Naturwissenschaften

, Volume 97, Issue 7, pp 673–682 | Cite as

Habitat selection by breeding waterbirds at ponds with size-structured fish populations

  • Janusz Kloskowski
  • Marek Nieoczym
  • Marcin Polak
  • Piotr Pitucha
Original Paper

Abstract

Fish may significantly affect habitat use by birds, either as their prey or as competitors. Fish communities are often distinctly size-structured, but the consequences for waterbird assemblages remain poorly understood. We examined the effects of size structure of common carp (Cyprinus carpio) cohorts together with other biotic and abiotic pond characteristics on the distribution of breeding waterbirds in a seminatural system of monocultured ponds, where three fish age classes were separately stocked. Fish age corresponded to a distinct fish size gradient. Fish age and total biomass, macroinvertebrate and amphibian abundance, and emergent vegetation best explained the differences in bird density between ponds. Abundance of animal prey other than fish (aquatic macroinvertebrates and larval amphibians) decreased with increasing carp age in the ponds. Densities of ducks and smaller grebes were strongly negatively associated with fish age/size gradient. The largest of the grebes, the piscivorous great crested grebe (Podiceps cristatus), was the only species that preferred ponds with medium-sized fish and was positively associated with total fish biomass. Habitat selection by bitterns and most rallids was instead strongly influenced by the relative amount of emergent vegetation cover in the ponds. Our results show that fish size structure may be an important cue for breeding habitat choice and a factor affording an opportunity for niche diversification in avian communities.

Keywords

Common carp Distant competition Habitat selection Size-structured interactions Waterbird assemblages 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the fish farmers (M. Filipiak, J. Orzepowski, and M. Sagan) for their help and for regular access to the ponds. Comments from three anonymous referees greatly improved the manuscript. This research was funded by grants from the State Committee for Scientific Research (KBN 6 PO4F 066 20 and 3 PO4F 036 23).

