater. Equal starting densities of juveniles were maintained within each trial, but across trials densities varied from 154–626 fish per tank. Daily rations of powdered diet (Otohime Marine Fish Diet, size B1-B2, Reed Mariculture®) were standardized to 20% of the estimated daily dry weight (dW) biomass per tank. Dry weight biomass was estimated from the known number of fish per tank, mean TL based on sub-samples, and a known TL:dW relationship for M. mendia [28]. Ration levels were then increased daily at the same rate within trials based on previously published long-term growth data for this species [56]. Subsequent subsamples for TL measurements were taken over time to recalibrate ration levels (S2 Table). Powdered food was continuously supplied during daylight hours via belt feeders. Tanks were siphoned for waste and 10% of the treatment seawater was exchanged daily.

Rearing trials were terminated depending on the temperature treatment after 2,074–2,496 ddph (83–122 dph, Table 1), which is approximately a third of the lifespan of M. menidia [28]. Surviving fish within a trial were euthanized on the same day and measured for TL (nearest 0.1 mm) and wet weight (wW, nearest 0.01 g). For trial 1, half of the fish per rearing tank were randomly sampled for this analysis. For trials 2 and 3, all but 50 randomly selected fish per tank were sampled for measurements. All fish reared during trial 4 were sampled when the experiment was terminated. The sex of juveniles reared at 17°C (trials 1, 2) and 24°C (trial 3) was determined by visual inspection of gonads with a dissecting microscope (8× magnification) and confirmed if necessary, by examining gonadal tissue for developing oocytes with a compound microscope (200× mag). The researcher who sexed the fish was blind to the treatment conditions. See Table 3 for final sample sizes.

Table 3. Summary data for juvenile M. menidia from long-term CO2 exposure experiments.

Trial Temp (°C) Final age pCO2 (μatm) Tank Sex N TL (mm) wW (mg) Fulton’s k
1 17° 135 450 1 F 124 42.2±6.0 318±117 0.41±0.05
M 133 39.6±5.4 263±94 0.41±0.05
2 F 98 42.4±5.6 309±112 0.39±0.04
M 130 42.3±5.8 306±116 0.39±0.03
2,200 3 F 120 42±5.5 321±111 0.42±0.05
M 162 37.3±6.1 236±107 0.43±0.12
4 F 107 41.1±5.3 320±112 0.45±0.06
M 158 38.8±5.7 274±113 0.45±0.05
2 17° 135 450 5 F 101 50.8±5.2 613±189 0.45±0.04
M 133 48.6±5.5 540±178 0.45±0.03
6 F 111 48.6±4.5 542±176 0.46±0.03
M 113 47.2±5.3 499±172 0.46±0.03
2,200 7 F 104 44.0±5.2 438±160 0.49±0.04
M 113 42.5±4.7 389±129 0.49±0.04
8 F 97 46.4±4.8 505±162 0.49±0.04
M 94 45.2±4.6 472±144 0.50±0.04
3 24° 110 450 9 F 19 54.5±7.0 994±409 0.58±0.04
M 180 55.1±6.1 1012 ±329 0.58±0.04
10 F 22 56.8±5.1 1080±296 0.57±0.03
M 170 56.2±6.9 1082±387 0.58±0.04
2,200 11 F 15 53.7±3.8 893±177 0.57±0.03
M 134 53.4±5.6 899±274 0.57±0.04
12 F 19 57.5±7.0 1195±386 0.60±0.04
M 158 55.4±4.7 1023±276 0.59±0.04
4 24° 103 450 13 - 189 58.2±5.5 1269±339 0.62±0.05
2,200 14 - 161 57.9±4.7 1230±295 0.62±0.03
28° 88 450 15 - 121 48.5±4.6 776±202 0.67±0.05
2,200 16 - 128 47±4.5 714±202 0.67±0.04

Data are displayed as rearing tank means (±s.d.). Final age was quantified as the number of days from fertilization to final sample.

Response traits and statistical analyses

Juvenile survival was quantified for each rearing tank from ~1200 ddph to experiment termination. Percent survival was logit transformed (the natural log of percent/(1-percent)) and we tested for significant effects of pCO2 level within trial 1–3 using independent samples t-test [57]. Individuals subsampled during the course of the experiment were measured only for TL (0.1 mm), but juveniles at the end each trial were measured for TL and wW, from which we calculated Fulton’s condition factor (k):

k=100×wW(g)×TL3(cm)

A Pearson’s chi-squared test was used to compare the percent of female fish between ambient vs. high CO2 treatments for each trial. For trials 1–3, linear mixed-effects models (LMM) were constructed to test for sex-specific pCO2 effects on growth (TL, wW, and k). To account for a common rearing environment, tank was included as a random effect:

TL(wW,k)=pCO2+sex+pCO2×sex+tank+error.

We also analyzed how trait frequency distributions varied between pCO2 treatments by implementing a series of shift functions [58]. Within each trial (1–4), measurements of TL, wW, and k were pooled from replicate tanks and five quantiles (0.1, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, and 0.9) from each treatment were computed using a Harrel-Davis quantile estimator [59]. For each trait, quantile estimates from the low pCO2 treatment were subtracted from the high pCO2 distribution, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for quantile differences were calculated using a bootstrap (N = 1,000) estimation of the standard error of the quantile [60]. Significant CO2 effects on quantile differences were assumed if bootstrapped 95% CIs did not include zero. Significance levels for the 5 quantile comparisons were adjusted for multiple comparisons within a single test via Hochberg’s method [61].

To evaluate time-dependent effects of high pCO2 exposure, we employed LMMs to test for CO2 effects on the TL of each group of sub-sampled offspring (S2 Table) using the model:

TL=pCO2+tank+error.

All statistical analyses were performed in R (version 3.5.3) using RStudio (version 1.2.1). LMMs were run using the lme4 [62] package using maximum likelihood estimates for fixed effects. Significance levels were determined by Satterthwaite's method via the lmertest package [63]. The normality and variance homogeneity of model residuals were assessed by visual inspection of QQ plots and residual boxplots, respectively [64]. The shift analysis and plots were generated using the R package rogme e [65]. We used Cohen’s d to calculate CO2 effect sizes (±95% CIs) using the R package effsize [66] where negative values indicate a trait reduction under high pCO2 [67].

Results

Trials 1–3 pCO2 effects on sex ratio

A summary of sex ratio and body size data of juveniles is listed in Table 3. During trial 1, female sex ratios at 17°C were not significantly different between juveniles reared at 450 μatm (46±4%) and 2,200 μatm pCO2 (41±2%). A similar result was observed after trial 2 (Fig 1), where the proportion of females was roughly equal between pCO2 treatments (450 μatm: 46±5%; 2,200 μatm: 49±2%). At 24°C, the proportion of females was similarly low at ambient (450 μatm: 11±1%) versus high pCO2 conditions (2,200 μatm:10±1%, Fig 1).

Fig 1. Female sex ratios from trials 1–3.

Fig 1

The mean female sex ratio (F/(F + M)) of juvenile M. menidia reared under 450 and 2,200 μatm pCO2 at 17° and 24°C. Dotted lines connect treatment means within trials. Horizontal black lines indicate the temperature dependent female sex ratios predicted for the experimental source populations by Conover & Heins (1987).

