The influence of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) and...
Transcript of The influence of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) and...
The influence of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) and brown trout (Salmo trutta)on the breeding of the
white-throated dipper (Cinclus cinclus)
Natural History MuseumCentre for Ecological and Evolutionary SynthesisNorwegian Water Resource and Energy DirectorateNorwegian Institute for Nature ResearchNorwegian University of Life Sciences
Anna L. K. NilssonJan Henning L’Abée-Lund
Asbjørn VøllestadKurt Jerstad
Ole Wiggo RøstadSvein Jakob Saltveit
Thomas SkaugenNils C. StensethBjørn Walseng
Hypothesis:• Sharing the same food items, juvenile salmonids may influence on the
breeding and reproductive success of white-throated dipper
Background:• Interactions between birds and fish are often overlooked in aquatic
ecosystems
Suitability:• Before and after recovery of an extinct salmonid population
• The recovery of salmon populations introduced a potential for renewed interactions with the dipper.
Data on dipper breeding success:
• Continuously monitoring data on population size, breeding attempts and breeding success of all dipper pairs in the river system
Two types of fish data to test the associations between dipper success and abundance of fish:
• The total egg production and thus the recruitment of juvenile salmonids was estimated from the catch statistics
• Long-term monitoring data on the density of juvenile salmonids
Nilsson ALK, Knudsen E, Jerstad K, Røstad OW, Walseng B, Slagsvold T, Stenseth NC. (2011). Climate effects on population fluctuations of the white-throated dipper Cinclus cinclus. Journal of Animal Ecology, 80, 235-243.
• Climate has so far been the most important factor explaining fluctuations in population size
Population fluctuations of the white‐throated dipper Cinclus cinclus
Data on dipper breeding success:
• Continuously monitoring data on population size, breeding attempts and breeding success of all dipper pairs in the river system
Annual salmon fecundity: • Salmon <3 kg 40% females• Salmon 3-7 kg 70% females• Salmon >7 kg 55% females
• 1500 eggs per kg female salmon
Annual trout fecundity:• Ratio of males to females 1:1
• Mean fecundity estimated following the regression ln F=1·009 ln W+0·695,(Jonsson & Jonsson 1999).
• Assumptions: resident female trout only produced a marginal number of eggs
Two types of fish data:
1.Total egg production and recruitment estimated from the catch statistics
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 2008 2011 2014
Wei
ght i
n kg
< 3kg 3-7 kg >7 kg Trout kg
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 2008 2011 2014
Tota
l fec
undi
ty
Salmon Trout
Two periods: 1978-1992 and 1993-2014
Before After salmon recolonization
0
25
50
75
100
1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010
No.
pr.1
00m
2
Atlantic salmon 0+ parrOlder parr
0
25
50
75
100
1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010
No.
pr.1
00m
2
Brown trout 0+ parrOlder parr
0
25
50
75
100
1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010
No.
pr.1
00m
2
Brown trout 0+ parrOlder parr
Before After salmon recolonization
Fish density non anadromous reachFish density anadromous reach
Testing:
1. Temporal trends in the salmonid and dipper data; least-squares regression analysis
2. Correlations between the estimated fecundity of salmon and trout and:• the dipper population size • the reproductive output
3. Correlations between the estimated average density of the fry and parr and:• the dipper population size• the reproductive output the next spring
4. Relationship between fecundity and winter temperature
Size of the dipper breeding population during 1978-2014
• No significant temporal trend in the total size of the two dipper populations
• Strong correlation between the size of the two dipper populations; r=0.83, P<0.0001)
• Significant increase in both population size during 1978-1992 (p<0.001)
• No temporal trend after salmonid recolonization
0
20
40
60
80
100
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Num
ber o
f bre
edin
g pa
irs
Upstream
DownstreamR2 = 0,7588
R2 = 0,5815
Temporal trends in the dipper population:
Salmonid recolonization
Annual catch of salmon and trout from 1993 to 2014
R² = 0.3575
R² = 0.5892
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 2008 2011 2014
Cat
ch in
num
ber
Trout NoSalmon No
• The annual catch of salmon increased; p< 0.0001• The annual catch of trout decreased; p< 0.0042
Temporal trends in salmonids:
Annual fecundity of salmon and trout from 1993 to 2014
• Increased annual total salmon fecundity; p= 0.0001 • Decreased annual total trout fecundity; p=0.02• Increased annual total salmonid fecundity; p= 0.02
Temporal trends in salmonids:
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013
Fecu
cudi
ty (a
nnua
l num
ber o
f egg
s in
th
ousa
nds)
Salmon Trout Total
R= 0.2454
R= 0.2778
R= 0.5415
Annual density of salmon and trout fry from 1991 to 2010
• Increase in juvenile salmon fry density; p< 0.0001 • Decrease in juvenile trout fry density; p=0.03• No density change in upstream juvenile trout fry density; p= 0.8 (not on fig.)
R² = 0.5256
R² = 0.2232
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009
No.
fish
per
100
m2
Salmon fry Trout fry
Temporal trends in salmonids:
Downstream:• Salmon fecundity, trout fecundity, total salmonid fecundity or the juvenile fish density did not explain
any of the variation in the dipper population size
• Mean winter temperature did account for the variation in the dipper population size; z=4.2, P<0.0001
Upstream:• Dipper population was positively affected by the mean winter temperature; b=0.17, z=8.8, P<0.0001
• Dipper population positively affected by trout fry density; b=0.008, z=4.7, P<0.0001
Impacts on dipper population size
Impacts on dipper reproductive output- breeding attempts
Successful versus failed breeding attempts rates
Upstream dipper populationDownstream:
• No difference in success rate between before (0.85) and after (0.80) salmon recolonizing
• No temporal trend in rates• A higher overall success rate p=0.0002).
Upstream:• Difference in successful attempts between before
and after (resp. 0.70 and 0.64; P=0.02)
• Significant decline in success rates during 1978-1992 ;p=0.03)
• Significant increase after 1993;p=0.003).
Impacts on dipper reproductive output- number of chicks
Downstream:
• No temporal trend• No difference in output before (3.9) and after (4.0) salmon recolonizing; p=0.5• No association with the fecundity of salmon or trout or total fecundity• No association with the juvenile salmonid density; salmon, trout or total
Upstream:
• No temporal trend• No difference in output before (3.9) and after (3.9) trout recolonizing; p=0.4• No association with the juvenile trout density; fry or parr
Facts:• The downstream territories were not less attractive for the dipper after the
recolonization by salmon
• The upstream dipper breeding success declined before the recolonization and increased after, linked to the improved water quality, increasing invertebrate prey abundances and biodiversity
Conclusions:
• The breeding dipper population size and reproductive output was not influenced by salmon, trout or total salmonid fecundity
• The upstream dipper population size was positively affected by the density of juvenile trout
• Upstream juvenile trout had a weak positive effect on the dipper population, indicating that dippers may prey on small trout
• Winter temperatures and acid rain with subsequent liming seem to play a more important role in the life history of the dipper
• The improved water quality increased biodiversity and important prey groups for both the dipper and the fish
Thanks to: The field crew
Thankyou for listening
Financial support: Norwegian Research Council (no. 221393) The Norwegian Water Resources and Energy DirectorateNorwegian Environment Agency