Hydrobiologia

, Volume 395, Issue 0, pp 191–198 | Cite as

The central role of fish in lake restoration and management

  • Eddy H. R. R. Lammens
Article

Abstract

The central role of fish in lake restoration and management has a practical purpose: fish are much easier to manipulate than nutrients, phytoplankton and zooplankton, and therefore they are a relatively easy (additional) instrument in restoration and management. The management of the fish stock may be a measure of water quality, of fish stock composition or a measure of both and may vary from very drastic removal of planktivorous and benthivorous fish to a more gradual change in the population by continual predator management and less drastic reduction of inedible prey. For lake restoration, drastic removal is the most efficient in order to obtain clear water and vegetation and a subsequent fish community adapted to this. Continual management will result in a more gradual change and may be more acceptable to the interest of both fishermen and water quality managers.

fish stock management; gill-net fishery; planktivory; benthivory; piscivory; fish community development; trophic levels; Daphnia spp.; bream; carp; pikeperch; roach; inedible prey; individual based model; sediment resuspension 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Andersson, G., H. Berggren, G. Cronberg & C. Gelin, 1978. Effects of planktivorous and benthivorous fish on organisms and water chemistry in eutrophic lakes. Hydrobiologia 59: 9–15.Google Scholar
  2. Andersson G., 1984. The influence of fish on eutrophic lake ecosystems. In 1st. Nordic Symposium on Limnology Apr. 1984. Norwegian Soc. Limnol., Fagerfjell, Norway.Google Scholar
  3. Benndorf, J., H. Kneschke, K. Kossatz & E. Penz, 1984. Manipulation of the pelagic food web by stocking with predacious fishes. Int. Rev. ges. Hydrobiol. 69: 407–428.Google Scholar
  4. Benndorf, J., H. Schultz, A. Benndorf, R. Unger, E. Penz, H. Kneschke, K. Kossatz, R. Dumke & U. Hornig, 1988. Food-web manipulation by enhancement of piscivorous fish stocks: longterm effects in the hypertrophic Bautzen Reservoir. Limnologica 19: 97–110.Google Scholar
  5. Benndorf, J., 1990. Conditions for effective biomanipulation; conclusions derived from whole-lake experiments in Europe. Hydrobiologia 200/201: 187–203.Google Scholar
  6. Berg, S., E. Jeppesen, M. Sondergaard & E. Mortensen, 1994. Environmental effects of introducing whitefish, Coregonus lavaretus (L), in Lake Ring. Hydrobiologia 276: 71–79.Google Scholar
  7. Jensen, J. P., E. Brabrand & B. Faafeng, 1993. Habitat shift in roach (Rutilus rutilus) induced by pikeperch (Stizostedion lucioperca) introduction – predation risk versus pelagic behaviour. Oecologia 95: 38–46.Google Scholar
  8. Breukelaar, A.W., E. H. R. R., Lammens & J. G. Breteler, 1994. Effects of benthivorous bream (Abramis brama) and carp (Cyprinus carpio) on sediment resuspension and concentrations of nutrients and chlorophyll-a. Freshwat. Biol. 32: 113–121.Google Scholar
  9. Brooks, J. L. & S. I. Dodson, 1965. Predation, body size and composition of plankton. Science. 150: 28–35.Google Scholar
  10. Carpenter, S. R. (eds), 1988. Complex Interactions in Lake Communities. Springer-Verlag, New York: 283 pp.Google Scholar
  11. Cazemier, W. G., 1983. The growth of bream Abramis brama in relation to habitat and population density. Hydrobiol. Bull. 16: 269–278.Google Scholar
  12. Chapman, L. J., W. C., Mackay & C. W., Wilkinson, 1989. Feeding flexibility in northern pike (Esox lucius): fish versus invertebrate prey. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 46: 666–669.Google Scholar
  13. Dam, E. M. van & C. Breukers. 1995. Natuurontwikkelingen Volkerak-Zoommeer 1993. RIZA Nota 95.022.Google Scholar
  14. Dziekonska, J., 1954. The feeding characteristics of mature pike, perch and pikeperch in lakes. Polskie Archievum Hydrobiologii 2: 165–183.Google Scholar
  15. Eklov, P. & L. Persson. 1996. The response of prey to the risk of predation: Proximate cues for refuging juvenile fish. An. Behav. 51: 105–115.Google Scholar
  16. Gulati, R. D., E. H. R. R. Lammens, M.-L. Meijer & E. van Donk (eds), 1990. Biomanipulation – Tool forWater Management. Developments in Hydrobiology 61. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 628 pp. Reprinted from Hydrobiologia 200/201.Google Scholar