Long-term pCO2 × sex effects on growth

Trial 1

Juvenile survival (mean ± s.d.) was similar in ambient (84±2%) and high pCO2 (88±1%) treatments. The TL of juveniles from high pCO2 was significantly lower compared to ambient conspecifics (LMM, p = 0.034, Table 4, Fig 2A). Female fish were significantly longer than males (Tables 3 and 4), and the LMM detected a significant pCO2 × sex interaction (p = 0.002, Table 4), indicating that male TL was more negatively impacted by high pCO2 exposure than female TL (Table 5). Shift analysis revealed a uniform and significant reduction in TL under high pCO2 across the entire TL distribution (Fig 2A). Juvenile wW was also significantly affected by a pCO2 × sex interaction (LMM, p = 0.009, Table 4), but the male-specific high pCO2 effect size was small (>-0.30, Table 5). Female fish were significantly heavier than males (Tables 3 and 4). Shift analysis showed that only the lower weight quantiles, largely represented by male fish, were significantly different between pCO2 treatments (Fig 2B). In contrast to body size, juveniles from 2,200 μatm pCO2 exhibited significantly higher Fulton’s k values compared to ambient fish (LMM, p = 0.019, Tables 3 and 4). This effect did not vary by sex (Tables 35) and was uniform across the frequency distribution (Fig 2C)

Table 4. LMM results for trials 1–3.
Trial Temp (°C) Trait Factor Num. df Den. df F p
1 17 pCO2 1 3.99 13.987 0.034
TL Sex 1 1029.42 0.035 <0.001
pCO2 × sex 1 1029.42 0.825 0.002
pCO2 1 4.26 2.157 0.330
wW Sex 1 1028.32 0.080 <0.001
pCO2 × sex 1 1028.32 0.866 0.009
pCO2 1 4.04 10.387 0.019
k Sex 1 1029.91 <0.001 0.301
pCO2 × sex 1 1029.91 0.009 0.167
2 17 pCO2 1 3.99 15.519 0.017
TL Sex 1 862.37 20.992 <0.001
pCO2 × sex 1 862.37 0.480 0.488
pCO2 1 3.98 8.812 0.041
wW Sex 1 862.44 19.582 <0.001
pCO2 × sex 1 862.44 0.521 0.474
pCO2 1 3.89 226.652 <0.001
k Sex 1 861.79 03069 0.792
pCO2 × sex 1 861.79 0.012 0.913
3 24 pCO2 1 8.06 0.287 0.607
TL Sex 1 712.09 1.061 0.303
pCO2 × sex 1 712.09 0.836 0.361
pCO2 1 6.75 0.268 0.621
wW sex 1 712.05 1.131 0.288
pCO2 × sex 1 712.05 1.650 0.199
pCO2 1 6.38 0.139 0.722
k sex 1 712.00 <0.001 0.989
pCO2 × sex 1 712.00 0.268 0.605

Summary statistics for LMM testing pCO2 and sex effects (fixed) on the final TL, wW, and Fulton’s k of M. menidia juveniles reared during Trials 1–3. Numerator (num.) and denominator (den.) degrees of freedom are shown and significant p values are denoted in bold.

Fig 2. Shift functions and quantile differentials for trials 1–3.

Fig 2

M. menidia. Shift functions for trials 1 (A-C), 2 (D-F), and 3 (G-I) are denoted by different letters. Upper panels show frequency density distributions as colored dots (blue: 450 μatm; red: 2,200 μatm). Black vertical bars overlaying each distribution indicate the .1, .25, .5, .75, and .9 quantiles. Quantile shifts are indicated by connecting lines where red lines indicate a reduction in trait value and blues denote a positive shift. The lower panels show quantile differentials (high pCO2 –ambient pCO2) and bootstrapped 95% CIs. Dots are color coded to indicate a negative (red) or positive effect of high pCO2 on the trait value. The size of the quantile shift is denoted in color boxes above or below the colored dots.

Table 5. Sex-specific high pCO2 effect sizes.
Trial Trait Sex Cohen’s d
1 TL* Female -0.11±0.19
Male -0.50±0.17
wW Female 0.06±0.19
Male -0.27±0.16
k Female 0.59±0.19
Male 0.58±0.17
2 TL Female -0.88±0.20
Male -0.82±0.19
wW Female -0.60±0.20
Male -0.59±0.19
k Female 1.02±0.21
Male 1.10±0.20
3 TL Female 0.03±0.46
Male -0.19±0.15
wW Female 0.06±0.46
Male -0.24±0.16
k Female 0.17±0.46
Male 0.03±0.15

Effect sizes were quantified using Cohen’s d (treatment means ± 95% CI). Negative values indicate a trait reduction under in juveniles from high pCO2 conditions relative to ambient conspecifics.

*Indicates a significant difference in effect size between sexes.

Trial 2

Juvenile survival at 17°C was similarly high under ambient (98±1%) and high pCO2 (96±2%). Again, exposure to high pCO2 conditions significantly reduced TL (LMM, p = 0.017, Table 4) and wW (LMM, p = 0.041, Table 4). While female fish were significantly longer and heavier (Tables 3 and 4), the effect of high pCO2 on growth was not sex-dependent this time (Table 4). When averaged between sexes, the negative pCO2 effect size on TL and wW more than doubled from trial 1 to trial 2 (TL: -0.83, wW: -0.58, Table 5). The shift analysis showed that quantile differences for TL and wW were significant across frequency distributions (Fig 2D and 2E). Consistent with trial 1, Fulton’s k was again significantly higher in juveniles reared under high pCO2 (LMM, p < 0.001, Table 4), the effect was independent of sex (Tables 3 and 4) and statistically uniform across the frequency distribution (Fig 2F).

Trial 3

Juvenile survival at 24°C was not affected by pCO2 level (ambient: 96±3%; high pCO2: 92±8%). In contrast to the negative effects observed at 17°C, juvenile TL, wW, and k were all statistically unaffected by pCO2 level and sex (Table 4). However, the shift analysis indicated that high pCO2 effects were not uniform across TL and wW frequency distributions. While the lower size quantiles were unaffected by pCO2 level, the 0.5, 0.75, and 0.9 quantiles shifted lower in the high compared to ambient pCO2 distribution (Fig 2G and 2H). By contrast, the effect pCO2 on Fulton’s k was neutral across the frequency distribution (Fig 2I).

Trial 4

Juvenile survival was high across rearing tanks (95–99%). At 24°C, TL and wW distributions were shifted to lower sizes and weights compared to the ambient pCO2 treatment but the effect was not significant across the distribution (Fig 3A–3C). There was no CO2 effect on Fulton’s k. However, for juveniles reared at 28°C long-term exposure to 2,200 μatm pCO2 resulted in an average reduction in TL and wW compared to ambient pCO2 juveniles and the effect was significant at the median and .75 quantiles (Fig 3D and 3E). The overall high pCO2 effect size was small (>-0.40, Table 5). Fulton’s k was unaffected by pCO2 level at 28°C (Fig 3F).

Fig 3. Shift functions and quantile differentials for trial 4.

Fig 3

M. menidia. Temperature treatments are indicated by differing letters (24°C: A-C; 28°C: D-F). Upper panels show frequency density distributions as colored dots (blue: 450 μatm; red: 2,200 μatm). Black vertical bars overlaying each distribution indicate the .1, .25, .5, .75, and .9 quantiles. Quantile shifts are indicated by connecting lines where red lines indicate a reduction in trait value and blues denote a positive shift. The lower panels show quantile differentials (high pCO2 –ambient pCO2) and bootstrapped 95% CIs. Dots are color coded to indicate a negative (red) or positive effect of high pCO2 on the trait value. The size of the quantile shift is denoted in color boxes above or below the colored dots.

Trials 1–4 pCO2 × age effects

S2 Table contains summary data for sub-sampled offspring. At 17°C, we found that the negative effect size of high pCO2 on TL increased with age (Cohen’s d, 16–21 dph: -0.32, 68–69 dph: -0.62, 100–103 dph: -0.80), but this CO2 effect was only significant after more than 100 days of continuous exposure to acidified conditions (LMM, trial 1: p = 0.021, trial 2: p < 0.001, Fig 4A). By contrast, at 24°C and 28°C there were no CO2 effects on TL of sub-sampled offspring over time (Fig 4B and 4C).

