, Volume 98, Issue 1, pp 57–66 | Cite as

Innocent until proven guilty? Stable coexistence of alien rainbow trout and native marble trout in a Slovenian stream

  • Simone Vincenzi
  • Alain J. Crivelli
  • Dusan Jesensek
  • Gianluigi Rossi
  • Giulio A. De Leo
Original Paper


To understand the consequences of the invasion of the nonnative rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss on the native marble trout Salmo marmoratus, we compared two distinct headwater sectors where marble trout occur in allopatry (MTa) or sympatry (MTs) with rainbow trout (RTs) in the Idrijca River (Slovenia). Using data from field surveys from 2002 to 2009, with biannual (June and September) sampling and tagging from June 2004 onwards, we analyzed body growth and survival probabilities of marble trout in each stream sector. Density of age-0 in September over the study period was greater for MTs than MTa and very similar between MTs and RTs, while density of trout ≥age-1 was similar for MTa and MTs and greater than density of RTs. Monthly apparent survival probabilities were slightly higher in MTa than in MTs, while RTs showed a lower survival than MTs. Mean weight of marble and rainbow trout aged 0+ in September was negatively related to cohort density for both marble and rainbow trout, but the relationship was not significantly different between MTs and MTa. No clear depression of body growth of sympatric marble trout between sampling intervals was observed. Despite a later emergence, mean weight of RTs cohorts at age 0+ in September was significantly higher than weight of both MTs and MTa. The establishment of a self-sustaining population of rainbow trout does not have a significant impact on body growth and survival probabilities of sympatric marble trout. The numerical dominance of rainbow trout in streams at lower altitudes seem to suggest that while the low summer flow pattern of Slovenian streams is favorable for rainbow trout invasion, the adaptation of marble trout to headwater environments may limit the invasion success of rainbow trout in headwaters.


Rainbow trout Marble trout Invasion Survival Body growth 

Supplementary material

114_2010_741_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (139 kb)
Appendix 1Mean daily water temperature in Sectors S (marble trout in sympatry with rainbow trout) and A (marble trout in allopatry) (PDF 138 KB)
114_2010_741_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (32 kb)
Appendix 2Model selection for estimation of apparent monthly survival (ϕ) and recapture (p) probabilities for marble and rainbow trout living in sympatry and for marble trout living in allopatry in Upper Idrijca. First, we modelled probability of recapture p by keeping the global model of survival. Then, we used the best model for p to model survival probabilities ϕ. For each candidate model, we report the AICc, Delta AICc, AICc weight, Model Likelihood (ML), number of parameters (N par) and deviance (Dev) (PDF 31.8 KB)
114_2010_741_MOESM3_ESM.pdf (22 kb)
Appendix 3Mean ± SD weight (g) for species-age combinations of trout sampled in Station A1 (allopatric marble trout, MTa) and Station S (sympatric rainbow and marble trout, RTs and MTs). Mean weight of rainbow trout is clearly higher than mean weight of marble trout living either in allopatry and sympatry. Sample size is reported in parenthesis (PDF 21.6 KB)
114_2010_741_MOESM4_ESM.pdf (25 kb)
Appendix 4Results of ANCOVAs for effect of distribution (marble trout in sympatry with rainbow trout vs marble trout in allopatry) on ln final weight (ln W2) as the dependent variable and ln initial weight (ln W1) as the covariate for each interval. Subscripts indicate d.f. associated with the F-statistics. Interaction between distribution and ln W1 was never significant in the ANCOVAs. Therefore, the interaction term was removed from the model and adjusted mean (at a common initial mass) and R2 were computed for the reduced model. Sampling intervals were from June (J) to September (S) of year t (summer) or from September of year t to June of year t+1 (winter) (PDF 25.2 KB)


