Interactions between fish utilizing nearshore habitats of the Fraser River estuary were investigated by field observations and laboratory experiments. Chum salmon fry (Oncorhynchus keta) were the most abundant salmonid captured between April and June. Non-salmonid species captured included: threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus), prickly sculpin (Coitus asper), and peamouth chub (Mylocheilus caurinus). Potential predators included: prickly sculpin, and northern squawfish (Ptychocheilus oregonensis), but few had been feeding on fish. Chum fry fed predominantly on surface insects but the proportion of benthic prey in the diet increased over time. Stickleback shared the greatest diet overlap with chum fry. Interactions between two dissimilar prey, chum fry and threespine stickleback, and a predator, cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki) were investigated in the laboratory. Prey response to hungry and satiated predators was related to the degree of risk. Although attack rates by trout on chum and stickleback were similar, trout captured more stickleback than chum, but consumed both prey at similar rates. I tested the hypotheses that prey foraging efficiency is reduced in the presence of a predator and increased in the presence of alternate prey. When alone, chum fed on surface Drosophila and mid-water Daphnia, while stickleback fed on benthic Tubifex and Daphnia. The feeding efficiency of chum increased in the presence of stickleback and decreased in the presence of trout. Hatchery and wild chum showed opposite dietary shifts in the presence of trout. Hatchery chum shifted from surface to mid-water feeding and the number of fish feeding significantly decreased. Wild chum fed at the surface, at significantly decreased feeding rates. In the presence of stickleback and trout the feeding behaviour of chum was similar to that when chum were alone. Stickleback feeding behaviour was not affected by presence of trout or chum. Chum and stickleback detected Daphnia faster than Drosophila or Tubifex, and chum responded to Daphnia significantly faster than stickleback. Foraging time per item was significantly less for chum than stickleback. Habitat use by fish prey was investigated in the presence and absence of trout and alternate prey. Wild chum shifted from mid-water to the surface in the presence of trout, but returned to mid-water when stickleback were present. Stickleback fed in bottom habitats regardless of the presence of trout or chum. When prey were confined to specific depths in the water column, trout attacked chum more frequently than stickleback in all locations and attacked both prey more frequently within 24 cm of the substrate. Movement by prey did not affect the attack rate. When given a choice between a food-rich open water habitat and a food-deficient vegetated habitat in the presence of trout and alternate prey, chum and stickleback used vegetated refugia significantly more in the presence of trout. Alternate prey presence decreased the proportion of chum but increased the proportion of stickleback using vegetation. Behavioural responses to avoid predation significantly reduced the foraging efficiency of prey. Chum showed stronger responses to trout than stickleback. The presence of stickleback reduced the effect of predation on foraging efficiency. Possible explanations for the positive effect of stickleback on chum feeding efficiency were experimentally examined including: social facilitation, reduced intraspecific competition, and the calming influence of stickleback on chum behaviour ("dither"). The results suggest that stickleback have a calming influence on chum behaviour and that mixed species feeding groups may reduce intraspecific competition. / Science, Faculty of / Zoology, Department of / Graduate

Co-evolution between parasites and their hosts result in extremely well-orchestrated and intimate relationships that are characterized by remarkable adaptations in the attack response of the parasite and the defense response of the host. To fully understand host-parasite interactions, these adaptations must be considered in the context of the ecological constraints in which they evolved. As a serious pest to salmon mariculture, Lepeophtheirus salmonis has been extensively studied; however, there are still several areas that require further research. Of utmost importance, and the topic of this thesis, is molecular basis for resistance to sea lice. The following chapters investigate this phenomena under the umbrella of ecological immunology using combined modern technologies of transcriptomics, proteomics and functional immunology with a focus on the primary interaction site. In the first chapter, I describe the key players involved in this host-parasite relationship with a focus on the primary interaction site, the louse-salmon interface, where there are responses by the louse (attack) and the salmon host (defense). Previous research indicated that an early aggressive inflammatory response at the louse-skin interface contributes to resistance in coho salmon; however, there are no data characterizing a site-specific response in resistant (pink and coho) and susceptible (Atlantic, chum) species. Accordingly in Chapter 2, I define site-specific cutaneous responses in Atlantic, pink and chum salmon to establish genetic biomarkers of resistance. Chapter 3 focuses on identification of cellular effectors using histochemical localization of biomarkers to characterize cellular populations activated at the louse-attachment site, while broadening the gene targets. Our notion of pink salmon as a resistant species is challenged by the common observation of migrating pink salmon supporting large populations of L. salmonis in the field. Thus the purpose of chapter 4 was to investigate potential mechanisms to explain variations in susceptibility as a function of life history. Host-parasite relationships are a product of both host and parasite responses; therefore, in chapters 5 and 6, I shift focus to the level of the parasite. In chapter 5 I present the first documented large-scale transcriptomic profiling of L. salmonis during feeding on both resistant (coho) and susceptible (Atlantic, sockeye) salmon. This was followed (chapter 6) by describing the proteomic profile of L. salmonis secretions after feeding on Atlantic salmon. In the seventh and final chapter, I present my conclusions on the molecular mechanisms for resistance to sea lice and discuss potential applications of this information for future louse control strategies. / Graduate