Advertisement

How do migratory fish populations respond to barrier removal in spawning and nursery grounds?

  • Hsien-Yung LinEmail author
  • Kelly F. Robinson
ORIGINAL PAPER

Abstract

Connection between critical habitats is an important consideration in efforts to restore native and socio-economically important fish species or control the spread of invasive species. However, differences in fish life history might influence the effectiveness of restoration and management actions. In addition, the strength of connection among spatially separate subpopulations could affect the response of the overall population to a local environmental change. In this study, we modeled the response of migratory fish populations with different homing rates, straying distances, and reproductive modes (iteroparity and semelparity) to changes in the carrying capacity of spawning/nursery grounds in a lake-stream system. Increasing the carrying capacity of one spawning/nursery ground could increase the abundance of the local subpopulation and overall population, but both short-term (i.e., abundance change in the first 20 years) and long-term (i.e., equilibrium abundance) responses varied with life history traits. Furthermore, the abundance of some subpopulations might decrease because of the movement of straying adults toward more productive spawning/nursery grounds. In general, straying distance influenced the short-term response and spatial pattern of the population while homing rate influenced the equilibrium abundance. This study revealed the effect of life history traits on population response to restoration actions, which may be crucial for managers in charge of multi-species management, such as enhancing native fishes while controlling invasive species.

Keywords

Migratory fish Population dynamics Barrier removal Life history Homing behavior Straying distance 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank M. DuFour for early discussions of the modeling framework and J. Robinson and one anonymous reviewer for helpful comments on this manuscript.

Funding information

This work was supported by the Upper Midwest and Great Lakes Landscape Conservation Cooperative. This is contribution no. 2019-01 of the Quantitative Fisheries Center, Michigan State University.

Supplementary material

12080_2018_405_MOESM1_ESM.docx (1.7 mb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 1735 kb)