Fig 4. TL of subsampled juveniles.

Fig 4

M. menidia. Mean TL (± s.d.) of all subsampled juveniles reared under two pCO2 conditions (blue: 450 μatm; red: 2,200 μatm) and three temperatures. Significant differences between pCO2 treatment within sampled age groups are denoted by black stars (LMM, p < 0.05).

Discussion

Potential sex-specific responses of organisms to high pCO2 environments remain an understudied aspect of ocean acidification research [37]. Since fish display a range of sexual variation in physiology, behavior, and bioenergetics [68] that are also impacted by elevated pCO2 [6, 8, 14], sex may influence how individual fish respond to OA conditions. Here, we examined sex-specific growth in Atlantic silverside juveniles reared at 17° and 24°C, and our findings not did support the hypothesis of higher female than male CO2 sensitivity. Actually, males in trial 1 were disproportionally impacted by high pCO2 at 17°C, but his effect was not reproduced in subsequent trials. Furthermore, we did not find evidence that juvenile sex ratios differed between pCO2 treatments, hence, seawater pCO2/pH conditions are unlikely to impact environmental sex determination in silverside larvae. The female sex ratios were consistent with previously reported values of ~10% at 24°C and ~45% at 17°C [69].

However, because our findings are limited to pre-spawning individuals, key unknowns regarding sex-specific CO2 effects in mature fish remain. A distinct bioenergetic difference between the sexes concerns the maturation of gametes, given that egg production is generally more costly than sperm [68]. While the juveniles in our study had clearly differentiated gonads, females had yet to begin the more energetically intensive stages of vitellogenesis [70]. Furthermore, sexual dimorphism in size was apparent in this study and is prominent in wild silverside populations [71, 72] as selection for large body size confers a greater reproductive advantage to female fish [38]. As an annual species, juvenile growth in silversides is a key determinant of a female’s reproductive output during their only spawning season [38]. Therefore, while growth reductions under high pCO2 were similar or slightly greater in male fish in this study, the reproductive impacts of a smaller body size might be more consequential for female fish. Furthermore, other biochemical or behavioral consequences associated with long-term CO2 acclimation might influence the reproductive output of both sexes [37]. To date, very few studies have quantified CO2 impacts on fish reproductive output and offspring viability, reporting inconsistent outcomes [73, 74]. Further examinations of sex-specific CO2 responses are critically needed, especially if CO2 sensitivity is confounded by the many reproductive strategies employed by fish [70].

Juvenile M. menidia reared at 17°C exhibited small but consistent reductions in size under high pCO2 during two experimental years. During trial 3, the linear mixed-effects model did not detect an overall effect of high pCO2 on growth at 24°C, but the shift analyses showed that impacts varied across the TL and wW frequency distributions. While fish from the smallest quantiles were similarly sized, juveniles making up the median, 0.75 and 0.9 quantiles of the high pCO2 distribution were significantly smaller than the same quantiles from ambient pCO2. In fact, these reductions were similar in magnitude to what we observed at 17°C. This suggests that long-term exposure to high pCO2 may still limit growth at optimal thermal conditions by restricting the development of the fastest growing individuals. However, during trial 4 we did not observe the same patten at 24°C, despite that fact that high pCO2 quantile differentials were consistently shifted downward to a smaller size. We also reared offspring at 28°C which is near the upper thermal limit for positive growth in silversides. The shift analysis showed that quantile reductions under high pCO2 were twice as large than what was observed at 24°C during trial 4, and the reductions were significant for several quantiles. Thus, across trials and temperature treatments, the average juvenile fish from high pCO2 conditions was shorter (-2 to -9%) and weighed less (-3 to -18%) than ambient conspecifics. Interestingly, the percent reductions in whole-animal size observed here are proportionally similar to the increased energetic demands of intestinal tissues isolated from Gulf toadfish (Opsanus beta), which showed an 8% increase in energetic consumption and a 13% increase in intestinal bicarbonate secretion when exposed to 1,900 μatm pCO2 [26]. Hence, the reductions in body size observed in this study likely reflect the increased long-term homeostatic costs of life under high pCO2.

Our findings suggest that negative growth responses to high pCO2 show a parabolic relationship with temperature and become stronger at sub-optimal thermal conditions [35]. However, low replication at 28°C limited the power of our analysis, and more data are needed to sufficiently analyze CO2 effects at this upper thermal limit. A similar pattern between temperature and CO2 sensitivity was found in juvenile Atlantic halibut (Hippoglossus hippoglossus), where negative growth effects of high CO2 only manifested at the coldest rearing condition [75]. While 17°C is well within the thermal tolerance limits of Atlantic silversides, it is near the lower limit for early life stages to maintain positive growth [76, 77]. Chronic exposure to a low-growth thermal regime that depresses the performance of circulatory and respiratory systems could also compromise the homeostatic mechanisms that buffer against environmental acidosis. These mechanisms require further study as a definitive link between growth, aerobic scope, CO2 and temperature sensitivity has not been established [36, 75].

Despite their reduced length and weight, we found that juveniles reared at 17°C under acidified conditions consistently exhibited higher Fulton’s k values than ambient conspecifics. Long-term exposure to high pCO2 conditions caused a greater reduction in average length than weight, hence an increase in Fulton’s k. While the basis of this increased condition is unknown, it does suggest that acidified environments change the way in which silversides partition resources. Exposure to high pCO2 could also change the shape of developing silversides which would confound condition factor comparisons [78]. Atlantic silversides undergo intense size-selective overwintering mortality where large size paired with increased lipid storage is conducive to higher survival [79]. Therefore, a relatively small CO2 induced reduction in the size at onset of the overwintering period could have larger implications for Atlantic silverside population dynamics, as smaller fish incur higher winter mortality and produce fewer viable offspring the following spring [80]. An increase in Fulton’s k might offset the risk of winter starvation, but this would entirely depend on individuals acclimated to high pCO2 actively increasing lipid energy stores [81]. In contrast, higher condition values due to changes in shape are not likely to alleviate overwinter mortality. Our understanding of the relationship between high pCO2 exposure and condition factor would benefit from a detailed analysis of energy composition and form factor [82].

Previous work on M. menidia early life stages found growth to be largely unaffected by high pCO2 conditions (2,000–6,000 μatm) across the same range of temperatures examined here (17°-28°C) [48]. This study included considerably longer rearing times and older life-stages, finding that pCO2 effects on size increased over time and became statistically detectable after 100 days of continuous exposure or nearly a third of this species lifespan. To date, studies that evaluated long-term CO2 effects in fish have often utilized longer-lived species where even months of rearing still amount to only a small fraction of their overall lifespan [73, 74, 8386]. Our results demonstrate that measurable CO2 effects on growth can be detected after a prolonged exposure over multiple life stages. Another important difference between this and previous long-term experiments was our application of a high pCO2 treatment of 2,200 μatm. By contrast, most long-term studies that have reported neutral growth responses have exposed fish to ~1,000 pCO2 [73, 74, 8386]. While this may highlight the widespread resiliency of fish to predicted end-of-century pCO2 levels [6], such predictions are generalized for the average global ocean [2]. In contrast, coastal marine systems are already prone to periodic acidification near or in excess of 1,000 pCO2 [47, 87, 88] and future anthropogenic impacts will likely intensify the duration and magnitude of these events [89, 90]. As such, experimenters should strive to apply pCO2 treatments that reflect the likely future conditions of the systems where their model organisms live and reproduce.