References

  1. Allen J, Nuechterlein G, Buitron D (2007) Resident nongame waterbird use following biomanipulation of a shallow lake. J Wildl Manage 71:1158–1162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bajer PG, Sullivan G, Sorensen PW (2009) Effects of rapidly increasing population of common carp on vegetative cover and waterfowl in a recently restored Midwestern shallow lake. Hydrobiologia 632:235–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bandorf H (1970) Der Zwergtaucher (Tachybaptus rufficolis). Ziemsen, Wittenberg LutherstadtGoogle Scholar
  4. Bibby CJ, Burgess ND, Hill DA, Mustoe SH (2000) Bird census techniques, 2nd edn. Academic, LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. Brenninkmeijer A, Stienen EWM, Klassen M, Kersten M (2002) Feeding ecology of wintering terns in Guinea-Bissau. Ibis 144:602–613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cezilly F (1992) Turbidity as an ecological solution to reduce the impact of fish-eating colonial waterbirds on fish farms. Col Waterbirds 15:249–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cramp S (1985) Handbook of the birds of Europe and the Middle East and North Africa, vol 4. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  8. Crivelli AJ (1983) The destruction of aquatic vegetation by carp. Hydrobiologia 106:37–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Diamond J (1986) Overview: laboratory experiments, field experiments, and natural experiments. In: Diamond J, Case TJ (eds) Community ecology. Harper and Row, New York, pp 3–21Google Scholar
  10. Driver PD, Closs GP, Koen T (2005) The effects of size and density of carp (Cyprinus carpio L.) on water quality in an experimental pond. Arch Hydrobiol 163:117–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eadie JM, Keast A (1982) Do Goldeneye and perch compete for food? Oecologia 55:225–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Elmberg J, Nummi P, Poeysae H, Sjoeberg K (1994) Relationships between species number, lake size and resource diversity in assemblages of breeding waterfowl. J Biogeogr 21:75–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Englund G, Johansson F, Olsson TI (1992) Asymmetric competition between distant taxa: poeciliid fishes and water striders. Oecologia 92:498–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eriksson MOG (1979) Competition between freshwater fish and Goldeneyes Bucephala clangula (L.) for common prey. Oecologia 41:99–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fjeldså J (1982) The adaptive significance of local variations in the bill and jaw anatomy of North European red-necked grebes Podiceps grisegena. Ornis Fenn 59:84–98Google Scholar
  16. Fjeldså J (2004) The Grebes—Podicipedidae. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  17. Gilbert G, Tyler G, Smith KW (2003) Nestling diet and fish preference of bitterns Botaurus stellaris in Britain. Ardea 91:35–44Google Scholar
  18. Giles N (1994) Tufted duck (Aythya fuligula) habitat use and brood survival increases after fish removal from gravel pit lakes. Hydrobiologia 279(280):387–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Griffiths RA (1985) A simple funnel trap for studying newt populations and an evaluation in smooth and palmate newts, Triturus vulgaris and Triturus helveticus. Br J Herpetol 1:5–10Google Scholar
  20. Grimmet RFA, Jones TA (1989) Important bird areas in Europe. ICBP Technical Publ. no. 9, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  21. Haas K, Köhler U, Diehl S, Köhler P, Dietrich S, Holler S, Jensch A, Niedermaier M, Vilsmeier J (2007) Influence of fish on habitat choice of water birds: a whole-system experiment. Ecology 88:2915–2925CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Hargeby A, Andersson G, Blindow I, Johansson S (1994) Trophic web structure in a shallow eutrophic lake during a dominance shift from phytoplankton to submerged macrophytes. Hydrobiologia 279(280):83–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hill D, Wright R, Street M (1987) Survival of mallard ducklings Anas platyrhynchos and competition with fish for invertebrates on a flooded gravel quarry in England. Ibis 129:159–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Holmgren K, Appelberg M (2000) Size structure of benthic freshwater fish communities in relation to environmental gradients. J Fish Biol 57:1312–1330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Holopainen IJ, Hyvarinen H (1985) Ecology and physiology of crucian carp [Carassius carassius (L.)] in small Finnish ponds with anoxic conditions in winter. Verh Int Verein Limnol 22:2566–2570Google Scholar
  26. Hurlbert SH, Loayza W, Moreno T (1986) Fish–flamingo–plankton interactions in the Peruvian Andes. Limnol Oceanogr 3:457–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jenkins RKB, Ormerod SJ (2002) Habitat preferences of breeding water rail Rallus aquaticus. Bird Study 49:2–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kloskowski J (2004) Food provisioning in red-necked grebes (Podiceps grisegena) at common carp (Cyprinus carpio) ponds. Hydrobiologia 525:131–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kloskowski J (2009) Size-structured effects of common carp on reproduction of pond-breeding amphibians. Hydrobiologia 635:205–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Koskimies P, Väisänen RA (1991) Monitoring bird populations. A manual of methods applied in Finland. Zool. Mus., Finnish Mus. Nat. Hist., Univ. Helsinki, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  31. Lammens EHRR (1999) The central role of fish in lake restoration and management. Hydrobiologia 396:191–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lammens EHRR, Hoogenboezem W (1991) Diets and feeding behaviour. In: Winfield IJ, Nelson JS (eds) Cyprinid fishes: systematics, biology and exploitation. Chapman and Hall, London, pp 353–376Google Scholar