References

  1. Amarasekare P (2004) The role of density-dependent dispersal in source–sink dynamics. J Theor Biol 226:159–168.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JTBI.2003.08.007 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Barraquand F, Pinot A, Yoccoz NG, Bretagnolle V (2014) Overcompensation and phase effects in a cyclic common vole population: between first and second-order cycles. J Anim Ecol 83:1367–1378.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.12257 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bergstedt RA, Seelye JG (1995) Evidence for lack of homing by sea lampreys. Trans Am Fish Soc 124:235–239.  https://doi.org/10.1577/1548-8659(1995)124<0235:EFLOHB>2.3.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Branco P, Segurado P, Santos JM, Ferreira MT (2014) Prioritizing barrier removal to improve functional connectivity of rivers. J Appl Ecol 51:1197–1206.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12317 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brewitt PK (2016) Do the fish return? A qualitative assessment of anadromous Pacific salmonids’ upstream movement after dam removal. Northwest Sci 90:433–449.  https://doi.org/10.3955/046.090.0405 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cheng F, Zika U, Banachowski K, Gillenwater D, Granata T (2006) Modelling the effects of dam removal on migratory walleye (Sander vitreus) early life-history stages. River Res Appl 22:837–851.  https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.939 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Crossman EJ (1990) Reproductive homing in muskellunge, Esox masquinongy. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 47:1803–1812.  https://doi.org/10.1139/f90-205 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Deriso RB (1980) Harvesting strategies and parameter estimation for an age-structured model. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 37:268–282.  https://doi.org/10.1139/f80-034 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Doyle MW, Stanley EH, Orr CH, Selle AR, Sethi SA, Harbor JM (2005) Stream ecosystem response to small dam removal: lessons from the heartland. Geomorphology 71:227–244.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.GEOMORPH.2004.04.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Foley MM, Bellmore JR, O’Connor JE, Duda JJ, East AE, Grant GE, Anderson CW, Bountry JA, Collins MJ, Connolly PJ, Craig LS, Evans JE, Greene SL, Magilligan FJ, Magirl CS, Major JJ, Pess GR, Randle TJ, Shafroth PB, Torgersen CE, Tullos D, Wilcox AC (2017a) Dam removal: listening in. Water Resour Res 53:5229–5246.  https://doi.org/10.1002/2017WR020457 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Foley MM, Magilligan FJ, Torgersen CE, Major JJ, Anderson CW, Connolly PJ, Wieferich D, Shafroth PB, Evans JE, Infante D, Craig LS (2017b) Landscape context and the biophysical response of rivers to dam removal in the United States. PLoS One 12:e0180107.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0180107 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Ford MJ, Murdoch A, Hughes M (2015) Using parentage analysis to estimate rates of straying and homing in Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Mol Ecol 24:1109–1121.  https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.13091 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Gardner C, Coghlan SM, Zydlewski J, Saunders R (2013) Distribution and abundance of stream fishes in relation to barriers: implications for monitoring stream recovery after barrier removal. River Res Appl 29:65–78.  https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.1572 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Haugen TO, Winfield IJ, Vøllestad LA, Fletcher JM, James JB, Stenseth NC (2007) Density dependence and density independence in the demography and dispersal of pike over four decades. Ecol Monogr 77:483–502.  https://doi.org/10.1890/06-0163.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hermoso V, Januchowski-Hartley SR, Linke S (2015) Systematic planning of disconnection to enhance conservation success in a modified world. Sci Total Environ 536:1038–1044.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.07.120 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Hogg RS, Coghlan SM, Zydlewski J, Gardner C (2015) Fish community response to a small-stream dam removal in a Maine Coastal River tributary. Trans Am Fish Soc 144:467–479.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00028487.2015.1007164 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Homola JJ, Scribner KT, Elliott RF, Donofrio MC, Kanefsky J, Smith KM, McNair JN (2012) Genetically derived estimates of contemporary natural straying rates and historical gene flow among Lake Michigan Lake sturgeon populations. Trans Am Fish Soc 141:1374–1388.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00028487.2012.694829 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Huang Q, Lewis MA (2015) Homing fidelity and reproductive rate for migratory populations. Theor Ecol 8:187–205.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12080-014-0243-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jensen AJ, Jones ML (2017) Forecasting the response of Great Lakes Sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) to barrier removals. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 75:1415–1426.  https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfas-2017-0243 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Keefer ML, Caudill CC (2014) Homing and straying by anadromous salmonids: a review of mechanisms and rates. Rev Fish Biol Fish 24:333–368.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-013-9334-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kočovsky PM, Ross RM, Dropkin DS (2009) Prioritizing removal of dams for passage of diadromous fishes on a major river system. River Res Appl 25:107–117.  https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.1094 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lavis DS, Hallett A, Koon EM, McAuley TC (2003) History of and advances in barriers as an alternative method to suppress sea lampreys in the Great Lakes. J Great Lakes Res 29:362–372.