  1. Allendorf FW, Lundquist LL (2003) Introduction: population biology, evolution, and control of invasive species. Conserv Biol 17:24–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baxter CV, Fausch KD, Murakami M, Chapman PL (2007) Invading rainbow trout usurp a terrestrial prey subsidy from native charr and reduce their growth and abundance. Oecologia 153:461–470CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Behnke RJ (1992) Native trout of western North American. American Fisheries Society Monograph 6, Bethesda, MarylandGoogle Scholar
  4. Berrebi P, Povz M, Jesensek D, Cattaneo-Berrebi G, Crivelli AJ (2000) The genetic diversity of native, stocked and hybrid populations of marble trout in the Soca river, Slovenia. Heredity 85:277–287CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Blanchet S, Loot G, Grenouillet G, Brosse S (2007) Competitive interactions between native and exotic salmonids: a combined field and laboratory demonstration. Ecol Freshw Fish 16:133–143Google Scholar
  6. Bulgarini F, Calvario E, Fraticelli F, Petretti F, Sarrocco S (1998) Libro Rosso degli Animali d’Italia-Vertebrati. WWF Italia, Rome, p 210Google Scholar
  7. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (1998) Model Selection and Inference: a Practical Information-theoretic Approach. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Carlson SM, Hendry AP, Letcher BH (2007) Growth rate differences between resident native brook trout and non-native brown trout. J Fish Biol 71:1430–1447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Choquet R, Reboulet AM, Lebreton JD, Gimenez O and Pradel R (2005) U-Care 2.2 User’s Manual, Cefe, Montpellier, FranceGoogle Scholar
  10. Crivelli A, Poizat G, Berrebi P, Jesensek D, Rubin JF (2000) Conservation biology applied to fish: The example of a project for rehabilitating the marble trout (Salmo marmoratus) in Slovenia. Cybium 24:211–230Google Scholar
  11. Crowl TA, Townsend CR, McIntosh AR (1992) The impact of introduced brown and rainbow trout on native fish: the case of Australasia. Rev Fish Biol Fish 2:217–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Delling B, Crivelli AJ, Rubin JF, Berrebi P (2000) Morphological variation in hybrids between Salmo marmoratus and alien Salmo species in the Volarja stream, Soca River basin, Slovenia. J Fish Biol 57:1199–1212Google Scholar
  13. Essington TE, Sorensen PW, Paron DG (1998) High rate of redd superimposition by brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) and brown trout (Salmo trutta) in a Minnesota stream cannot be explained by habitat availability alone. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 55:2310–2316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fausch KD (2007) Introduction, establishment and effects of non-native salmonids: considering the risk of rainbow trout invasion in the United Kingdom. J Fish Biol 71:1–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fausch KD (2008) A paradox of trout invasions in North America. Biol Invasions 10:685–701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fausch KD, Nakano S, Ishigaki K (1994) Distribution of two congeneric charrs in streams of Hokkaido Island, Japan: considering multiple factors across scales. Oecologia 100:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fausch KD, Taniguchi Y, Nakano S, Grossman GD, Townsend CR (2001) Flood disturbance regimes influence rainbow trout invasion success among five holarctic regions. Ecol Appl 11:1438–1455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gall GAE, Crandell PA (1992) The rainbow trout. Aquaculture 100:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hilderbrand RH, Kershner JL (2004) Are there differences in growth and condition between mobile and resident cutthroat trout? Trans Am Fish Soc 133:1042–1046CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Höjesjö J, Armstrong JD, Griffiths SW (2005) Sneaky feeding by salmon in sympatry with dominant brown trout. Anim Behav 69:1037–1041CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Huitema BE (1980) The Analysis of Covariance and Alternatives. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Hurvich CM, Tsai CL (1989) Regression and time series model selection in small samples. Biometrika 76:297–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Inoue M, Miyata H, Tange Y, Taniguchi Y (2009) Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) invasion in Hokkaido streams, northern Japan, in relation to flow variability and biotic interactions. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 66:1423–1434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. IUCN (2004) Red List of Threatened Species. World Conservation UnionGoogle Scholar
  25. Jug T, Berrebi P, Snoj A (2005) Distribution of non-native trout in Slovenia and their introgression with native trout populations as observed through microsatellite DNA analysis. Biol Conserv 123:381–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kitano S (2004) Ecological impacts of rainbow, brown and brook trout in Japanese inland waters. Glob Environ Res 8:41–50Google Scholar
  27. Korsu K, Huusko A, Muotka T (2007) Niche characteristics explain the reciprocal invasion success of stream salmonids in different continents. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:9725–9729CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Korsu K, Huusko A, Muotka T (2009) Does the introduced brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) affect growth of the native brown trout (Salmo trutta)? Naturwissenschaften 96:347–353CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Korsu K, Huusko A, Muotka T (2010) Invasion of north European streams by brook trout: hostile takeover or pre-adapted habitat niche segregation? Biol Invasions 12:1363–1375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lebreton JD, Burnham KP, Clobert J, Anderson DR (1992) Modeling survival and testing biological hypotheses using marked animals: a unified approach with case studies. Ecol Monogr 62:67–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McCallum H (2000) Population Parameters: Estimation for Ecological Models. Blackwell Science, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  32. McFadden JT (1961) A population study of the brook trout, Salvelinus fontinalis. Wildl Monogr 7:1–73Google Scholar