  33. Levins R (1979) Asymmetric competition among distant taxa. Am Zool 19:1097–1104Google Scholar
  34. Lind OT (1985) Handbook of common methods in limnology. Kendall/Hunt, DubuqueGoogle Scholar
  35. Mallory ML, Blancher PJ, Weatherhead PJ, McNicol DK (1994) Presence or absence of fish as a cue to macroinvertebrate abundance in boreal wetlands. Hydrobiologia 279–280:345–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McParland CE, Paszkowski CA (2006) Effects of small-bodied fish on invertebrate prey and foraging patterns of waterbirds in Aspen Parkland wetlands. Hydrobiologia 567:43–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Meijer ML, Lammens EH, Raat AJP, Grimm MP, Hosper SH (1990) Impact of cyprinids on zooplankton and algae in ten drainable ponds. Hydrobiologia 191:275–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Moran MD (2003) Arguments for rejecting the sequential Bonferroni in ecological studies. Oikos 100:403–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Moser ME (1986) Prey profitability for adult grey herons Ardea cinerea and the constraints on prey size when feeding young nestlings. Ibis 128:392–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mraz D, Cooper EL (1957) Natural reproduction and survival of carp in small ponds. J Wildl Manage 21:66–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Murkin HR, Abbott PG, Kadlec JA (1983) A comparison of activity traps and sweep nets for sampling nektonic invertebrates in wetlands. Freshw Invertebr Biol 2:99–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nummi P, Pöysä H, Elmberg J, Sjöberg K (1994) Habitat distribution of the mallard in relation to vegetation structure, food, and population density. Hydrobiologia 279–280:247–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Panek FM (1987) Biology and ecology of carp. In: Cooper EL (ed) Carp in North America. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, pp 1–15Google Scholar
  44. Paszkowski CA, Tonn WM (2000) Community concordance between the fish and aquatic birds of lakes in northern Alberta, Canada: the relative importance of environmental and biotic factors. Freshw Biol 43:421–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Penttinen O-P, Holopainen IJ (1992) Seasonal feeding activity and ontogenetic dietary shifts in crucian carp, Carassius carassius. Env Biol Fishes 33:215–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Persson L (1988) Asymmetries in competitive and predatory interactions in fish populations. In: Ebenman B, Persson L (eds) Size-structured populations: ecology and evolution. Springer, Berlin, pp 203–218Google Scholar
  47. Polak M (2007) Food of nestling great bitterns Botaurus stellaris at fishpond complexes in eastern Poland. Bird Study 54:280–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ranoszek E (1983) Test for methods of number estimation of breeding water birds. Not Ornitol 24:177–201 (In Polish)Google Scholar
  49. Richardson MJ, Whoriskey FG (1992) Factors influencing the production of turbidity by goldfish. Can J Zool 70:1585–1589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Safina C, Burger J (1985) Common tern foraging—seasonal trends in prey fish densities and competition with bluefish. Ecology 66:1457–1463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sargeant AB, Raveling DG (1992) Mortality during the breeding season. In: Batt DDJ (ed) Ecology and management of breeding waterfowl. Univ. Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, pp 396–422Google Scholar
  52. Suter W (1991) Der Einfluß fischfressender Vogelarten auf Süßwasserfischbestände—eine Übersicht. J Ornithol 132:29–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. ter Braak CJF, Šmilauer P (2002) CANOCO reference manual and CanoDraw for Windows User_s guide: software for Canonical Community Ordination (version 4.5). Microcomputer Power, IthacaGoogle Scholar
  54. Tonn WM, Magnuson JJ (1982) Patterns in the species composition and richness of fish assemblages in northern Wisconsin Lakes. Ecology 63:1149–1166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. van Eerden MR, Piersma T, Lindeboom R (1993) Competitive food exploitation of Smelt Osmerus eperlanus by great crested grebes Podiceps cristatus and perch Perca fluviatilis at Lake Ijsselmeer, The Netherlands. Oecologia 93:463–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Weller MW (1999) Wetland birds: habitat resources and conservation implications. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Zambrano L, Scheffer M, Martínez-Ramos M (2001) Catastrophic response of lakes to benthivorous fish introduction. Oikos 94:344–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Janusz Kloskowski
    • 1
  • Marek Nieoczym
    • 2
  • Marcin Polak
    • 1
  • Piotr Pitucha
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Nature Conservation, Institute of BiologyMaria Curie-Skłodowska UniversityLublinPoland
  2. 2.Department of ZoologyUniversity of Life SciencesLublinPoland
  3. 3.Inspectorate for Environmental Protection in LublinLublinPoland

Personalised recommendations