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0380-1330(03)70500-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lin H-Y, Brown CJ, Dwyer RG, Harding DJ, Roberts DT, Fuller RA, Linke S, Possingham HP (2018) Impacts of fishing, river flow and connectivity loss on the conservation of a migratory fish population. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshwat Ecosyst 28:45–54.  https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.2831 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McHenry ML, Pess GR (2008) An overview of monitoring options for assessing the response of salmonids and their aquatic ecosystems in the Elwha River following dam removal. Northwest Sci 82:29–47.  https://doi.org/10.3955/0029-344X-82.S.I.29 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McKay SK, Cooper AR, Diebel MW, Elkins D, Oldford G, Roghair C, Wieferich D (2016) Informing watershed connectivity barrier prioritization decisions: a synthesis. River Res Appl 33:847–862.  https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.3021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McLaughlin RL, Smyth ERB, Castro-Santos T, Jones ML, Koops MA, Pratt TC, Vélez-Espino L-A (2013) Unintended consequences and trade-offs of fish passage. Fish Fish 14:580–604.  https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Moody AT, Neeson TM, Wangen S, Dischler J, Diebel MW, Milt A, Herbert M, Khoury M, Yacobson E, Doran PJ, Ferris MC, O’Hanley JR, McIntyre PB (2017) Pet project or best project? Online decision support tools for prioritizing barrier removals in the Great Lakes and beyond. Fisheries 42:57–65.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03632415.2016.1263195 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Neeson TM, Ferris MC, Diebel MW, Doran PJ, O’Hanley JR, McIntyre PB (2015) Enhancing ecosystem restoration efficiency through spatial and temporal coordination. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 112:6236–6241.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1423812112 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. Nieland JL, Sheehan TF, Saunders R (2015) Assessing demographic effects of dams on diadromous fish: a case study for Atlantic salmon in the Penobscot River, Maine. ICES J Mar Sci 72:2423–2437.  https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsv083 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Oele DL, Derek Hogan J, McIntyre PB (2015) Chemical tracking of northern pike migrations: if we restore access to breeding habitat, will they come? J Great Lakes Res 41:853–861.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JGLR.2015.05.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pess GR, Hilborn R, Kloehn K, Quinn TP (2012) The influence of population dynamics and environmental conditions on pink salmon ( Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) recolonization after barrier removal in the Fraser River, British Columbia, Canada. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 69:970–982.  https://doi.org/10.1139/f2012-030 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pess GR, Quinn TP, Gephard SR, Saunders R (2014) Re-colonization of Atlantic and Pacific rivers by anadromous fishes: linkages between life history and the benefits of barrier removal. Rev Fish Biol Fish 24:881–900.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-013-9339-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Poulos HM, Miller KE, Kraczkowski ML, Welchel AW, Heineman R, Chernoff B (2014) Fish assemblage response to a small dam removal in the Eightmile River System, Connecticut, USA. Environ Manag 54:1090–1101.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-014-0314-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Quiñones R, Grantham TE, Harvey BN, Kiernan JD, Klasson M, Wintzer AP, Moyle PB (2015) Dam removal and anadromous salmonid (Oncorhynchus spp.) conservation in California. Rev Fish Biol Fish 25:195–215.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-014-9359-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. R Core Team (2017) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org/
  36. Ricker WE (1954) Stock and recruitment. J Fish Res Board Can 11:559–623.  https://doi.org/10.1139/f54-039 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schick RS, Lindley ST (2007) Directed connectivity among fish populations in a riverine network. J Appl Ecol 44:1116–1126.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2007.01383.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schtickzelle N, Quinn TP (2007) A metapopulation perspective for salmon and other anadromous fish. Fish Fish 8:297–314.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-2979.2007.00256.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Shaffer JA, Juanes F, Quinn TP, Parks D, McBride T, Michel J, Naumann C, Hocking M, Byrnes C (2017) Nearshore fish community responses to large scale dam removal: implications for watershed restoration and fish management. Aquat Sci 79:643–660.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00027-017-0526-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sungani H, Ngatunga BP, Genner MJ (2016) Migratory behaviour shapes spatial genetic structure of cyprinid fishes within the Lake Malawi catchment. Freshw Biol 61:1062–1074.  https://doi.org/10.1111/fwb.12767 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Taylor C, Norris DR (2010) Population dynamics in migratory networks. Theor Ecol 3:65–73.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12080-009-0054-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Waldman J, Grunwald C, Wirgin I (2008) Sea lamprey Petromyzon marinus: an exception to the rule of homing in anadromous fishes. Biol Lett 4:659–662.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2008.0341 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. Wilcove DS, Wikelski M (2008) Going, going, gone: is animal migration disappearing. PLoS Biol 6:e188.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0060188 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. Zheng PQ, Hobbs BF (2013) Multiobjective portfolio analysis of dam removals addressing dam safety, fish populations, and cost. J Water Resour Plan Manag 139:65–75.  https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000209 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Quantitative Fisheries Center, Department of Fisheries and WildlifeMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA

Personalised recommendations