  17. Grimm, M. P., 1981. Intraspecific predation as a principal factor controlling the biomass of northern pike (Esox lucius L). Fish. mgmt 12: 77–80.Google Scholar
  18. Grimm, M. P., 1981. The composition of northern pike (Esox lucius L.) populations in four shallow waters in the Netherlands, with special reference to factors influencing 0+ pike biomass. Fish. mgmt 12: 61–76.Google Scholar
  19. Hosper, S. H. & M.-L., Meijer., 1992. Handleiding Aktief Biologisch Beheer.Google Scholar
  20. Hosper, S. H. & M.-L., Meijer, 1993. Biomanipulation, will it work for your lake? A simple test for the assessment of chances for clear water, following drastic fish–stock reduction in shallow, eutrophic lakes. Ecol. Eng.: 63–72.Google Scholar
  21. Houthuizen, R. P., J. J. Backx & A. D. Buijse. 1993. Exceptionally rapid growth and early maturation of perch in a freshwater lake recently converted from an estuary. J. Fish Biol. 43: 320–324.Google Scholar
  22. Hrbacek, J., M. Dvorakova, V. Korinek & L. Prochazkova, 1961. Demonstration of the effect of the fish stock on the species composition of zooplankton and the intensity of metabolism of the whole plankton association. Verh. Int. Ver. Theor. Angew. Limnol. 14: 192–195.Google Scholar
  23. Jeppesen, E., K. Olrik & P. Kristensen, 1994. Impact of nutrients and physical factors on the shift from cyanobacterial to chlorophyte dominance in shallow Danish lakes. Can. J. Fish. aquat. Sci. 51: 1692–1699.Google Scholar
  24. Jeppesen, E., M. Sø ndergaard, O. Sortkjaer, E. Mortensen & P. Kristensen, 1990. Interactions between phytoplankton zooplankton and fish in a shallow hypertrophic lake a study of phytoplankton collapses in lake Sobygard Denmark. Hydrobiologia 191: 149–164.Google Scholar
  25. Jeppesen, E., J. P. Jensen, M. Sø ndergaard, T. L. Lauridsen, L. J. Pedersen & L. Jensen, 1997. Top–down control in freshwater lakes: the role of nutrient state, submerged macrophytes and water depth. Hydrobiologia 342/343 (Dev. Hydrobiol. 119): 151–164.Google Scholar
  26. Kerfoot, W. C. & A. Sih, 1987. Predation: Direct and Indirect Impacts on Aquatic Communities. University Press of New England, Hanover, 386 pp.Google Scholar
  27. Lamarra Jr., V. A., 1975. Digestive activities of carp as a major contributor to the nutrient loading of lakes. Verh. int. Verein. Limnol. 19: 2461–2468.Google Scholar
  28. Lammens, E. H., H.W. deNie, J. Vijverberg & W. L. T. vanDensen, 1985. Resource partitioning and niche shifts of bream (Abramis brama) and eel (Anguilla anguilla) mediated by predation of smelt (Osmerus eperlanus) on Daphnia hyalina. Can. J. Fish. aquat. Sci. 42: 1342–1351.Google Scholar
  29. Lammens, E. H., 1989. Causes and consequences of the success of bream in Dutch eutrophic lakes. Hydrobiol. Bull. 23: 11–18.Google Scholar
  30. Lammens, E. H., W. L. T. van Densen & R. Knijn. 1990. The fish community structure in Tjeukemeer in relation to fishery and habitat utilization. J. Fish Biol. 36: 933–945.Google Scholar
  31. Lammens, E. H. & W. Hoogenboezem, 1991. Diets and feeding behaviour. In I. Winfield & Nelson (eds), The Biology of Cyprinid Fishes. Chapman and Hall, London: 353–376.Google Scholar
  32. Lammens, E. H., M. Scheffer & E. van Nes, 1996. PISCATOR, a model for the interaction between fish stock and fishery in Ijsselmeer and Markermeer. Version 0.0. Werkdocument 96, 123 pp.Google Scholar
  33. Ligtvoet, W., 1993. Visstandsontwikkeling Volkerak-Zoommeer 1987–1997: scenario voor het eutrof ieringsproces?: 108–115.Google Scholar
  34. Ligtvoet, W., et al. 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995. Omvang en samenstelling van de visstand in november 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994. Rapport Boz. 81.1, 81.2, 81.3, 81.7, 81.17, 81.20. Witteveen and Bos Raadgevende ingenieurs b.v., Deventer.Google Scholar
  35. Meijer, M.-L., E. H. Lammens, A. J. P. Raat, M. P. Grimm & S. H. Hosper, 1990. Impact of cyprinids on zooplankton and algae in ten drainable ponds; preliminary results. Hydrobiologia 191: 275–284.Google Scholar
  36. Meijer, M.-L., M. W. De Haan, A. W. Breukelaar & H. Buiteveld, 1990. Is reduction of the benthivorous fish an important cause of high transparency following biomanipulation in shallow lakes? Hydrobiologia 200–201: 303–316.Google Scholar
