Tourism impact on stream fish measured with an ecological and a behavioural indicator

Abstract

As nature‐based tourism grows, its impacts on aquatic ecosystems follow, requiring effective management techniques to conserve river integrity. Nevertheless, strong indicators of tourism impacts are scarce and have seldom been studied for many species. This study evaluated whether microhabitat use and activity period of a variety of fish species are effective for assessing tourism impacts in a headwater stream in which recreation (snorkelling) occurs. Microhabitat use and activity period of the most representative fish were observed in river stretches used for recreation and compared with reference stretches. Fish neither altered microhabitat use nor became more cryptic owing to tourism, maybe because they have evolved to occupy a certain microhabitat and cannot inhabit others, thus making habitat use a poor indicator of tourism impact. Fish respond to the presence of tourists by changing the promptness to begin and end activity, making the time of activity a good indicator of tourism impact, which can be easily assessed by tourism managers or government agencies and used to control the environmental impact of recreation involving fish. It is suggested that aquatic conservation protocols should include local indicators, and that behavioural indicators (activity period) might be more relevant than ecological indicators (microhabitat use) for early recognition of tourism impacts. These findings can be extended to the conservation of other fish communities subject to intensive tourism and with a strong circadian rhythm, such as coral reef fishes.

To Feed or Not to Feed? Coral Reef Fish Responses to Artificial Feeding and Stakeholder Perceptions in the Aitutaki Lagoon, Cook Islands

“…This study therefore contributes the first example linking a coral reef tourism-driven increase in perceived predation risk with potential ecosystemic consequences relevant for the reef fishes' ecology of fear. A similar finding for freshwater fish, which reduced foraging rates in response to tourism visitation and increased them again at the end of the day, was interpreted as a rebound effect of compensatory feeding following disturbance (Wu et al, 2002;Rubio et al, 2010;Bessa et al, 2017a). The bread feeding effect observed here in C. striatus may indirectly alter the way it fulfils its ecosystem function as an important detritivore, eroder, and transporter of sediments ).…”

“…In lieu of a ban, it would be relevant to (1) work on transferring the perceptions of snorkellers to operators of snorkeling tours, (2) inform tour operators and dive guides on how the bread may impact fish behavior and function, and (3) involve education programs for tourists (Wiener et al, 2009;Patroni et al, 2018). Environmental education during tourism activities will result in positive attitudes of visitors toward wildlife conservation (Higginbottom et al, 2001), and may thus assist in a voluntary reduction of feeding (Bessa et al, 2017a). Lastly, pressure to feed wild animals may, in many places, come from tourists rather than from tourism operators.…”

“…Artificial feeding of marine megafauna by tourists has reportedly led to changes in population size, migration, reproduction, and behavioral patterns, as well as being detrimental to an organism's health (Reynolds and Braithwaite, 2001;Orams, 2002;Hammerschlag et al, 2012). Less wellunderstood are the consequences of feeding coral reef fish, which are most commonly encountered by tourists visiting tropical oceans (Sweatman, 1996;Bessa et al, 2017a;Mattos and Yeemin, 2018). Resource management agencies in different parts of the world enforce bans on feeding of large mammals but ignore the customary feeding of small species like birds and fish at the same locations (Orams, 2002).…”

“…Spatio-temporal alterations in the relative abundance of fish species and structure of the fish community, as well as in habitat use and movement patterns (e.g., diel inversion of activity), are likely to affect the structure of entire populations and communities (Milazzo et al, 2005;Corcoran et al, 2013;Bessa et al, 2017a;Geffroy et al, 2018). Despite evidence from the Mediterranean, Atlantic, and Indian Ocean (Hémery and McClanahan, 2005;Milazzo et al, 2006;Feitosa et al, 2012) indicating that fish feeding can alter the community structure of fish assemblages, only few studies have focused on community-scale effects of artificial feeding with bread (Hémery and McClanahan, 2005;Ilarri et al, 2008;Sanguansil et al, 2017).…”

Nature-Based Tourism Elicits a Phenotypic Shift in the Coping Abilities of Fish

“…To date, most studies focused on anti-predator behavior (using e.g., Flight Initiation Distance) or change in activity pattern of fish (Bessa et al, 2017a ). As an example, we recently demonstrated in 11 different fish species that behavior (i.e., diurnal activity) was modulated in response to chronic tourists' presence: they avoided massive human presence and this was consistent over various rivers within a regional range (Bessa et al, 2017b ). In a different study (Bessa and Gonçalves-de-Freitas, 2014 ) we also demonstrated how tourism reduces territorial aggressiveness and nesting in a pike cichlid, which can impair reproduction and affect fish populations.…”