Potential of a no‐take marine reserve to protect home ranges of anadromous brown trout (<i>Salmo trutta</i>)

Thorbjørnsen, Susanna Huneide; Moland, Even; Simpfendorfer, Colin A.; Heupel, Michelle R.; Knutsen, Halvor; Olsen, Esben Moland

doi:10.1002/ece3.4760

Cited by 10 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 48 publications

(85 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the latter case movement may only be as far as the estuary, with some authors referring to this as semi‐anadromy or partial‐anadromy, but, confusingly, these terms are also used by other authors in the sense of facultative migration. In Denmark and Norway migration can be terminated in a fjord rather than continue to the open sea (del Villar‐Guerra et al ., ; Thorbjørnsen et al ., ). Some authors (Quinn, ) use a more abbreviated terminology for potamodromy simply referring to adfluvial for migrations between natal rivers and lakes and fluvial both for migrations within rivers and river‐residents.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Anadromy, potamodromy and residency in brown trout Salmo trutta: the role of genes and the environment

Ferguson

Reed

Cross

et al. 2019

Journal of Fish Biology

147

176

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Brown trout Salmo trutta is endemic to Europe, western Asia and north‐western Africa; it is a prominent member of freshwater and coastal marine fish faunas. The species shows two resident (river‐resident, lake‐resident) and three main facultative migratory life histories (downstream–upstream within a river system, fluvial–adfluvial potamodromous; to and from a lake, lacustrine–adfluvial (inlet) or allacustrine (outlet) potamodromous; to and from the sea, anadromous). River‐residency v. migration is a balance between enhanced feeding and thus growth advantages of migration to a particular habitat v. the costs of potentially greater mortality and energy expenditure. Fluvial–adfluvial migration usually has less feeding improvement, but less mortality risk, than lacustrine–adfluvial or allacustrine and anadromous, but the latter vary among catchments as to which is favoured. Indirect evidence suggests that around 50% of the variability in S. trutta migration v. residency, among individuals within a population, is due to genetic variance. This dichotomous decision can best be explained by the threshold‐trait model of quantitative genetics. Thus, an individual's physiological condition (e.g., energy status) as regulated by environmental factors, genes and non‐genetic parental effects, acts as the cue. The magnitude of this cue relative to a genetically predetermined individual threshold, governs whether it will migrate or sexually mature as a river‐resident. This decision threshold occurs early in life and, if the choice is to migrate, a second threshold probably follows determining the age and timing of migration. Migration destination (mainstem river, lake, or sea) also appears to be genetically programmed. Decisions to migrate and ultimate destination result in a number of subsequent consequential changes such as parr–smolt transformation, sexual maturity and return migration. Strong associations with one or a few genes have been found for most aspects of the migratory syndrome and indirect evidence supports genetic involvement in all parts. Thus, migratory and resident life histories potentially evolve as a result of natural and anthropogenic environmental changes, which alter relative survival and reproduction. Knowledge of genetic determinants of the various components of migration in S. trutta lags substantially behind that of Oncorhynchus mykiss and other salmonines. Identification of genetic markers linked to migration components and especially to the migration–residency decision, is a prerequisite for facilitating detailed empirical studies. In order to predict effectively, through modelling, the effects of environmental changes, quantification of the relative fitness of different migratory traits and of their heritabilities, across a range of environmental conditions, is also urgently required in the face of the increasing pace of such changes.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Anadromy, potamodromy and residency in brown trout Salmo trutta: the role of genes and the environment

Ferguson

Reed

Cross

et al. 2019

Journal of Fish Biology

147

176

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, the potential for protection depends on the location of the home range. Thorbjørnsen et al (2019) showed that the degree of potential protection conferred to sea trout by a no-take zone increased with home range size in sea trout initially tagged outside of the no-take zone (Figure 3B). Last, movement traits must be at least partially heritable to affect population behavioral composition over time, which seems to be the case across species and taxa according to a recent metanalysis by Dochtermann et al (2019).…”

Section: Behavioral Traitsmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Surrounded by MPAs allowing hook-and-line-type fishing gear, the no-take zone enables studying effects of protection on fish (Figure 1 and Table 1). An acoustic telemetry array consisting of 56 acoustic receivers is deployed in the fjord, also including the no-take zone (for details, see Villegas-Ríos et al, 2017b;Thorbjørnsen et al, 2019;Freitas et al, 2021).…”

Section: Study Systemmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Individuals were captured in the fjord using a beach seine to minimize potential selective fishing of any behavioral type, and by electrofishing in the spawning river. Individuals were anaesthetized with clove oil before being tagged internally with an acoustic transmitter (Vemco V9P/V13P, for details, see Thorbjørnsen et al, 2019Thorbjørnsen et al, , 2021.…”

Section: Study Speciesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Having a larger home range led to a decrease in survival for individuals spending more time in the reserve, while having a larger home range led to an increase in survival for individuals spending less time in the reserve. To preserve behavioral variation in a population, a mosaic of marine protected areas Sørdalen et al, 2018); (B) disparate protection potential (proportion of time spent in a no-take MPA) with increasing home range size in S. trutta tagged inside (blue, circles) and outside (orange, triangles) of the no-take zone in Tvedestrand fjord (modified from Thorbjørnsen et al, 2019). and areas open to harvest was suggested as a management tool (Thorbjørnsen et al, 2021).…”

Section: Behavioral Traitsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Restoration of Abundance and Dynamics of Coastal Fish and Lobster Within Northern Marine Protected Areas Across Two Decades

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article reviews a suite of studies conducted in a network of coastal Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in Skagerrak, Southeast Norway. In 2006, Norway’s first lobster reserves were implemented, with the aim of protecting European lobster (Homarus gammarus) through a ban on fixed gear. A before–after control-impact paired series (BACIPS) monitoring program was initiated to evaluate effects of protection on depleted lobster populations. Experimental trapping and capture-recapture techniques were combined to track demography of populations, also including movement of individuals within and beyond MPAs and adjacent control areas. Further, population genetics and parentage studies were applied, allowing for estimation of gene flow, and novel work on sexual selection in lobsters. Additional studies have evaluated MPA effects on coastal cod (Gadus morhua), and on commercially harvested labrids (Ctenolabrus rupestris and Symphodus melops) and anadromous brown trout (Salmo trutta). Together, these studies reported effects of protection pertaining to increased population density, survival, body size and phenotypic diversity, changes in emigration and interaction with surrounding fisheries, and alteration of selection pressure on morphological- and behavioral traits. Designation of MPAs in close collaboration with fishers and managers, long-term monitoring, inclusion of citizen science and evolving research protocols—also including fisheries data—have revealed novel effects of protection and harvesting on marine populations, thus providing substantial contributions to conservation science. Moreover, knowledge of MPA effects on coastal species has impacted harvest regulations showing the utility of MPAs as empirically documented management tools in Norway.

show abstract

Contrasting management regimes indicative of mesopredator release in temperate coastal fish assemblages

Synnes,

Olsen,

Jorde

et al. 2023

Ecology and Evolution

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The absence of functional top predators has been proposed as a mechanism acting to shape fish assemblages in temperate marine ecosystems, with cascading effects on lower trophic levels. We explore this scenario by comparing the trophic and functional status of fish assemblages in Norwegian marine national parks, open to fishing, to a nearby coastal seascape that harbors a system of marine protected areas (MPAs) including a no‐take zone. Demersal fish assemblages were sampled using fyke nets over three consecutive seasons. Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) is potentially a dominant top predator in this ecosystem, and historically, this and other gadids have been targeted by the full range of former and present fisheries. In the present study, we find that average body size of the Atlantic cod was significantly larger in the zoned seascape compared to the unprotected areas (mean ± SD: 36.6 cm ± 14.38 vs. 23.4 ± 7.50; p < .001) and that the unprotected seascape was characterized by a higher abundance of mesopredator fish species. These observations are consistent with the hypothesis that the protection of top predators within MPAs aids to control the mesopredator populations and provides empirical support to the notion that the present state of many coastal fish assemblages is driven by mesopredator release linked to functional depletion of large top predators.

show abstract

Potential of a no‐take marine reserve to protect home ranges of anadromous brown trout (Salmo trutta)

Cited by 10 publications

References 48 publications

Anadromy, potamodromy and residency in brown trout Salmo trutta: the role of genes and the environment

Anadromy, potamodromy and residency in brown trout Salmo trutta: the role of genes and the environment

Restoration of Abundance and Dynamics of Coastal Fish and Lobster Within Northern Marine Protected Areas Across Two Decades

Contrasting management regimes indicative of mesopredator release in temperate coastal fish assemblages

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About