Most laboratory studies on fish provide rations at excess levels to remove the potential for confounding effects of uneven feeding between treatments, but this practice may mask the energetic costs associated with CO2 acclimation. For example, the clear relationship between higher temperature and increased feeding is due, in part, to compensate for an increased basal metabolic rate of a warmer environment [91]. Yet, a link between CO2 sensitivity and food availability remains unclear. Most short-term studies on larvae and juveniles have found no interaction between ration level and CO2 sensitivity [31, 33] including in M. menidia [32], but acidification did exacerbate starvation rates in Rachycentron canadum [34]. In this study, to avoid a potential masking effect of excess food consumption, we provided non-excess rations to post-larval fish (>20 mm) that were standardized to the estimated total daily biomass per rearing tank. Food availability can vary seasonally and across ontogenetic stages such that it plays a critical role determining resiliency to stressors and ultimately how fish populations are structured [11]. Therefore, providing fish with realistic, i.e., non-excess ration levels should be an experimental priority to generate more realistic estimates of long-term CO2 sensitivity.

We found that the CO2 effect on growth at 17°C varied between experimental years. Juveniles reared during the second trial attained a larger final size, and the CO2-induced length reduction doubled from ~2 mm in trial 1 to ~4 mm in trail 2. These differences could have been due to improved rearing methodologies, including improved techniques for the removal of nitrogenous waste and lower fish densities during trial 2. Equally, increased CO2 sensitivity may have arisen from genetic or phenotypic differences between groups of strip-spawned adults [92]. Regardless of the sources of variation, these interannual differences comprise important experimental outcomes. They caution that the complexity of empirical CO2 responses between fish species or populations may reflect methodological differences between laboratories in addition to inherent variations in CO2 sensitivity [22]. Our findings highlight the importance of designing experiments able to detect the cumulative long-term effects of elevated pCO2 on fish bioenergetics. Cooperation amongst research groups to share best practices will maximize the usefulness of inter-laboratory comparisons and produce robust experimental replications [93, 94].

Supporting information

S1 Checklist

(DOCX)

S1 Table. Information on adult spawners.

The number and length of Spawning ripe M. menidia used to fertilize trials 1–4.

(DOCX)

S2 Table. Summary statistics of subsampled offspring.

M. menidia. Mean (±s.d.) TL and samples sizes (N) of subsampled offspring from trials 1–4.

(DOCX)

S1 Data

(XLSX)

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Baumann Lab members J. Snyder, M. Hughes, E. Karamavros, J. Pringle, I. Mayo, C. Dyke, and J. Harrington for assistance in the lab. And to C. Woods for technical assistance. We thank Dr. Guillaume Rousselet for his assistance in developing the shift function plots.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