  33. Meldgaard T, Crivelli AJ, Jesensek D, Poizat G, Rubin JF, Berrebi P (2007) Hybridization mechanisms between the endangered marble trout (Salmo marmoratus) and the brown trout (Salmo trutta) as revealed by in-stream experiments. Biol Conserv 136:602–611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Morita K, Tsuboi JI, Matsuda H (2004) The impact of exotic trout on native charr in a Japanese stream. J Appl Ecol 41:962–972CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nomoto K, Omiya H, Sugimoto T, Akiba K, Edo K, Higashi S (2010) Potential negative impacts of introduced rainbow trout on endangered Sakhalin taimen through redd disturbance in an agricultural stream, eastern Hokkaido. Ecol Freshw Fish 19:116–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Olden JD (2006) Biotic homogenization: A new research agenda for conservation biogeography. J Biogeogr 33:2027–2039CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Peter A, Staub E, Ruhlé C, Kindle T (1998) Interactions between brown and rainbow trout in the Alpine Rhine valley and its effects on their management. Schweiz Fischereiwissenschaft 98:5–10 (in German)Google Scholar
  38. Peterson DE, Fausch K (2003) Testing population-level mechanisms of invasion by a mobile vertebrate: a simple conceptual framework for salmonids in streams. Biol Invasions 5:239–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Povz M (1995) Status of fresh-water fishes in the adriatic catchment of Slovenia. Biol Conserv 72:171–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Povz M, Jesensek D, Berrebi P, Crivelli AJ (1996) The Marble trout, Salmo trutta marmoratus. Cuvier 1817, in the Soca River basin, Slovenia. Tour du Valat Publication, Arles, p 65Google Scholar
  41. Rahel FJ, Bierwagen B, Taniguchi Y (2008) Managing aquatic species of conservation concern in the face of climate change and invasive species. Conserv Biol 22:551–561CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Rieman BE, Peterson JT, Myers DL (2006) Have brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) displaced bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) along longitudinal gradients in central Idaho streams? Can J Fish Aquat Sci 63:63–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Scott D, Irvine JR (2000) Competitive exclusion of brown trout Salmo trutta L., by rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss Walbaum, in lake tributaries, New Zealand. Fish Manage Ecol 7:225–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Simon KS, Townsend CR (2003) Impacts of freshwater invaders at different levels of ecological organisation, with emphasis on salmonids and ecosystem consequences. Freshw Biol 48:982–994CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Taniguchi Y, Nakano S (2000) Condition-specific competition: implications for the altitudinal distribution of stream fishes. Ecology 81:2027–2039CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Taniguchi Y, Miyake Y, Saito T, Urabe H, Nakano S (2000) Redd superimposition by introduced rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss, on native charrs in a Japanese stream. Ichthyological Res 47:149–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Thériault V, Bernatchez L, Dodson JJ (2007) Mating system and individual reproductive success of sympatric anadromous and resident brook charr, Salvelinus fontinalis, under natural conditions. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 62:51–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Townsend CR (2003) Individual, population, community, and ecosystem consequences of a fish invader in New Zealand streams. Conserv Biol 17:38–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Van Deventer SJ, Platts WS (1989) Microcomputer software system for generating population statistics from electrofishing data—user’s guide for Microfish 3. General Technical Report INT-254. USDA Forest Service, Ogden, UtahGoogle Scholar
  50. Vincenzi S, Crivelli AJ, Jesensek D, De Leo GA (2008a) The role of density-dependent individual growth in the persistence of freshwater salmonid populations. Oecologia 156:523–534CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Vincenzi S, Crivelli AJ, Jesensekc D, Rubin JF, Poizat G, Leo De GA (2008b) Potential factors controlling the population viability of newly introduced endangered marble trout populations. Biol Conserv 141:198–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Vincenzi S, Crivelli AJ, Jesensek D, De Leo GA (2010) Detection of density-dependent growth at two spatial scales in marble trout (Salmo marmoratus) populations. Ecol Freshw Fish 19:338–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Weigel DE, Peterson JT, Spruell P (2003) Introgressive hybridization between native cutthroat trout and introduced rainbow trout. Ecol Appl 13:38–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Werner EE (1998) Ecological experiments and a research program in community ecology. In: Resetarits WJ Jr, Bernardo J (eds) Experimental ecology. Issues and perspectives. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  55. White GC, Burnham KP (1999) Program MARK: survival estimation from populations of marked animals. Bird Study 46:120–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Zar JH (1999) Biostatistical Analysis. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Simone Vincenzi
    • 1
  • Alain J. Crivelli
    • 2
  • Dusan Jesensek
    • 3
  • Gianluigi Rossi
    • 1
  • Giulio A. De Leo
    • 4
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Scienze AmbientaliUniversità degli Studi di ParmaParmaItaly
  2. 2.Station Biologique de la Tour du ValatArlesFrance
  3. 3.Tolmin Angling AssociationMost na SociSlovenia
  4. 4.Dipartimento di Scienze AmbientaliUniversità degli Studi di ParmaParmaItaly

Personalised recommendations