Hydrobiologia

, Volume 641, Issue 1, pp 215–223 | Cite as

Presence of fish affects lake use and breeding success in ducks

Primary research paper

Abstract

Several previous studies indicate that presence of fish has negative effects on waterbirds breeding on lakes, owing either to competition for common invertebrate prey or fish predation on ducklings/chicks. However, others have reported results to the contrary and it remains unresolved what factors trigger, inhibit, and modulate fish–waterbird interactions. The present study was designed to test the effect of fish presence per se, with a minimum of variation in possibly confounding environmental variables. Thus, after stratifying for area, depth, altitude, pH, and total phosphorus we compared 13 lakes with and 12 without fish (mainly pike Esox lucius and perch Perca fluviatilis) with respect to (i) general species richness of waterbirds, (ii) species-specific utilization and breeding success of two dabbling ducks (mallard Anas platyrhynchos and teal Anas crecca) and a diving duck (goldeneye Bucephala clangula). General species richness of waterbirds was higher on fishless lakes. Overall use (bird days) and brood number of teal and goldeneye were higher on fishless lakes. The latter also had more benthic and free-swimming prey invertebrates compared to lakes with fish. Mallard use, mallard brood number, and abundance of emerging insects did not differ between lake groups. Generalized linear models including fish presence as factor and considering seven environmental variables as covariates, confirmed that all waterbird variables except mallard days and broods were negatively correlated to fish presence. There was also a residual positive relationship of lake area on general species richness, teal days, and teal broods. Our data demonstrate a stronger effect of fish presence on diving ducks and small surface feeding ducks than on large surface-feeding ducks. We argue that observed patterns were caused by fish predation on ducks rather than by fish–duck competition for common prey.

Keywords

Competition Goldeneye Mallard Perch Pike Predation Teal 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Per Wedholm, Stina Gustavsson, Jenny Lund, Joakim Norberg, Patrik Olofsson and Daniel Lussetti skilfully carried out the field work. Gunnar Gunnarsson, Petri Nummi, Hannu Pöysä kindly commented the results. Two anonymous reviewers are acknowledged for generously providing constructive criticism. The study was supported by grants V-162-05 and V-98-04 from the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency to JE and a grant from the Swedish Research Council for Environment and Agricultural Sciences and Spatial Planning to GE.

Supplementary material

10750_2009_85_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (49 kb)
(PDF 49 kb)