This work funded by the National Science Foundation (https://www.nsf.gov/) OCE #1536165, awarded to Hannes Baumann. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Zeebe RE, Ridgwell A, Zachos JC. Anthropogenic carbon release rate unprecedented during the past 66 million years. Nature Geoscience. 2016;9(4):325. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Collins M, Knutti R, Arblaser J, Dufresne J-L, Fichefet T, Friedlingstein P, et al. Long-term climate change: projections, commitments and irreversibility In: Stocker TF, Qin D., Plattner G.-K., Tignor M., Allen S.K., Boschung J., et al. , editors. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press; 2014. p. 1029–136. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Wittmann AC, Pörtner H-O. Sensitivities of extant animal taxa to ocean acidification. Nature Climate Change. 2013;3(11):995–1001. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Przeslawski R, Byrne M, Mellin C. A review and meta analysis of the effects of multiple abiotic stressors on marine embryos and larvae. Global Change Biology. 2015;21(6):2122–40. 10.1111/gcb.12833 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Hendriks IE, Duarte CM, Álvarez M. Vulnerability of marine biodiversity to ocean acidification: a meta-analysis. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science. 2010;86(2):157–64. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Cattano C, Claudet J, Domenici P, Milazzo M. Living in a high CO2 world: a global meta-analysis shows multiple trait-mediated responses of fish to ocean acidification. Ecological Monographs. 2018;88(3):320–35. 10.1002/ecm.1297 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Esbaugh AJ. Physiological implications of ocean acidification for marine fish: emerging patterns and new insights. Journal of Comparative Physiology B. 2018;188(1):1–13. 10.1007/s00360-017-1105-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Tresguerres M, Hamilton TJ. Acid–base physiology, neurobiology and behaviour in relation to CO2-induced ocean acidification. Journal of Experimental Biology. 2017;220(12):2136–48. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Anderson JT. A review of size dependent survival during pre-recruit stages of fishes in relation to recruitment. Journal of Northwest Atlantic Fishery Science. 1988;8:55–66. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Miller TJ, Crowder LB, Rice JA, Marschall EA. Larval size and recruitment mechanisms in fishes: toward a conceptual framework. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 1988;45(9):1657–70. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Sissenwine MP. Why do fish populations vary? Exploitation of marine communities: Springer; 1984. p. 59–94. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Evans DH, Piermarini PM, Choe KP. The multifunctional fish gill: dominant site of gas exchange, osmoregulation, acid-base regulation, and excretion of nitrogenous waste. Physiological Reviews. 2005;85(1):97–177. 10.1152/physrev.00050.2003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Pörtner HO, Langenbuch M, Reipschläger A. Biological impact of elevated ocean CO2 concentrations: Lessons from animal physiology and earth history. Journal of Oceanography. 2004;60(4):705–18. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Heuer RM, Grosell M. Physiological impacts of elevated carbon dioxide and ocean acidification on fish. American Journal of Physiology-Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology. 2014:ajpregu. 00064.2014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Ishimatsu A, Hayashi M, Kikkawa T. Fishes in high-CO2, acidified oceans. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 2008;373:295–302. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Baumann H, Talmage SC, Gobler CJ. Reduced early life growth and survival in a fish in direct response to increased carbon dioxide. Nature Climate Change. 2012;2(1):38–41. 10.1038/nclimate1291 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Frommel AY, Margulies D, Wexler JB, Stein MS, Scholey VP, Williamson JE, et al. Ocean acidification has lethal and sub-lethal effects on larval development of yellowfin tuna, Thunnus albacares. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology. 2016;482:18–24. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Miller GM, Watson S-A, Donelson JM, McCormick MI, Munday PL. Parental environment mediates impacts of increased carbon dioxide on a coral reef fish. Nature Climate Change. 2012;2:858–61. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Pimentel MS, Faleiro F, Dionísio G, Repolho T, Pousão-Ferreira P, Machado J, et al. Defective skeletogenesis and oversized otoliths in fish early stages in a changing ocean. The Journal of Experimental Biology. 2014;217(12):2062–70. 10.1242/jeb.092635 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Cominassi L, Moyano M, Claireaux G, Howald S, Mark FC, Zambonino-Infante J-L, et al. Combined effects of ocean acidification and temperature on larval and juvenile growth, development and swimming performance of European sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax). PLOS ONE. 2019;14(9):e0221283 10.1371/journal.pone.0221283 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Kroeker KJ, Kordas RL, Crim R, Hendriks IE, Ramajo L, Singh GS, et al. Impacts of ocean acidification on marine organisms: quantifying sensitivities and interaction with warming. Global Change Biology. 2013;19(6):1884–96. 10.1111/gcb.12179 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Baumann H. Experimental assessments of marine species sensitivities to ocean acidification and co-stressors: how far have we come? Canadian Journal of Zoology. 2019;97(5):399–408. 10.1139/cjz-2018-0198 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Tseng Y-C, Hu MY, Stumpp M, Lin L-Y, Melzner F, Hwang P-P. CO2-driven seawater acidification differentially affects development and molecular plasticity along life history of fish (Oryzias latipes). Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part A: Molecular & Integrative Physiology. 2013;165(2):119–30. 10.1016/j.cbpa.2013.02.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Mittermayer F, Stiasny M, Clemmesen C, Bayer T, Puvanendran V, Chierici M, et al. Transcriptome profiling reveals exposure to predicted end-of-century ocean acidification as a stealth stressor for Atlantic cod larvae. Scientific Reports. 2019;9 10.1038/s41598-019-52628-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Esbaugh AJ, Heuer R, Grosell M. Impacts of ocean acidification on respiratory gas exchange and acid–base balance in a marine teleost, Opsanus beta. Journal of Comparative Physiology B: Biochemical, Systemic, and Environmental Physiology. 2012:1–14. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Heuer RM, Grosell M. Elevated CO2 increases energetic cost and ion movement in the marine fish intestine. Scientific Reports. 2016;6:34480 10.1038/srep34480 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Esbaugh AJ, Ern R, Nordi WM, Johnson AS. Respiratory plasticity is insufficient to alleviate blood acid–base disturbances after acclimation to ocean acidification in the estuarine red drum, Sciaenops ocellatus. Journal of Comparative Physiology B. 2016;186(1):97–109. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Murray CS, Fuiman LA, Baumann H. Consequences of elevated CO2 exposure across multiple life stages in a coastal forage fish. ICES Journal of Marine Science. 2017;74(4):1051–61. 10.1093/icesjms/fsw179 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Schreck C. Accumulation and long-term effects of stress in fish In: Moberg G, Mench J, editors. The Biology of Animal Stress: Basic Principles and Implications for Animal Welfare; 2000. p. 147–58. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Baumann H, Cross E, Murray CS. Robust quantification of fish early life CO2 sensitivities via serial experimentation. Biology letters. 2018;14(11):20180408 10.1098/rsbl.2018.0408 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.McMahon SJ, Donelson JM, Munday PL. Food ration does not influence the effect of elevated CO2 on antipredator behaviour of a reef fish. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 2018;586:155–65. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Baumann H, Parks E, Murray CS. Starvation rates in larval and juvenile Atlantic silversides (Menidia menidia) are unaffected by high CO2 conditions. Marine Biology. 2018;164(4). doi: MABI-D-17-00703R1. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Hurst TP, Laurel BJ, Hanneman E, Haines SA, Ottmar ML. Elevated CO2 does not exacerbate nutritional stress in larvae of a Pacific flatfish. Fisheries Oceanography. 2017;26(3):336–49. 10.1111/fog.12195 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Bignami S, Sponaugle S, Hauff M, Cowen RK, Browman HeH. Combined effects of elevated pCO2, temperature, and starvation stress on larvae of a large tropical marine fish. ICES Journal of Marine Science. 2016;74(4):1220–9. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Pörtner H-O. Integrating climate-related stressor effects on marine organisms: unifying principles linking molecule to ecosystem-level changes. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 2012;470:273–90. [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Lefevre S. Are global warming and ocean acidification conspiring against marine ectotherms? A meta-analysis of the respiratory effects of elevated temperature, high CO2 and their interaction. Conservation Physiology. 2016;4(1). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Ellis RP, Davison W, Queirós AM, Kroeker KJ, Calosi P, Dupont S, et al. Does sex really matter? Explaining intraspecies variation in ocean acidification responses. Biology letters. 2017;13(2):20160761 10.1098/rsbl.2016.0761 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Conover DO. Adaptive significance of temperature-dependent sex determination in a fish. The American Naturalist. 1984;123(3):297–313. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Henderson BA, Trivedi T, Collins N. Annual cycle of energy allocation to growth and reproduction of yellow perch. Journal of Fish Biology. 2000;57(1):122–33. 10.1111/j.1095-8649.2000.tb00780.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Baroiller JF, D’Cotta H, Saillant E. Environmental effects on fish sex determination and differentiation. Sexual Development. 2009;3(2–3):118–35. 10.1159/000223077 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Römer U, Beisenherz W. Environmental determination of sex in Apistogrammai (Cichlidae) and two other freshwater fishes (Teleostei). Journal of Fish Biology. 1996;48(4):714–25. [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Rubin DA. Effect of pH on sex ratio in cichlids and a poecilliid (Teleostei). Copeia. 1985;1985(1):233–5. [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Oldfield RG. Genetic, abiotic and social influences on sex differentiation in cichlid fishes and the evolution of sequential hermaphroditism. Fish and Fisheries. 2005;6(2):93–110. [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Conover DO, Kynard BE. Environmental sex determination: interaction of temperature and genotype in a fish. Science. 1981;213:31 10.1126/science.213.4503.31 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Penman DJ, Piferrer F. Fish gonadogenesis. Part I: genetic and environmental mechanisms of sex determination. Reviews in Fisheries Science. 2008;16(sup1):16–34. 10.1080/10641260802324610 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Duffy TA, Picha ME, Won ET, Borski RJ, McElroy AE, Conover DO. Ontogenesis of gonadal aromatase gene expression in Atlantic silverside (Menidia menidia) populations with genetic and temperature-dependent sex determination. Journal of Experimental Zoology Part A: Ecological Genetics and Physiology. 2010;313A(7):421–31. 10.1002/jez.612 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Baumann H, Smith EM. Quantifying metabolically driven pH and oxygen fluctuations in US nearshore habitats at diel to interannual time scales. Estuaries and Coasts. 2017;41:1102–17. 10.1007/s12237-017-0321-3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Murray CS, Baumann H. You better repeat it: complex CO2 × temperature effects in Atlantic silverside offspring revealed by serial experimentation. Diversity. 2018;10(3):69 10.3390/d10030069 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Middaugh DP, Hemmer MJ, Goodman L. Methods for spawning, culturing and conducting toxicity-tests with early life stages of four atherinid fishes: The inland silverside,'Menidia beryllina', Atlantic silverside, 'M. menidia', tidewater silverside, 'M. peninsulae' and California grunion, 'Leuresthes tenuis'. Gulf Breeze, FL: 1987.