  37. Meijer, M.-L., E. H. Van Nes, E. H. Lammens, & R. D. Gulati, 1994a. The consequences of a drastic fish stock reduction in the large and shallow lake Wolderwijd, the Netherlands – Can we understand what happened? Hydrobiologia 276: 31–42.Google Scholar
  38. Meijer, M.-L., E. Jeppesen, E. van donk, B. Moss, M. Scheffer, E. Lammens, E. Vannes, J. A. Vanberkum, G. J. Dejong, B. A. Faafeng & Jensen, 1994b. Long-term responses to fish–stock reduction in small shallow lakes – interpretation of 5-year results of biomanipulation cases in the Netherlands and Denmark. Hydrobiologia 276: 457–466.Google Scholar
  39. Meijer, M.-L, E. H. Lammens, J. P. G. Klein-Breteler & M. P. Grimm, 1996. Development of fish communities after biomanipulation. Neth. Jo. of aquat. Ecol. 29: 91–103.Google Scholar
  40. Moss, B., J. Madgwick & G. Philips, 1996. A guide to the restoration of nutrient enriched shallow lakes. Broads Authority / Environment Agency.Google Scholar
  41. Nilsson, N.-A. & B. Pejler, 1973. On the relation between fish fauna and zooplankton composition in North Swedish lakes. Rep. Inst. Freshw. Res. Drottningholm 53: 51–78.Google Scholar
  42. Nilsson N. A., 1980. The role of size-based predation in competition and interactive segregation in fish. In S. D. Gerking (ed.), Ecology of Freshwater Fish Production. Blackwell Sci. Publ., Oxford: 303–325.Google Scholar
  43. Persson, L., S. Diehl, L. Johansson & G. Andersson, 1991. Shifts in fish communities along the productivity gradient of temperate lakes: patterns and the importance of size-structured interactions. J. Fish Biol. 38: 281–294.Google Scholar
  44. Persson, L., L. Johansson, G. Andersson, S. Diehl & S. F. Hamrin, 1993. Density dependent interactions in lake ecosystems: whole lake perturbation experiments. Oikos 66: 193–208.Google Scholar
  45. Popova, O. A. & L. A. Sytina, 1977. Food and feeding relations of Eurasian perch (Perca fluviatilis) and pikeperch (Stizstedion lucioperca) in various waters of the USSR. J. Fish. Res. Bd Can. 34: 1559–1570.Google Scholar
  46. Savino, J. F. & R. A., Stein, 1989. Behavior of fish predators and their prey: habitat choice between open waters and dense vegetation. Envn. Biol. Fishes 24: 287–293.Google Scholar
  47. Scheffer, M., S. H. Hosper, M.-L. Meijer & B. Moss, 1993. Alternative equilibria in shallow lakes. Trends in Ecology & Evolution: 275–279.Google Scholar
  48. Schriver, P., J. Bogestrand, E. Jeppesen & M. Sondergaard, 1995. Impact of submerged macrophytes on fish-zooplanktonphytoplankton interactions: large-scale enclosure experiments in a shallow eutrophic lake. Freshwat. Biol. 33: 255–270.Google Scholar
  49. Stenson, J. A. E., T. Bohlin, L. Henrikson, B. I. Nilsson, H. G. Nyman, H. G. Oscarson & P. Larsson, 1978. Effects of fish removal from a small lake. Verh. Int. Ver. Limnol. 20: 794–801.Google Scholar
  50. Ten Winkel, E. H. & J. T. Meulemans, 1984. Effects of fish upon sumerged vegetation. Hydrobiol. Bull. 18: 157–158.Google Scholar
  51. Timms, R. M. & B. Moss, 1984. Prevention of growth of potentially dense phytoplankton populations by zooplankton grazing in the presence of zoo planktivorous fish in a shallow wetland ecosystem. Limnol. Oceanogr. 29: 472–486.Google Scholar
  52. Van Donk, E., M. P. Grimm, R. D. Gulati, P. G. M. Heuts, W. A. de Kloet & E. van Liere, 1990. First attempt to apply wholelake food-web manipulation on a large scale in the Netherlands. Hydrobiologia 200/201 (Dev. Hydrobiol. 61): 291–303.Google Scholar
  53. Van Donk, E., M. P. Grimm, R. D. Gulati & J. P. G. Klein Breteler, 1990. Whole-lake food-web manipulation as a means to study community interactions in a small ecosystem. Hydrobiologia 200/201 (Dev. Hydrobiol. 61): 275–290.Google Scholar
  54. Van Donk, E. & R. D. Gulati, 1995. Transition of a lake to turbid state six years after biomanipulation: mechanisms and pathways. Wat. Sci. Technol. 32: 197–206.Google Scholar
  55. Willemsen, J., 1977. Population dynamics of percids in Lake Ijssel and some smaller lakes in the Netherlands. J. Fish. Res. Bd Can. 34: 1710–1719.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eddy H. R. R. Lammens
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Inland Water Management and Waste Water TreatmentLelystadThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations