Why Should We Preserve Fishless High Mountain Lakes?
High mountain lakes are originally fishless, although many have had introductions of non-native fish species, predominantly trout, and recently also minnows introduced by fishermen that use them as live bait. The extent of these introductions is general and substantial often involving many lakes over mountain ranges. Predation on native fauna by introduced fish involves profound ecological changes since fish occupy a higher trophic level that was previously inexistent. Fish predation produces a drastic reduction or elimination of autochthonous animal groups, such as amphibians and large macroinvertebrates in the littoral, and crustaceans in the plankton. These strong effects raise concerns for the conservation of high mountain lakes. In terms of individual species, those adapted to live in larger lakes have suffered a higher decrease in the size of their metapopulation. This ecological problem is discussed from a European perspective providing examples from two study areas: the Pyrenees and the Western Italian Alps. Species-specific studies are urgently needed to evaluate the conservation status of the more impacted species, together with conservation measures at continental and regional scales, through regulation, and at local scale, through restoration actions, aimed to stop further invasive species expansions and to restore the present situation. At different high mountain areas of the world, there have been restoration projects aiming to return lakes to their native fish-free status. In these areas autochthonous species that disappeared with the introduction of fish are progressively recovering their initial distribution when nearby fish-free lakes and ponds are available.
KeywordsGlobal change Introduced species Trout Minnows Amphibians Restoration Conservation High mountain lakes
8.1 Introduced Species, a Global Threat to Freshwater Ecosystems
Among the biomes of the planet, freshwaters have suffered the strongest decline in the number of vertebrate species during 1970–2010 (76% in freshwaters compared to 39% in the other two biomes; McRae et al. 2014). This great decline is a result, on a global scale, of factors related to habitat destruction, pollution, water-level reductions and invasive species among others (Collen et al. 2014). Although these factors are affecting all species within the habitats, amphibians are amongst the most threatened freshwater groups (Collen et al. 2014).
In Europe, freshwater fish are one of the animal groups with a higher number of invasive species (Hulme et al. 2009). The introduction of freshwater fish is closely related to human activities (Gido et al. 2004; Marchetti et al. 2004) and especially to fishing in the case of salmonids (Cambray 2003; Cowx and Gerdeaux 2004; Granek et al. 2008). The circumstances and timing of recent arrival of some species have been documented worldwide (FAO 2003) and in some particularly well-studied lakes (Villwock 1994; Pringle 2005; Volta and Jepsen 2008). In other cases, it has been possible to describe the introductions that have suffered different lakes using historical reconstructions (Emery 1985; Garcia-Berthou and Moreno-Amich 2000; Brancelj et al. 2000; Buchaca et al. 2011). Previous studies show that the introduction of freshwater fish can often have significant negative ecological consequences (Vitule et al. 2009).
High mountain lakes are usually isolated from lower streams by physical barriers that have prevented natural colonisation of fish (Pechlaner 1984; Knapp et al. 2001a; Miró and Ventura 2013). In these ecosystems, the introduction of fish species is mainly related to recreational fishing and promoted by different administrations (Pister 2001; Schindler and Parker 2002). There is detailed information on the historical evidences of the spread of salmonids in some high mountain areas of the western United States (Christenson 1977; Bahls 1992; Knapp 1996; Wiley 2003) and the Canadian Rockies (Schindler 2000). In these areas, introductions are described chronologically from the end of nineteenth and beginning of twentieth centuries and they were initially made by individual fishermen, and a few decades later by the Governmental agencies (Christenson 1977; Schindler 2000). In contrast to these areas, the information about the stocking history in other mountain ranges is difficult to access. In particular the information from the high mountain ranges of Asia (Petr 1999) and South America (Vigliano and Alonso 2007; Martín-Torrijos et al. 2016) are insufficient, because of uncontrolled stocking (Vigliano and Alonso 2007; Ortega et al. 2007).
In contrast to the American continent, in European high mountain lakes the colonisation process has not been studied in detail (Gliwicz and Rowan 1984; Pechlaner 1984; Sostoa and Lobón-Cerviá 1989). The first introductions in the Alps were carried out at the end of the sixteenth century (Pechlaner 1984) and in the Tatra mountains at the end of the nineteenth century (Brancelj 2000; Gliwicz and Rowan 1984). In the Cantabric mountains (Iberian Peninsula) introductions also occurred at the end of the nineteenth century (Terrero 1951) and even more recently in the Sistema Central and Sistema Ibérico, also in the Iberian Peninsula (Martinez-Solano et al. 2003; Toro et al. 2006). In the Pyrenees, the first fish introductions took place at least during the middle ages, being the first written evidence of fish presence from the fourteenth century (Miró 2011).
In conclusion, we know that introduced fish are present in high-altitude aquatic habitats in many mountain ranges all around the world, but we are not aware of the exact spatial extent of their distribution (e.g. the percentage and features of stocked lakes at a regional scale). We also know that except a very few medieval and some pre-industrial introductions occurred in Europe, the majority of the introductions started during the nineteenth century and in particular in the second half of the twentieth. Indeed in the past decades, a critical acceleration of the invasion has been promoted by different governmental agencies, supporting the growing popularity of recreational angling (Pister 2001; Schindler and Parker 2002).
8.2 The Process of Species Introductions in the Alps
The first documented fish introductions in the Alps were carried out during the middle Age, at the end of the sixteenth century, probably during the reign of Kaiser Maximilian I (Pechlaner 1984). However, similarly to most mountain ranges across Europe, most of the fish introductions took place in the recent decades to support recreational angling. In Italy, the phenomenon became particularly evident from the 1960s onwards when, recreational angling became a popular activity (Cantonati et al. 2006). The presence of introduced species such as Salmo trutta L 1758 or species from across the Atlantic Ocean, such as Oncorhynchus mykiss (Walbaum 1792) and Salvelinus fontinalis (Mitchill 1814) is common all around the Alps. Moreover Salvelinus umbla (L 1758) have been introduced across the Italian Alps (Zerunian 2003). Restocking with S. umbla is considered a conservation measure in some Alpine regions, even if its status as an indigenous species in Italy has given rise to serious doubts (Pechlaner 1984; Machino 1999; Piccinini et al. 2004) and the fact that this species does not require ex situ conservation actions. Also the marble trout (Salmo marmoratus Cuvier, 1829), an alpine endemism, was sometimes introduced in alpine lakes, as well as Salvelinus namaycush (Walbaum 1792) from North America. Finally cyprinids, used as live baits by anglers, are accidentally or voluntary released in many high-altitude lakes, and minnows (Phoxinus sp.) are able to establish reproductive populations.
For the Alps, a detailed and coherent history of the fish introductions is not available: information is often insufficient and still scattered in many archives and grey literature. Also, the distribution of introduced fish has rarely been assessed over large regions. In a study conducted in the Eastern Alps, Jersabek et al. (2001) report that the 41% of the high-altitude lakes (>0.5 ha, above 1300 m a.s.l.) present fish fauna; in Valle d’Aosta (Western Alps), where the first documented fish introductions date back to 1926 (Mammoliti Mochet 1995), an accurate catalogue of all the ponds and lakes (Frezet 2003) indicate that the 43% of the lakes (>0.5 ha, above 1000 m a.s.l.) present fish fauna and this percentage increase to the 50% excluding those lakes above 2900 m a.s.l., where fish survival is challenged by the extreme temperatures and glacial influence; in the Gran Paradiso National Park (Western Alps) 35% of all the lakes (>0.5 ha) is occupied by fish (RT personal observation). These percentages are similar to those observed in other mountain ranges (Miró and Ventura 2013; Bahls 1992).
8.3 The Process of Species Introductions in the Pyrenees
The different fish species described to be introduced in the Pyrenees include the salmonids S. trutta, O. mykiss and S. fontinalis, and the cyprinid Phoxinus sp. in the southern (Spanish) Pyrenees (Miró and Ventura 2013, 2015) and these species together with S. umbla and S. namaycush in the northern (French) Pyrenees (Delacoste et al. 1997). At a global scale, S. trutta and O. mykiss are considered among the 100 most invasive alien species in the world (Lowe et al. 2000). Within Europe, O. mykiss, S. fontinalis and S. namaycush have been introduced from North America, while S. trutta and S. umbla that are native European species have been widely introduced beyond their native range, mostly in high mountain areas. Therefore, they are all classified as European alien species (Hulme et al. 2009).
8.3.1 Trout Introductions
With the onset of modern fish management that took place during the period 1960–2000, the most significant factors explaining trout distribution were related to management practices (Miró and Ventura 2013). However, different factors were important for the different species. For S. trutta, the probability of occurrence was highest in areas where fish were stocked by helicopter, and in fish-managed areas. The repeated use of helicopter stocking in recent decades has resulted in an extensive occurrence of trout in these areas and, as a result, in more than half of the lakes with fish. This result is similar to that found in other parts of the world where helicopters and aeroplanes have been used for stocking trout, such as several mountain areas of West USA, where trout is present in ca. 60% of lakes (Bahls 1992).
In contrast to S. trutta, S. fontinalis was preferentially found in lakes with forestry road access, while O. mykiss was also found in lakes with road access but where active fish management has been carried out. These two last species are present in a much lower number of lakes, and also were introduced mainly between 1960 and 1980 (Fig. 8.1). Their presence is closely linked to the construction of the majority of hydroelectric power station infrastructure at high altitudes in the Pyrenees (Catalan et al. 1997). Hydroelectric companies compensated local citizens by developing local fisheries that were used to introduce these two species to the lakes around the area, where hydroelectric power station infrastructure was constructed. The same hydroelectric infrastructure construction was responsible for the forestry roads that were, in turn, the main routes facilitating the introduction of these two species. Amongst the species, S. fontinalis was mainly introduced in lakes with vehicle access. In the 1980s, administrative changes shifted stocking responsibilities to local fishermen’s societies together with governmental agencies. This fact favoured the closure of S. fontinalis and O. mykiss hatcheries and the introduction of the north and central European lineages of S. trutta in official fish hatcheries. As a result, there has been a shift to using lineages from different parts of central and northern Europe (Araguas et al. 2009). Modern management practices have therefore resulted in increased fish introductions during the past few decades with a maximum during the 1990s (Fig. 8.1). As a result, trout have been introduced in most lakes with higher fishing interest (e.g. lower altitude or bigger surface area). The low number of lakes remaining without fish after the 1990s is likely the reason why fish introductions dropped considerably during 2000.
8.3.2 Collateral Introductions
The salmonid introductions described above have resulted in collateral introductions of other fish species mainly used as live bait (Miró and Ventura 2015). This fact may eventually lead to stronger ecological consequences than the introduction of trout alone. In the Pyrenees, Miró and Ventura (2015) found that the introduction of minnows in high mountain lakes was mediated by a preceding invasive species and facilitated by human activity. They found that the introduction of the minnow is a more recent and faster process than that of salmonids (Fig. 8.1). Since 1970, when the first minnow introduction took place, it has now spread to 27% of the lakes of the southern Pyrenees with an introduction rate of 4.7 lakes per year, compared to those of trout, at 2.2 lakes per year for the period between 1940 and 2000 (Miró and Ventura 2015).
Differences in minnow life history characteristics compared to those of trout give them a higher acclimation success and therefore high invasive potential. The minnow, like other small widely distributed freshwater fish, displays a remarkable variability in its life history depending on the local temperature. For example, minnows have maximum age ranges between 3 and 13 years reaching maturity between 1–2 and 5–7 years in optimal and sub-optimal conditions respectively, and show significantly lower growth increments in cold summers (Mills 1988). This plasticity in their life history is what has allowed the species to easily acclimate to high mountain lakes, showing higher resistance to harsh conditions than trout. Miró and Ventura (2015) have not found any lake where minnows have disappeared once established. In contrast, in lakes with trout, between 10 and 44% of the trout populations have become extinct after 20–30 years due to a lack of favourable conditions (Knapp 2005; Armstrong and Knapp 2004; Miró and Ventura 2013). Moreover, in the Pyrenees, Miró and Ventura (2015) have found that in twenty lakes and ponds, pre-existing trout populations have disappeared after minnow introductions. Some of these lakes and ponds had brown trout introduced centuries ago while others were stocked recently.
Miró and Ventura (2015) also found that minnow presence was more likely in lakes with lower elevation, greater surface areas and higher temperatures. This distribution could be a result of the pattern of introductions (e.g. fishermen using live bait do not fish so often at the upper altitude lakes) or to fair habitat conditions for released minnows to become established. Taking into account the high plasticity of minnows, it seems more likely that their presence was a result of the pattern of introduction. As well as minnows, other species might be used as live bait, increasing the number of invasive species to lakes. This is the case for gudgeon (Gobio spp.), which is now found in some lakes of the northern slope of the Pyrenees (Miró 2011). This fish has similar size and flexible life history features to those of minnows (Tang et al. 2011). Thus, the ecological effects of fish introductions in high mountain lakes can result in stronger unpredicted consequences.
Live bait-related introductions of minnows have occurred in lower, boreal and arctic lakes where trout is present. The distribution of minnow expanded considerably throughout the twentieth century in the north European lakes of Scotland and Norway, especially in mountain areas, due mainly to the use of minnows as live bait for angling (Maitland and Campbell 1992; Museth et al. 2007). When minnow is introduced in lakes with autochthonous trout, it reduces recruitment and annual growth rates of trout, causing a decrease of the trout abundance by 35% on average; however, the effect on other native fauna takes place primarily in the shallow littoral areas (Museth et al. 2007).
Angling practices with live bait represents a worrying pathway for alien species introductions (Kerr et al. 2005; Webb 2007; DiStefano et al. 2009; Ward et al. 2012). The largest organisms used as live bait are several species of small fishes, but other animals such as amphibians, earthworms, crayfishes, grubs and insects are also used (Lindgren 2006; Keller and Lodge 2007). Improper disposal of live bait has been attributed as the source of introduction of at least 14 species of fishes in Ontario (Kerr et al. 2005). In the English Lake District, individuals of at least 12 native and non-native fish species have been brought to Windermere for the purpose of live baiting (Winfield et al. 2011). Live bait use was also responsible for the introduction of 47 known freshwater species in United States Mid-Atlantic slope drainage systems, among which are at least 5 non-native fishes, 4 non-native crayfishes and 9 non-native earthworm species (Kilian et al. 2012). Live baits may be released to the medium by accidental escape or, more often, by purpose at the end of the fishing trip (Winfield et al. 2011; Kilian et al. 2012). In some cases, it has been shown that bait-related introductions have resulted in established populations of invasive species (e.g. Callaham et al. 2006; Migge-Kleian et al. 2006).
In high mountain lakes, trout are the only species group authorised for introduction by governmental agencies worldwide (e.g. Sostoa and Lobón-Cerviá 1989; Wiley 2003), mainly associated with recreational fishing (Cambray 2003). Unlike trout, minnow introductions are in general not authorised by governmental authorities, and their introduction is often an illegal angling practice. As mentioned, the final result in many cases is that fish unused as live bait are released at the end of the fishing expedition (Maitland and Campbell 1992; Kerr et al. 2005; Winfield et al. 2011; Kilian et al. 2012). This practice has been quantified to be done by 36% of the fishermen in Michigan and Wisconsin, 41% in Ontario and 65% in Maryland (Litvak and Mandrak 1993; Kerr et al. 2005; Kilian et al. 2012). To prevent the widespread release of non-native species used as live bait, many US states and Canadian territories have restricted the use, sale or transport of bait (Kerr et al. 2005; Peters and Lodge 2009). A similar situation exists on the southern slope of the Pyrenees, where the release of any organism to the environment without government authorization is also strictly prohibited (Miró 2011). Nevertheless, similar to the findings from the southern valleys of the Pyrenees, in some regions of North America a large proportion of anglers appear to be unaware of, or choose to ignore, the current regulation forbidding the release of live organisms because they believe their actions are compassionate and that the released unused bait is a suitable food for angling fishes (Kerr et al. 2005; Kilian et al. 2012). The results described above strongly suggest the need to intensify preventive actions by giving accurate information of the potentially adverse effects on the local environment of the release of non-native organisms to fisheries boards and local communities. These actions are one of the best guiding principles to prevent the spread of invasive species together with regulation and legislation (Simberloff et al. 2013).
8.4 Ecological Consequences
The implications of stocking into high mountain lakes derive primarily from the fact that fish occupy a higher trophic level that was previously inexistent leading to profound ecological changes. Their introduction in fishless lakes is commonly associated with extirpation or reduction of native aquatic species (e.g. invertebrates and amphibians) and can have indirect effects on the whole ecosystem, and on its linkage with the surrounding terrestrial habitats (Eby et al. 2006). From high altitude lakes, fish can colonise otherwise inaccessible downstream aquatic habitats often propagating the ecological impact at a whole basin scale (Adams et al. 2001).
Direct predation of more visible taxa can produce a series of indirect ecological effects (top-down and cascading effects) which affect the entire ecosystem (Hall et al. 1976; Schindler et al. 2001; Sarnelle and Knapp 2005; Eby et al. 2006). The decrease of large zooplankton species can produce a competitive release of small zooplankton species (e.g. rotifers), which are less efficient grazers (Brooks and Dodson 1965). Therefore, a decrease in crustaceans together with enhanced nutrient cycling have led to changes in primary producers (Sarnelle and Knapp 2005; Magnea et al. 2013).
The effect on benthic macroinvertebrates is also important during their emergency phase, when passing through the water column, which results in a substantial reduction or alteration of their emergency rates (Pope et al. 2009; Epanchin et al. 2010; Tiberti et al. 2016b). This is also linked with indirect effects on surrounding habitats through resource depletion for terrestrial insectivores (Epanchin et al. 2010; Eby et al. 2006; Finlay and Vredenburg 2007). Similarly, a reduction of the amphibians’ emergence can affect terrestrial habitats and predators (Matthews et al. 2002). In the complex, aquatic subsidies depletion by introduced fish can have deep and detectable, indirect cascading effects in terrestrial habitats (Knight et al. 2005; Gratton et al. 2008).
On the other hand, the effects of minnow introductions on high mountain lakes have scarcely been studied in comparison with those of trout. Regardless of their smaller size, minnows are also occupying the top of the food chain (Hesthagen et al. 1992; Borgstrom et al. 1985; Museth et al. 2010), and when co-occurring with salmonids remain mainly in the littoral to escape trout predation (Museth et al. 2003). However, minnows are also the main cause for a reduction in trout reproduction (Borgstrøm et al. 1996) that leads to trout disappearances in some high mountain lakes (Miró and Ventura 2015). In this case, minnow seem to have a strong impact on amphibians and macroinvertebrates, but also on crustacean biomass (Schabetsberger et al. 1995), that might result in a strong trophic cascade, as has been described for other lakes such as those from the north-temperate area (Carpenter et al. 2011).
The biology of introduced populations: the impact of different trout species has not been compared in detail as well as the dependence between the fish density and the magnitude of the impact.
The ecology of invaded populations: the existence of metapopulations and the vicinity to fishless lakes could probably contrast the effects of fish predation on many prey species through immigration of new individuals, but, except for amphibians (Vredenburg 2004), this issue has rarely been studied. Also, the egg banks and propagules could subsidise native populations with new individuals and buffer fish predation, but also, in this case, their roles have not been well studied (but see Parker et al. 1996 and Latta et al. 2010). There are also many overlooked aspects concerning the cascading effects of fish introduction (e.g. trophic cascades) and their influence on the ecological connection between invaded lakes and terrestrial habitats (reciprocal terrestrial and aquatic subsidies).
The role of different fish management practices: the consequences of different fish management practices (fishing bans vs. fishing enabled, periodic fish stocking vs. fish stocking halt) on the magnitude of the ecological impact has not been assessed.
The evolutionary consequences of fish invasion: introduced species can produce evolutive changes in natives, and the evolutionary component of native/non-native species interactions are likely to be a cutting edge field of research in invasion ecology, with important conservation consequences (Lambrinos 2004; Schoener 2011).
The interacting threats: the effects of fish can be exacerbated by interaction with other stressors. Airborne pesticides (Davidson and Knapp 2007), infections by moulds (chytridiomycosis; Walker et al. 2010; Rosa et al. 2013; Martel et al. 2013; Vredenburg et al. 2010) and viruses (Price et al. 2014; Teacher 2010), climate changes (Bosch et al. 2007) or increased ultraviolet radiation by ozone layer thinning (Adams et al. 2005), water exploitation and water-level fluctuations, point source of organic pollutants, can interact with introduced fish possibly exacerbating the poor conservation status and the resilience potential of many high altitude lakes at a local and regional scale. For example maintaining fishless lakes or eradicating fish can be considered as a measure to contrast the biodiversity loss due to climate warming, restoring a safe stepping stone habitat for many aquatic organisms forced to find cooler condition with an altitudinal shift.
8.5 A Serious Problem for Conservation
The effects of fish introductions on high mountain lake ecosystems summarised above and at Fig. 8.4 demonstrate unambiguously that there are substantial effects at the lake scale, but it is also a problem at a regional and biogeographic scale, either affecting some particular lakes or individual species.
To what extent this substantial habitat loss is indeed affecting the survival of some of the native species is not well known for most of them. Theoretical studies point out that species-specific empirical studies are required with great urgency. If the decrease of habitats is fast, as occurred with the habitat destruction due to fish introductions during the twentieth century in the Pyrenees (see above), there may be a time lag before colonisation and extinction dynamics of the native species reach equilibrium with current habitat distributions (defined as “non-equilibrium dynamics” by Harrison 1991). As a result, species may persist for some time in habitat networks, although they might go extinct some years later even without further landscape change due to a time lag delay (defined as “extinction debt” by Tilman et al. 1994). The apparent survival of species in networks that are insufficient for their long-term persistence may cause underestimates of the area and quality of habitat needed to preserve threatened taxa (Hanski et al. 1996), and overestimates of the species richness that landscapes can support in the long term (Tilman et al. 1994). Therefore, the prevalence of nonequilibrium systems among rare species or lineages, and the implications for their conservation need to be determined as soon as possible (Bulman et al. 2007). However, urgent conservation measures are needed, meanwhile these species-specific studies are not available.
8.6 Conservation and Restoration, What Has Been Done so Far?
8.6.1 Protection Measures
Different initiatives have been implemented to stop species invasions at various administrative scales. At European scale, the EU regulation 1141/2016 provides a list of invasive alien species considered to be of Union concern (“the Union list”), which does not include any fish species commonly used for stocking mountain lakes. However the regulation contains an invitation for the Member States to counteract the negative effects of some invasive alien species of national or regional concern also cooperating at a regional scale (e.g. mountain ranges). The alien invasive species of national or regional concern can be native in some European Member States and, therefore, Member States could correctly undertake actions to contrast all the species commonly used to stock mountain lakes. At present, there are different legislations at the different EU Member States that regulate some introduced species (mainly those introduced from America). However, stocking several salmonid species is currently allowed and, surprisingly, it is usually sustained or approved by governmental agencies (Miró and Ventura 2013), being in clear contradiction with conservation legislation.1 The most ambitious initiative existent at European scale is the Natura 2000 network, aiming to protect all species and habitats of special conservation concern (included in the habitats directive). Member States are committed to guarantee the conservation of Natura 2000 habitats and species which, for the case of high mountain lakes and some of their species (e.g. some amphibians, aquatic plants and invertebrates), is incompatible with allowing fish introductions.
Although the most obvious route to avoid introductions would be for governmental agencies to stop stocking trout, this is complicated by the fact that there have been several other agents involved in these introductions in addition to governmental agencies through the history of trout introductions (e.g. local citizens in the past or local fishermen’s societies in the past decades). As a result, Miró and Ventura (2013, 2015) found some lakes that have been stocked recently without the collaboration of the administration.
In this context, protected areas sometimes provide the favourable local context (i.e. the presence of a surveillance personnel) which is essential to enforce the protection measures (fishing ban, stocking halt) and restoration projects (fish eradications). Therefore, a new and general attitude of mountain protected areas towards less permissive policies concerning fish management is the first and most urgent measure to stem the ecological consequences of the fish invasion.
The social implications of prohibiting fishing would not be relevant if the prohibition is implemented in those lakes that are at present fishless (at the moment there is the paradox that some lakes have fishing rights while never being stocked with fish). It could also be implemented in some particular lakes or groups of lakes that are especially important for the conservation of some animal groups (e.g. Pyrenean newt C. asper). Finally, prohibition on fishing a proportion of the lakes has already been performed in the Aigüestortes i Estany de Sant Maurici National Park, with no documented adverse social impact: basically local citizens realised that the social benefits of nature preservation (through higher tourism) have been greater than those that were obtained via fishing.
8.6.2 Restoration Projects: Techniques Used and Successful Cases
Due to the substantial reduction in habitat size directly associated with fish introductions, different protected areas of the world have started restoration projects with the aim to eradicate trout in high altitude lakes. The method most widely used in lentic systems is gill netting (e.g. Knapp and Matthews 1998; Parker et al. 2001; Vredenburg 2004; Knapp et al. 2007; Pacas and Taylor 2015). The most successful ones at removing non-native fishes have focused in relatively small lakes (e.g. Knapp and Matthews 1998; Parker et al. 2001; Vredenburg 2004; Knapp et al. 2007), but this technique demonstrated to be effective also in relatively large high altitude lakes (Pacas and Taylor 2015). The use of gill netting is often complemented with electrofishing (Pacas and Taylor 2015), and in one case with local fishermen (Tiberti et al. 2016a). Piscicides (e.g. rotenone and antimycin) have also been used to eradicate fish (e.g. Sanni and Wærvågen 1998; Gresswell 1991). However, their use has ecological effects on native fauna such as invertebrates (e.g. Dalu et al. 2015; Kjærstad and Arnekleiv 2011), and legal and social complications, especially in protected areas because the very notion of a protected area implies that it remains chemical free. It is important to highlight that eradication actions are a “second step”, which should come when protection measures (fishing ban and the prohibition of fish stocking) are already in place and effectively enforced; if these fundamental guarantees are absent or weak, the local context (i.e. concrete risk of sabotage of the conservation actions) might suggest deferring the project to future times.
The most ambitious projects have been carried out in North America both USA and Canada (e.g. Knapp and Matthews 1998; Parker et al. 2001; Vredenburg 2004; Knapp et al. 2007; Pacas and Taylor 2015). In Europe, removal of brook trout has also been achieved in a small alpine lake in the central Iberian Peninsula (Toro et al. 2006). Furthermore, two recent European Commission funded projects, the LIFE+ Bioaquae (www.bioaquae.eu) and LIFE+ LimnoPirineus (www.lifelimnopirineus.eu) are removing fish from different high mountain lakes. The former started removing brook trout from four lakes and their surrounding streams of the Gran Paradiso National Park (Italian Alps) in 2013 (Tiberti et al. 2013), having already removed fish from all lakes (R. Tiberti, Pers. Comm.). The latter started at 2015 in the Pyrenees (Aigüestortes i Estany de Sant Maurici National Park and Alt Pirineu Natural Park) and is aiming at removing brook trout, rainbow trout, brown trout and European minnow from eight lakes and their surrounding streams. Three of them have minnow only, two both minnow and brown trout, two brook trout and one rainbow trout.
Studies of the recovery of restored lakes have shown the relatively fast recovery of lake populations when surrounding refugees are available (Knapp et al. 2001b, 2005, 2007; Sarnelle and Knapp 2004), being amphibians and macroinvertebrates those with faster recovery (Knapp et al. 2001b, 2005, 2007), and crustacean zooplankton the later (Knapp and Sarnelle 2008). These latter authors have also shown that some species producing resistance eggs are not able to survive for many years in the egg bank (e.g. calanoid copepods). Fish residence times (years that fish have been in the lake) above ca. 50 years greatly reduce the fast recovery of these species from the egg bank.
Council Decision 93/626/EEC of 25 October 1993 concerning the conclusion of the Convention on Biological Diversity (OJ L 309, 13.12.1993, p. 1); Regulation 1143/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 on the prevention and management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species (OJ L 317, 4.11.2014, p. 1); Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 1); Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1141 of 13 July 2016 adopting a list of invasive alien species of Union concern pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council C/2016/4295 (OJ L 189, 14.7.2016, pp. 4–8).
The authors would like to acknowledge those people that provided information about fish introductions, two anonymous reviewers and the editors for giving us the opportunity to participate in the workshop and writing this paper. This book chapter is a joint contribution of the LIFE+ projects BIOAQUAE (Biodiversity Improvement of Aquatic Alpine Ecosystems, LIFE11 BIOIT000020) and LIMNOPIRINEUS (Restoration of lentic habitats and aquatic species of Community interest in high mountains of the Pyrenees, LIFE13 NAT/ES/001210). RT thanks the University of Pavia and Bruno Bassano and Giuseppe Bogliani for their support. DB benefitted from a scholarship from Government of Ecuador (SENESCYT 20090187-20130946) and IS from a Catalan Government grant (2015 FI_B 01147).
- Bahls P (1992) The status of fish populations and management of high mountain lakes in the Western United States. Northwest Sci 66:183–193Google Scholar
- Borgstrom R, Garnas E, Salveit SJ (1985) Interactions between brown trout, Salmo trutta (L.), and minnow, Phoxinus phoxinus (L.), for their common prey, Lepidurus arcticus (Pallas). Ver Internat Verein Limnol 22:2548–2552Google Scholar
- Borgstrøm R, Brittain JE, Hasle K, Skjølås S, Dokk JG (1996) Reduced recruitment in brown trout Salmo trutta, the role of interactions with minnow Phoxinus phoxinus. Nord J Freshw Res 72:30–38Google Scholar
- Bosch J, Tejedo M, Lecis R, Miaud C, Lizana M, Edgar P, Martínez-Solano I, Salvador A, García-París M, Recuero Gil E, Marquez R, Geniez P (2009) Calotriton asper (Publication no. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2009.RLTS.T59448A11943040.en)
- Brancelj A, Sisko M, Brancelj IR, Jeran Z, Jacimovic R (2000) Effects of land use and fish stocking on a mountain lake-evidence from the sediment. Period Biol 102:259–268Google Scholar
- Buchaca T, Skov T, Amsinck SL, Gonçalves V, Neto Azevedo JM, Andersen TJ, Jeppesen E (2011) Rapid ecological shift following piscivorous fish introduction to increasingly eutrophic and warmer Lake Furnas (Azores Archipelago, Portugal): a paleoecological approach. Ecosystems 14:458–477Google Scholar
- Cantonati M, Lapini L, Paradisi S, Stoch F (2006) Conservation and management. In: Stoch F (ed) High-altitude lakes. Quaderni habitat vol 14. Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio. Museo Friulano di Storia Naturale. English Edition: Italian Habitats, pp 123–135Google Scholar
- Catalan J, Vilalta R, Weitzman B, Ventura M, Comas E, Pigem C, Aranda R, Ballesteros E, Camarero L, García Serrano J, Pla S, Sáez A, Aiguabella P (1997) The hydraulic industry in the Pyrenees: evaluation, correction and prevention of the environmental impact at the Aigüestortes i Estany de Sant Maurici National Park. La Caixa, BarcelonaGoogle Scholar
- Catalan J, Barbieri MG, Bartumeus F, Bitusik P, Botev I, Brancelj A, Cogalniceanu D, Garcia J, Manca M, Marchetto A, Ognjanova-Rumenova N, Pla S, Rieradevall M, Sorvari S, Stefkova E, Stuchlik E, Ventura M (2009) Ecological thresholds in European alpine lakes. Freshw Biol 54:2494–2517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Christenson DP (1977) History of trout introductions in California high mountain lakes. In: Hall A (ed) A symposium on the management of high mountain lakes in California’s National Parks, San Francisco, California, 9–16 May 1977, vol 1. California Trout Inc., pp 9–15Google Scholar
- Delacoste M, Baran P, Lascaux JM, Abad N, Besson JP (1997) Evaluation of salmonid introductions in high-elevation lakes and streams of the Hautes-Pyrenees region. Bull Fr Peche Piscic 205–219Google Scholar
- Emery L (1985) Review of fish species introduced into the Great Lakes, 1819–1974, vol 45. Great Lakes Fishery Commission Technical Report. Great Lakes Fisheri Commission, Ann Arbor, MIGoogle Scholar
- Epanchin PN, Knapp RA, Lawler SP (2010) Nonnative trout impact an alpine-nesting bird by altering aquatic insect subsidies. Ecology 91:2406–2415Google Scholar
- FAO (2003) Fishery records collections. FIGIS data collection, Inland Water Resources and Aquaculture Service (FIRI). http://www.fao.org/figis/servlet/static?dom=collection&xml=dias.xml
- Frezet C (2003) Catasto dei laghi valdostani. ARPA Valle d’AostaGoogle Scholar
- Gruenstein E (2014) The response of bats to introduced trout in naturally fishless lakes Sierra Nevada. San José State University, California Master’s ThesesGoogle Scholar
- Hesthagen T, Hegge O, Skurdal J (1992) Food choice and vertical distribution of European minnow, Phoxinus phoxinus, and young native and stocked brown trout, Salmo trutta, in the littoral zone of a subalpine lake. Norw J Freshwat Res 67:72–76Google Scholar
- Hulme PE, Nentwig W, Pyšek P, Vilà M (eds) (2009) DAISIE Handbook of alien species in Europe, vol 3. Invading nature. Springer series in invasion ecology. Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
- Knapp RA (1996) Non-native trout in natural lakes of the Sierra Nevada: an analysis of their distribution and impacts on native aquatic biota. In: Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final Report to Congress, 1996. UC DavisGoogle Scholar
- Lindgren CJ (2006) Angler awareness of aquatic invasive species in Manitoba. J Aquat Plant Manag 44:103–108Google Scholar
- Lowe S, Browne M, Boudjelas S, De Poorter M (2000) 100 of the worlds worst invasive alien species A selection from the global invasive species database. World Conservation Union (IUCN)Google Scholar
- Machino Y (1999) History and status of Arctic charr introductions in southern Europe. Int Soc Artic Charr Fanatics, Drottningholm, Sweden Inf Ser 7:33–39Google Scholar
- Maitland PS, Campbell RN (1992) Freshwater fishes of the British Isles, vol Book. Whole, Harper Collins, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Mammoliti Mochet A (1995) Analisi dell’ittiofauna in Valle d’Aosta allo stato attuale e allo stato pregresso. Università degli Studi di TorinoGoogle Scholar
- Martinez-Solano I, Barbadillo LJ, Lapena M (2003) Effect of introduced fish on amphibian species richness and densities at a montane assemblage in the Sierra de Neila, Spain. Herpetol J 13:167–173Google Scholar
- Matthews KR, Knapp RA (1999) A study of high mountain lake fish stocking effects on the U.S. Sierra Nevada wilderness. Int J Wilderness 5:24–26Google Scholar
- McRae L, Freeman R, Deinet S (2014) The Living Planet Index. In: McLellan R, Iyengar L, Jeffries B, Oerlemans N (eds) Living planet report 2014. Species and spaces, people and places. World Wild Fund International, Gland, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
- Miró A (2011) Trout in Pyrenean Lakes: tradition, history and conservation implications (In Catalan). Pagès Editors, LleidaGoogle Scholar
- Miró A (2016) Fish as local stressors of Pyrenean high mountain lakes: arrival process and impact on amphibians and other organisms. PhD Thesis, University of Barcelona, BarcelonaGoogle Scholar
- Ortega H, Guerra H, Ramírez R (2007) The introduction of nonnative fishes into freshwater systems of Peru. In: Ecological and genetic implications of aquaculture activities. Springer, pp 247–278Google Scholar
- Pechlaner R (1984) Historical evidence for the introduction of Arctic charr into high-mountain lakes of the Alps by man. In: Burns BL (ed) Johnson J. University of Manitoba Press, Winnipeg, pp 449–557Google Scholar
- Petr T (1999) Fish and fisheries at higher altitudes: Asia, vol 385. Food & Agriculture OrgGoogle Scholar
- Piccinini A, Nonnis Marzano F, Gandolfi G (2004) Il Salmerino alpino (Salvelinus alpinus): prove storiche alla sua introduzione sul territorio italiano. Nonnis Marzano F, Maldini M & Gandolfi G (eds.). Atti 9:259–264Google Scholar
- Sanni S, Wærvågen SB (1998) Oligotrophication as a result of planktivorous fish removal with rotenone in the small, eutrophic, Lake Mosvatn, Norway. Hydrobiologia 200:263–274Google Scholar
- Schabetsberger R, Jersabek CD, Brozek S (1995) The impact of alpine newts (Triturus alpestris) and minnows (Phoxinus phoxinus) on the microcrustacean communities of two high altitude karst lakes. Alytes (Paris) 12:183–189Google Scholar
- Sostoa A, Lobón-Cerviá J (1989) Fish and fisheries of the River Ebro: actual state and recent history. In: Petts GE, Mller H, Roux AL (eds) Historical change of large alluvial rivers: Western Europe. Wiley, Chinchester, pp 233–247Google Scholar
- Terrero D (1951) Historia local de piscicultura. Montes 39:165–171Google Scholar
- Tiberti R, Acerbi E, Iacobuzio R (2013) Preliminary studies on fish capture techniques in Gran Paradiso alpine lakes: towards an eradication plan. J Mountain Ecol 9:61–74Google Scholar
- Tiberti R, Ottino M, Brighenti S, Iacobuzio R, Rolla M, von Hardenberg A, Bassano B (2016a) Involvement of recreational anglers in the eradication of alien brook trout from alpine lakes. J Mountain Ecol 10:13–26Google Scholar
- Toro M, Granados I, Robles S, Montes C (2006) High mountain lakes of the Central Range Iberian Pennsula): regional limnology & environmental changes. Limnetica 25:217–252Google Scholar
- Vigliano PH, Alonso MF (2007) Salmonid introductions in Patagonia: a mixed blessing. In: Ecological and genetic implications of aquaculture activities. Springer, pp 315–331Google Scholar
- Villwock W (1994) Consequences of exotic fish introductions on the naitive Lake Titicaca species (in Spanish). Ecología en Bolivia 23:49–56Google Scholar
- Ward JM, Cudmore B, Drake DAR, Mandrak NE (2012) Summary of a survey of baitfish users in Canada. Can Manuscr Rep Fish Aquat Sci 2972:i–v, 1–23Google Scholar
- Webb AC (2007) Status of non-native freshwater fishes in tropical northern Queensland, including establishment success, rates of spread, range and introduction pathways. J Proc R Soc N S W 140:63–78Google Scholar
- Zerunian S (2003) Piano d’azione generale per la conservazione dei pesci d’acqua dolce italiani, vol 17. Ministero dell’ambiente e della tutela del territorio, Direzione per la protezione della naturaGoogle Scholar
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.