  • 50.Alexander MA, Scott JD, Friedland KD, Mills KE, Nye JA, Pershing AJ, et al. Projected sea surface temperatures over the 21st century: Changes in the mean, variability and extremes for large marine ecosystem regions of Northern Oceans. Elementa Science of the Anthropocene. 2018;6(1). [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Mehrbach C, Culberson CH, Hawley JE, Pytkowicx RM. Measurements of the apparent dissociation constants of carbonic acid in seawater at atmospheric pressure. Limnology and Oceanography. 1973;18(6):897–907. 10.4319/lo.1973.18.6.0897 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Dickson A, Millero F. A comparison of the equilibrium constants for the dissociation of carbonic acid in seawater media. Deep Sea Research Part A Oceanographic Research Papers. 1987;34(10):1733–43. [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Dickson AG. Standard potential of the reaction: AgCl (s)+ 12H2 (g) = Ag (s)+ HCl (aq), and and the standard acidity constant of the ion HSO4− in synthetic sea water from 273.15 to 318.15 K. The Journal of Chemical Thermodynamics. 1990;22(2):113–27. [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Murray CS, Malvezzi A, Gobler CJ, Baumann H. Offspring sensitivity to ocean acidification changes seasonally in a coastal marine fish. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 2014;504:1–11. 10.3354/meps10791 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Malvezzi AJ, Murray CS, Feldheim KA, DiBattista JD, Garant D, Gobler CJ, et al. A quantitative genetic approach to assess the evolutionary potential of a coastal marine fish to ocean acidification. Evolutionary applications. 2015;8(4):352–62. 10.1111/eva.12248 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Billerbeck JM, Schultz ET, Conover DO. Adaptive variation in energy acquisition and allocation among latitudinal populations of the Atlantic silverside. Oecologia. 2000;122(2):210–9. 10.1007/PL00008848 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Warton DI, Hui FK. The arcsine is asinine: the analysis of proportions in ecology. Ecology. 2011;92(1):3–10. 10.1890/10-0340.1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Rousselet GA, Pernet CR, Wilcox RR. Beyond differences in means: robust graphical methods to compare two groups in neuroscience. European Journal of Neuroscience. 2017;46(2):1738–48. 10.1111/ejn.13610 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Harrel FE, Davis CE. A new distribution-free quantile estimator. Biometrika. 1982;69(3):635–40. 10.1093/biomet/69.3.635 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Wilcox RR, Erceg-Hurn DM. Comparing two dependent groups via quantiles. Journal of Applied Statistics. 2012;39(12):2655–64. 10.1080/02664763.2012.724665 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Hochberg Y. A sharper Bonferroni procedure for multiple tests of significance. Biometrika. 1988;75(4):800–2. 10.1093/biomet/75.4.800 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker B, Walker S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. arXiv preprint arXiv:14065823. 2014. [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Kuznetsova A, Brockhoff PB, Christensen RHB. lmerTest package: tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software. 2017;82(13). [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Elphick CS. A protocol for data exploration to avoid common statistical problems. Methods in Ecology and Evolution. 2010;1(1):3–14. 10.1111/j.2041-210X.2009.00001.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Rousselet G, Wilcox R. rogme: Robust Graphical Methods For Group Comparisons. https://github.com/GRousselet/rogme; 2016.
  • 66.Torchiano M, Torchiano MM. Package ‘effsize’. 2020. [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Fritz CO, Morris PE, Richler JJ. Effect size estimates: current use, calculations, and interpretation. Journal of experimental psychology: General. 2012;141(1):2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Hanson KC, Gravel MA, Graham A, Shoji A, Cooke SJ. Sexual variation in fisheries research and management: when does sex matter? Reviews in Fisheries Science. 2008;16(4):421–36. 10.1080/10641260802013866 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Conover DO, Heins SW. Adaptive variation in environmental and genetic sex determination in a fish. Nature. 1987;326(6112):496–8. 10.1038/326496a0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.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 and Fisheries. 2015;16(1):23–57. 10.1111/faf.12043 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Conover DO, Ross MR. Patterns in seasonal abundance, growth and biomass of the Atlantic silverside, Menidia menidia, in a New England estuary. Estuaries. 1982;5(4):275–86. 10.2307/1351750 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Pringle JW, Baumann H. Otolith-based growth reconstructions in young-of-year Atlantic silversides Menidia menidia and their implications for sex-selective survival. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 2019;632:193–204. [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Welch MJ, Munday PL. Contrasting effects of ocean acidification on reproduction in reef fishes. Coral Reefs. 2016;35(2):485–93. 10.1007/s00338-015-1385-9 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Miller GM, Kroon FJ, Metcalfe S, Munday P. Temperature is the evil twin: effects of increased temperature and ocean acidification on reproduction in a reef fish. Ecological Applications. 2015;25(3):603–20. 10.1890/14-0559.1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Gräns A, Jutfelt F, Sandblom E, Jönsson E, Wiklander K, Seth H, et al. Aerobic scope fails to explain the detrimental effects on growth resulting from warming and elevated CO2 in Atlantic halibut. The Journal of Experimental Biology. 2014;217(5):711–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Conover DO, Present TMC. Countergradient variation in growth rate: compensation for length of the growing season among Atlantic silversides from different latitudes. Oecologia. 1990;83(3):316–24. 10.1007/BF00317554 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Yamahira K, Conover DO. Intra- vs. interspecific latitudinal variation in growth: adaptation to temperature or seasonality? Ecology. 2002;83(5):1252–62. 10.1890/0012-9658(2002)083[1252:Ivilvi]2.0.Co;2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Treer T. The relationship between condition and form factors of the Adriatic fishes in the Zadar area. Croatian journal of fisheries. 2017;75(4):153–5. 10.1515/cjf-2017-0019 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Schultz ET, Conover DO, Ehtisham A. The dead of winter: size-dependent variation and genetic differences in seasonal mortality among Atlantic silverside (Atherinidae: Menidia menidia) from different latitudes. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 1998;55(5):1149–57. [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Saenz-Agudelo P, Jones GP, Thorrold SR, Planes S. Mothers matter: contribution to local replenishment is linked to female size, mate replacement and fecundity in a fish metapopulation. Marine Biology. 2015;162(1):3–14. 10.1007/s00227-014-2556-x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Schultz ET, Conover DO. Latitudinal differences in somatic energy storage: adaptive responses to seasonality in an estuarine fish (Atherinidae: Menidia menidia). Oecologia. 1997;109(4):516–29. 10.1007/s004420050112 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Froese R. Cube law, condition factor and weight–length relationships: history, meta analysis and recommendations. Journal of applied ichthyology. 2006;22(4):241–53. [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Sundin J, Amcoff M, Mateos-González F, Raby GD, Clark TD. Long-term acclimation to near-future ocean acidification has negligible effects on energetic attributes in a juvenile coral reef fish. Oecologia. 2019. 10.1007/s00442-019-04430-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Jarrold MD, Munday PL. Diel CO2 cycles do not modify juvenile growth, survival and otolith development in two coral reef fish under ocean acidification. Marine Biology. 2018;165(3):49 10.1007/s00227-018-3311-5 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Pope EC, Ellis RP, Scolamacchia M, Scolding JWS, Keay A, Chingombe P, et al. European sea bass, Dicentrarchus labrax, in a changing ocean. Biogeosciences. 2014;11(9):2519–30. 10.5194/bg-11-2519-2014 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Hurst TP, Fernandez ER, Mathis JT, Miller JA, Stinson CM, Ahgeak EF. Resiliency of juvenile walleye pollock to projected levels of ocean acidification. Aquatic Biology. 2012;17(3):247–59. [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Wallace RB, Baumann H, Grear JS, Aller RC, Gobler CJ. Coastal ocean acidification: The other eutrophication problem. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science. 2014;148:1–13. 10.1016/j.ecss.2014.05.027 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Evans W, Pocock K, Hare A, Weekes C, Hales B, Jackson J, et al. Marine CO2 Patterns in the Northern Salish Sea. Frontiers in Marine Science. 2019;5(536). 10.3389/fmars.2018.00536 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 89.Melzner F, Thomsen J, Koeve W, Oschlies A, Gutowska M, Bange H, et al. Future ocean acidification will be amplified by hypoxia in coastal habitats. Marine Biology. 2012:1–14. 10.1007/s00227-012-1954-1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 90.Takeshita Y, Frieder C, Martz T, Ballard J, Feely R, Kram S, et al. Including high-frequency variability in coastal ocean acidification projections. Biogeosciences. 2015;12(19):5853–70. [Google Scholar]
  • 91.Houde ED. Comparative growth, mortality, and energetics of marine fish larvae: temperature and implied latitudinal effects. Fishery Bulletin. 1989;87(3):471–95. [Google Scholar]
  • 92.Sunday JM, Calosi P, Dupont S, Munday PL, Stillman JH, Reusch TB. Evolution in an acidifying ocean. Trends in ecology & evolution. 2014;29(2):117–25. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 93.Browman HI. Applying organized scepticism to ocean acidification research. ICES Journal of Marine Science. 2016;73(3):529–36. 10.1093/icesjms/fsw010 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 94.Nosek BA, Errington TM. What is replication? PLOS Biology. 2020;18(3):e3000691 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000691 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Frank Melzner