References

  1. Ahti, T., L. Hämet-Ahti & J. Jalas, 1968. Vegetation zones and their sections in northwestern Europe. Annales Botanici Fennici 5: 169–211.Google Scholar
  2. Andersson, G., 1981. Fiskars inverkan på fåglar och fågelsjöar. [Influence of fish on waterfowl and lakes; in Swedish with a summary in English]. Anser 20: 21–34.Google Scholar
  3. Appelberg, M., 2000. Swedish standard methods for sampling freshwater fish with multi-mesh gillnets. Fiskeriverket information. 2000:1. Stockholm.Google Scholar
  4. Arzel, C. & J. Elmberg, 2004. Time use, foraging behavior and microhabitat use in a temporary guild of spring-staging dabbling ducks (Anas spp.). Ornis Fennica 81: 157–168.Google Scholar
  5. Bouffard, S. H. & M. A. Hanson, 1997. Fish in waterfowl marshes: waterfowl managers’ perspective. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25: 146–157.Google Scholar
  6. Chase, J. M., P. A. Abrams, J. P. Grover, S. Diehl, P. Chesson, R. D. Holt, S. A. Richards, R. M. Nisbet & T. J. Case, 2002. The interaction between predation and competition: a review and synthesis. Ecology Letters 5: 302–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cramp, S. & K. E. L. Simmons (eds), 1977. Birds of the Western Palearctic, Vol. 1. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  8. Creel, S. & D. Christianson, 2008. Relationships between direct predation and risk effects. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 23: 194–201.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Eadie, J. M. & A. Keast, 1982. Do goldeneye and perch compete for food? Oecologia 55: 225–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Elmberg, J., P. Nummi, H. Pöysä & K. Sjöberg, 1992. Do intruding predators and trap position affect the reliability of catches in activity traps? Hydrobiologia 239: 187–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Elmberg, J., P. Nummi, H. Pöysä & K. Sjöberg, 1993. Factors affecting species number and density of dabbling duck guilds in north Europe. Ecography 16: 251–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Elmberg, J., P. Nummi, H. Pöysä & K. Sjöberg, 1994. Relationships between species number, lake size and resource diversity in assemblages of breeding waterfowl. Journal of Biogeography 21: 75–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Elmberg, J., G. Gunnarsson, H. Pöysä, K. Sjöberg & P. Nummi, 2005a. Within-season sequential density dependence regulates breeding success in Mallards Anas platyrhynchos. Oikos 108: 582–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Elmberg, J., P. Nummi, H. Pöysä, G. Gunnarsson & K. Sjöberg, 2005b. Early breeding Teal Anas crecca use the best lakes and have the highest reproductive success. Annales Zoologici Fennici 42: 37–43.Google Scholar
  15. Englund, G., F. Johansson & T. I. Olsson, 1992. Asymmetric competition between distant taxa: poecilid fishes and water striders. Oecologia 92: 498–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Eriksson, M. O. G., 1979. Competition between freshwater fish and Goldeneye. Bucephala clangula (L.) for common prey. Oecologia 41: 99–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Eriksson, M. O. G., 1983. The role of fish in the selection of lakes by nonpiscivorous ducks: mallard, teal and goldeneye. Wildfowl 34: 27–32.Google Scholar
  18. Fjeldså, J., 1977. Guide to the Young of European Precocial Birds. Skarv Nature Publications, Tisvildeleje.Google Scholar
  19. Fransson, T. & J. Pettersson, 2001. Svensk ringmärkningsatlas [Swedish bird ringing atlas], Vol. 1. Stockholm.Google Scholar
  20. Gunnarsson, G., J. Elmberg, K. Sjöberg, H. Pöysä & P. Nummi, 2006. Experimental evidence for density-dependent survival in mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) ducklings. Oecologia 149: 203–213.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Haas, K., U. Köhler, S. Diehl, P. Köhler, S. Dietrich, S. Holler, A. Jaensch, M. Niedermaier & J. Vilsmeier, 2007. Influence of fish on habitat choice of water birds: a whole system experiment. Ecology 88: 2915–2925.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Hallanaro, E.-L. & M. Pylvänäinen, 2002. Nature in Northern Europe-Biodiversity in a Changing Environment. Nord 2001:13. Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
  23. Holt, R. D. & J. H. Lawton, 1994. The ecological consequences of shared natural enemies. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 25: 495–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Koskimies, P. & R. A. Väisänen, 1991. Monitoring Bird Populations. Zoological Museum, Finnish Museum of Natural History, Helsinki.Google Scholar
  25. Lagler, K. F., 1956. The pike, Esox lucius Linnaeus, in relation to waterfowl on the Seney National Wildlife Refuge, Michigan. Journal of Wildlife Management 20: 114–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lampert, W. & U. Sommer, 2007. Limnoecology, 2nd ed. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  27. Lomolino, M. V., B. R. Riddle & J. H. Brown, 2006. Biogeography, 3rd ed. Sinauer Associates Inc., Sunderland, Massachussetts.Google Scholar
  28. Martens, H. & T. Naes, 1989. Multivariate Calibration. John Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
  29. McNicol, D. K. & M. Wayland, 1992. Distribution of waterfowl broods in Sudbury area lakes in relation to fish, macroinvertebrates, and water chemistry. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 49: 122–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Monda, M. & J. T. Ratti, 1988. Niche overlap and habitat use by sympatric duck broods in eastern Washington. Journal of Wildlife Management 52: 95–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Murkin, H. R., P. G. Abbott & J. A. Kadlec, 1983. A comparison of activity traps and sweep nets for sampling nektonic invertebrates in wetlands. Freshwater Invertebrate Biology 2: 99–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nudds, T. D. & J. N. Bowlby, 1984. Predator–prey size relationships in North American dabbling ducks. Canadian Journal of Zoology 62: 2002–2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nudds, T. D., K. Sjöberg & P. Lundberg, 1994. Ecomorphological relationships among Palearctic dabbling ducks on a Baltic coastal wetland and a comparison with the Nearctic. Oikos 69: 295–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nummi, P., 1993. Food niche relationships of sympatric mallards and green-winged teal. Canadian Journal of Zoology 71: 49–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Öhman, J., I. Buffam, G. Englund, A. Blom, E. Lindgren & H. Laudon, 2006. Associations between water chemistry and fish community composition: a comparison between isolated and connected lakes in northern Sweden. Freshwater Biology 51: 510–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Paszkowski, C. A. & W. M. Tonn, 2000. Community concordance between the fish and aquatic birds of lakes in northern Alberta, Canada: the relative importance of environmental and biotic factors. Freshwater Biology 43: 421–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pehrsson, O., 1977. Gäddfiske kan också vara andvård [Pike fishing is also duck management]. Svensk Jakt 115: 214–215.Google Scholar
  38. Pehrsson, O., 1984. Relationships of food to spatial and temporal breeding strategies of mallards in Sweden. Journal of Wildlife Management 48: 322–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pirkola, M. K. & J. Högmander, 1974. Sorsapoikueiden iänmääritys. [The age determination of duck broods in the field]. Suomen Riista 25: 50–55.Google Scholar
  40. Pister, E. P., 2001. Wilderness fish stocking: history and perspective. Ecosystems 4: 279–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. R Development Core Team, 2008. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
  42. Reichman, O. J., 1979. Competition between distantly related taxa: concluding remarks. American Zoologist 19: 1173–1175.Google Scholar
  43. Ringelman, J. K. & L. D. Flake, 1980. Diurnal visibility and activity of blue-winged teal and mallard broods. Journal of Wildlife Management 44: 822–829.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Solman, V. E. F., 1945. The ecological relations of pike (Esox lucius) and waterfowl. Ecology 26: 157–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wetzel, R. G., 2001. Limnology. Lake and River Ecosystems, 3rd ed. Academic Press, San Diego.Google Scholar
  46. Winfield, D. K. & I. J. Winfield, 1994. Possible competitive interactions between overwintering tufted duck (Aythya fuligula (L.)) and fish populations of Lough Neagh, Northern Ireland: evidence from diet studies. Hydrobiologia 279(280): 377–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Aquatic Biology and ChemistryKristianstad UniversityKristianstadSweden
  2. 2.Department of Wildlife, Fish, and Environmental StudiesSwedish University of Agricultural SciencesUmeåSweden
  3. 3.Department of Ecology and Environmental ScienceUmeå UniversityUmeåSweden

Personalised recommendations