19 Feb 2020

PONE-D-19-33606

Are temperature-specific, long-term growth responses to elevated CO2 sex-specific in fish?

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Murray,

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.

While the ms contains a massive amount of work, I agree with criticism raised by reviewer 1/2 with respect to pseudoreplication, please clarify. I also agree that it is not possible to run one statistical model over the entire data set, as temp. experiments were conducted in different years. I very much agree with the insightful suggestions of reviewer 1 of how to bring this dataset into a publishable format, so please consider them carefully prior to resubmission.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Apr 04 2020 11:59PM. When you are 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.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

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). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Frank Melzner

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

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the collection site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why.

3. We noted in your submission details that a portion of your manuscript may have been presented or published elsewhere. [A small portion of the length data analysed for this study has been re-sampled from: Murray CS, Fuiman LA, Baumann H. Consequences of elevated CO2 exposure across multiple life stages in a coastal forage fish. ICES Journal of Marine Science. 2017;74(4):1051-61. doi: 10.1093/icesjms/fsw179.] Please clarify whether this [conference proceeding or publication] was peer-reviewed and formally published. If this work was previously peer-reviewed and published, in the cover letter please provide the reason that this work does not constitute dual publication and should be included in the current manuscript.

4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

[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: No

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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

**********

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

**********

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: Review of manuscript PONE-D-19-33606

The manuscript ‘Are temperature-specific, long-term growth responses to elevated CO2 sex-specific in fish?’ proposes to undertake what is unquestionably an area of significant importance within the biological literature, namely the lack of sex-specific responses being considered in a wide range of fields, and in this case specifically the field of climate change. This topic is also incredibly timely with a number of manuscripts starting to address this topic. Unfortunately however, I feel there are a number of significant methodological flaws with this study, which prevent it being possible to recommend for publication in its current form. Below I outline the major concerns, which will hopefully aid the authors in publishing their data, which definitely has value for the ocean acidification field, but certainly not in the way it is currently presented.

Major concerns:

My first major concern is the presentation of this manuscript as testing sex-specific responses across a range of temperature and pCO2 treatments. The title alludes to this fact, and then the introduction is almost entirely focused on the importance and implications of sex disaggregated results. However, in reality the sex-specific responses in this manuscript are restricted to one temperature treatment (17 degrees). The authors argue this is because temperature has a confounding effect on sex ratio at 24 degrees, preventing comparison. However, sex ratio is only presented for one of the two trials in which organisms were exposed to 24 degrees, and completely omitted from the 28 degree treatment. Was it not measured? Equally, whilst organismal numbers are certainly unbalanced at 24 and 28 degrees, the sex-specific response is still surely valid? As in nature where elevated temperatures and elevated pCO2s co-exist, this same male biased sex ratios would surely be present, and thus the possibility of subsequent sex-specific responses even more important for the future viability of this species, especially if any female enhanced sensitivity is noted. Also clearly this male bias with sex ratio is a major concern under climate change scenarios for this species, a point entirely overlooked in this paper. The alignment of this paper as testing sex-specific responses is not founded, and in reality can only be presented IF the 17 degree data is presented alone, hence removing the multi-stressor angle of the paper, due to the omission of meaningful sex disaggregated data from 2 of the 3 temperature treatments.

The second major concern is the authors propose to undertake a long-term multi factorial experiment over three years. Whilst this statement is true, it implies a well-designed, replicated fully factorial multi stressor experiment. In reality each trial, of which there were 4, tested the impact of pCO2 on fish growth under a single temperature, in different years. This approach is not valid. The experimental results obtained for the impact of elevated pCO2 on fish growth at 28 degrees, collected in 2017, are not directly comparable to the data collected in 2015 at 17 degrees. There are clearly confounding impacts that invalidate direct statistical comparison. Equally, the authors themselves claim variability in data collected in subsequent years may be due to an optimisation of experimental methodology during subsequent years. So they themselves appreciate that it is impossible to replicate the experiment in subsequent years identically, so designing the experiment to have each treatment tested in different years is a major concern. Data can certainly be compared within years/treatments, but not across treatments as presented.

The third major concern is the level of replication applied is very difficult to interpret. As presented is appears that embryos are divided in 3-4 circular vessels in a single main rearing tank per treatment. Then this is adjusted to 3x 50l vessels when larvae reach 10mm, distributed in the rearing vessel, before finally animals are released into the rearing vessel at 1200 degree days. This is 70 days, 50 days and 42 days post hatch respectively for 17, 24 and 28 degrees. So based on an experimental duration of 135 days, 107 days, and 88 days for these temperature treatments respectively, over half the experiment is conducted with all larvae in a single experimental rearing tank per trial. The rearing tank is the level at which the treatment is applied, so this is pseudo-replication, and in the case of the 28 degree treatment there is only 1 replicate. Either this is inadequate study design, or it is inadequate explanation of the exact experimental protocol in the methods. Hopefully this is the latter, and further detail can reassure the editor/reviewers/readers that the level of replication and statistical design was appropriate. Simply including tank, or year, as random effects in a LMM in not sufficient justification, when each year contains a single treatment (thus year would be exactly analogous to treatment effect).

My final concern is the water chemistry testing. Water used for the experiment came from Long Island sound, and was distributed in the rearing tanks at 300L. Each day 10% of water was changed from each rearing tank. Meaning essentially 100% water change every 10 days (although in reality not quite the case due to dilution). However, during each trial AT and salinity were measured 3 times, at 17 degrees this is 3 times in 135 days. So in the 45 days between AT measurements, water could have change completely 4 times. Given the known dynamics of carbonate chemistry in nearshore coastal regions, parameterising alkalinity this infrequently is not enough to fully describe the carbonate chemistry in this experiment, even if pH is measured daily.

In the discussion, the authors highlight the issues with empirical data collection, and the requirement of the field to coalesce around a set of standardised methodologies. However, in their own approach, the methodology employed by the authors is certainly far from standardised, optimised or appropriate for the way the data is laid out.

Undoubtedly this experimental design is a result of constraining factors outside the author’s control (e.g. the requirement to run separate treatments over subsequent years). This alone does not prevent the data being publishable (provided the major issue with the replication can be better explained as shown to be a miscommunication of the real level of replication, which must be far greater). If the data was presented as 3 discrete components/separate experiments (e.g. impact of sex on pCO2 impacts at 17 degrees/ impact of pCO2 on growth at 24 degrees/ impact of growth at 28 degrees), it could add valuable data (albeit far less elegant than the intended aim of this study as initially presented) to the field.

Reviewer #2: I find that the questions asked by the authors to be of contemporary scientific interest and the model species used to be suitable for the questions raised. However, I think that there are certain drawbacks that would require major revisions in the manuscript regarding clarification/reanalyses when it comes to the experimental design and revision of the results that are currently presented in a confusing manner. Please find my specific comments to be detailed below.

Major:

Title: Please rephrase this to sentence as it is currently quite vague.

Line 50: Dated reference, based on what scenario? Latest IPCC projections vary.

Line 52-54: This comes across very dire. Please present negative, neutral and positive effects in the introduction as perhaps see the latest from Jutfelt group (DOI: 10.1038/s41586-019-1903-y).

Line 115: How many of these tanks per treatment? Line 169 suggests to me that everything may be pseudo replicated. One of my main concerns throughout the manuscript is that the trials should be the replicate and within each trial, organisms face the same water (static tanks, correct?) and are therefore pseudo replicates. If I got this wrong, I recommend making this clearer in the methods.

Line 137: Reference to how long these trials lasted either in table or text here please.

Line 195: Discards not sexed?

Line 196: What were the mortality rates?

Line 214: This needs to be tested.

Lines 216-217: Were checks made for baseline differences between trials?

Lines 225-227: Please revise, confusing.

Line 225: Line 217 suggests this was checked at 24C for trial three, so this is confusing. If literature suggests effects occur above 20C, then why test 17C? Why is the interaction of higher temperature and pH not interesting to the authors?

Line 230: Seeing the interesting results on Fultons k, I am unsure why wW isn’t included.

Line 242: The same individual was not compared over time, so a pairwise t-test may not be appropriate.

Line 247: Prefer a formal stats test for these.

Lines 250-256, Line 267: Trials may have to replicate here. They are the source of biological variability in experimental design.

Line 270: Ok, but what about sex specific effects?

Line 274-275: Confusing with respect to line 271.

Line 298: Is this essentially the control?

Line 307: “co2 effect sizes” which direction?

Line 307-308: Or there is simply no effect?

Line 309: Why not no evidence?

Line 315: Ok, but that life history stage is not tested here either.

Line 319: on what aspects of reprodcutove success?

Line 322: Not sure if the process of sex determination is the one investigated here.

Line 323: Why only 2000 in line 305 then?

Line 327-328: Again, to me this evidence suggesting that there are different baslines across trials since they are likely the true replicates. Also, this sentence is quite confusing. Either discuss the 80’s data or don’t but brushing over what is presents seems pointless.

Lines 322-334: Why not discuss the temperature differences in sex ratio here?

Line 329: What are these sex ratios?

Line 349-350: To me, it would be interesting if this is in the gonads or where specifically?

Line 354: What size is the large size and how much higher survival? How does it compare to your data?

Line 355-356: Does this account for higher fultons k observed at higher pCO2?

Line 358-359: But what if smaller fish produce better quality eggs?

Note: Authors lead discussion along a premise of individuals becoming smaller = negative consequences. I’d like to see some discussion of if there can be a selection towards smakker sied individuals with higher fultons k and what that might imply.

Lines 362-363: What concentrations of CO2, what temperature levels? Ie are they comparable? This is too brief, please discuss conflicting data.

Lines 370-378: These line are repetitive to text in methods/introduction.

Lines 386-388: without the test, this statement is speculative. Remove.

Lines 394-396: OK, but what about trials 3 and 4?

Line 397: How can this be environmentally explained?

Lines 401-403: Obvious, remove. With this in mind, authors should have applied these practices to lines 395-396.

Minor:

Abstract: Please go through the text to standardise text for species names (italics) and pCO2 as in the main manuscript.

Line 38: Not clear what the control temperature treatment is.

Line 57: What latitudes/environments?

Line 67: Well it’s not just likely, in certain cases, it has been demonstrated. See Mittermayer et al 2019 Scientific Reports for one example.

Line 68: too small to detect but what about theoretical calculations?

Lines 71-73: Again, see recent paper from the Jutfelt group.

Line 88: How strong is this relationship?

Line 93: “more male biased” This is too vague, please be more specific.

Line 93: “low pH conditions” Please provide the range of these conditions.

Line 94: Specify what the warm conditions are.

Line 138: How long were samples stored in these conditions and how?

Line 157: How were they separated by sex?

Line 157: What are these low densities? Temperature is a wide range..

Line 162: At what ratio? When was fertilisation estimated?

Line 176: Specify PAR

Line 183: Concentration of shrimp nauplii and small rations?

Line 185: Time period, concentrations?

Lines 193-194: When, how much?

Line 230: Change intercorrelated to correlated.

Line 250: Body size date?

Line 257: “long term exposure” What is this period exactly?

Lines 261-262: In which treatments?

Line 291: Grammar.

Lines 325-326: Mechanism not studied here, too speculative.

Line 352-353: Remove.

Line 382: What life stage?

Line 409: Change determination to ratios. Also, check grammar of following sentence.

Line 673, Table 1: Why the different number of days within the 24C treatment? Why the different number of tanks?

Line 682, Table 2: Please provide HCO3- data.

Line 691, Table 3: Can ages for tables 1 and 3 be given consistently? Trial 3 looks like it might have significant effects but is not discussed in line 250-256?

Line 726, Figure 1: dotted lines not needed as the trend is not studied. Also, for panel 1 (17C), seems higher within each trial. Maybe paired tests here with the trial as the replicate and check for indepedant temperature effects later?

Figure 2: What about trial 3 in table 3?

Figure 3: Remove dotted lines since same individual TL is not being tracked.

Figure 4: Panel 3, bottom. What is trial 5?

**********

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

[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 to be viewed.]

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 us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Jul 17;15(7):e0235817. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0235817.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


30 Apr 2020

To address the additional requirements listed in the decision letter, we have thoroughly checked that our manuscript meets PLOS ONE’s style requirements and have added captions for Supporting Information files at the end of the manuscript. No additional permits were required for the collection of wild Menidia menidia or for access to our collection site. Lastly, a portion of the samples analyzed in this study was resampled from the peer-reviewed manuscript: Murray CS, Fuiman LA, Baumann H. Consequences of elevated CO2 exposure across multiple life stages in a coastal forage fish. ICES Journal of Marine Science. 2017;74(4):1051-61. doi: 10.1093/icesjms/fsw179. This does not constitute dual publication because these resampled fish were dissected for sex identification, which enabled the analysis of sex-specific effects of high pCO2. Sex-specific effects were not addressed in Murray et al. (2017).

Attachment

Submitted filename: Murray & Baumann - Reviewer responses.docx

Decision Letter 1

Frank Melzner

24 Jun 2020

Are long-term growth responses to elevated pCO2 sex-specific in fish?

PONE-D-19-33606R1

Dear Dr. Murray,

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,

Frank Melzner

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. 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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. 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

**********

5. 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

**********

6. 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: In re-reviewing the manuscript 'Are long-term growth responses to elevated pCO2 sex-specific in fish?' it is clear the authors have undertaken a significant amount of work to address the comments made by both reviewers. Undoubtedly, the manuscript on first submission was topical, interesting and had significant potential merit for the scientific community. However, as also highlighted there were a number of significant issues that needed addressing before the paper could be accepted for publication.

The authors have done a really commendable job in taking on board all the constructive comments made by both reviewers, and in revising have thus significantly strengthened quality of the manuscript. I particularly liked the approach used with the shift analysis. This presented an elegant way of assessing the response profiles of the treatment groups, rather than focussing on an average response - which fails to capture inter-individual variability across the population demographic.

Whilst it is clear it was not possible to address all reviewer comments - indeed the concern over psuedo-replication in trial 4 remains and is valid, the authors concede this was due to a limitation in space availability for this experiment. The authors outline this explicitly in the methods and omit LMM on this trial for this reason. Therefore I do not feel this issue is sufficient to preclude publication. All experiments are on some level an abstraction of reality, and need interpreting in light of their limitations. The revised manuscript clearly presents what experiments have been undertaken, and more importantly the caution that needs to be taken when interpreting the results. I therefore feel it will make a valuable addition to the scientific literature, and now recommend it be published in PLOS One.

Reviewer #2: I am happy to see the revisions implemented to the manuscript particularly in relation to the statistical methods applied and details now provided for the level of replication. Additionally, the revisions requested to the introduction and results were adequately addressed. Typically, I’d still like to see calculated HCO3- values and I believe authors can overcome page formatting issues for the table.

Finally, I have some minor suggestions for the revised file to the authors:

Abstract, Line 32: Grammar of ‘model forage fish..’

Introduction, Line 67: Technically only a fraction is also studied here (1/3rd). I guess authors mean a small fraction?

Line 44 in the abstract (“expectedly”) conflicts with lines 88-90 of the introduction.

Line 164: How were the separated by sex?

**********

7. 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

Acceptance letter

Frank Melzner

6 Jul 2020

PONE-D-19-33606R1

Are long-term growth responses to elevated pCO2 sex-specific in fish?

Dear Dr. Murray:

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. Frank Melzner

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 Checklist

    (DOCX)

    S1 Table. Information on adult spawners.

    The number and length of Spawning ripe M. menidia used to fertilize trials 1–4.

    (DOCX)

    S2 Table. Summary statistics of subsampled offspring.

    M. menidia. Mean (±s.d.) TL and samples sizes (N) of subsampled offspring from trials 1–4.

    (DOCX)

    S1 Data

    (XLSX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Murray & Baumann - Reviewer responses.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES