Study finds that electrofishing can be used to target non-native species and may be a viable alternative to non-specific fish toxicant treatments of small streams
A new paper from the Wildlife Conservation Society, Montana State University, Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, and the U.S. Geological Survey looks at the feasibility of electrofishing to selectively remove invasive trout species from Montana streams as an alternative to using fish toxicants known as piscicides that effect all gill-breathing organisms.
Westslope Cutthroat Trout (WCT) have experienced severe declines throughout much of their historical range. One major reason for this decline is the current competitive advantages enjoyed by non-native Brook Trout that are displacing WCT from their habitat.
Due to this ongoing dynamic, data indicate that the probability of WCT persisting for the next century is low without intervention to remove non-native fish. The use of piscicides, such as rotenone or antimycin, to eradicate these fish concerns fish managers and the public because of the loss of native fish during treatments. Fortunately, most studies have shown that impacts from these piscicides on aquatic communities are relatively short-term.
"Piscicides are a valuable tool to remove non-native fish," said Wildlife Conservation Society Ecologist Brad Shepard. "But where non-native and native fish co-exist in smaller streams, a potential alternative method, electrofishing, can be used to remove specific unwanted species, while reducing impacts on WCT or other native fish and macro-invertebrates."
To provide guidance on circumstances where this method may be a feasible option, the authors evaluated conditions and costs associated with using backpack electrofishing to remove Brook Trout from several Northern Rocky Mountain streams that also support WCT.
The scientists selected six study streams located throughout the upper Missouri River basin in Montana, recording stream parameters such as stream size, vegetation density, substrate, and more.
Trout populations within each treatment reach were isolated by fish barriers. The fish were shocked by a crew member wearing a backpack "shocker" using a wand anode while dragging a cable cathode. A second crewmember followed the shocker and netted the temporarily stunned fish. While the non-native species were removed, the native fish were returned.
Brook trout were successfully eradicated over a period of 4-8 years from four of six treatment sites that together totaled a distance of 10.8 km. The number of fish removed ranged from 1,627 in Staubach Creek to 7,936 in Muskrat Creek. Two other streams, Craver and Spring Creeks, contained dense willow and alder vegetation, and were excluded because of poor initial electrofishing efficiencies.
Overall, the scientists concluded that electrofishing was a viable method for eradicating Brook Trout in small streams and could be done in a period as short as three years if multiple removals were conducted each year. This is an attractive alternative particularly in situations where populations of native fish live in the same location as non-native fish as "electrofishing will allow for the preservation of the native fish."
Piscicides may be the only viable alternative for larger streams (>3m width), or in streams covered by dense woody vegetation or with beaver ponds where turbidity and cover make electrofishing difficult or impossible. The scientists noted that further studies would be necessary to determine if two crews working simultaneously could get the job done in larger streams.
Cost estimates in the comparison did not include barrier construction, environmental assessment, and public involvement costs because these activities are needed for any nonnative eradication effort. However, environmental assessment and public involvement costs would likely be higher for piscicide eradication projects.
"Factors Influencing Successful Eradication of Nonnative Brook trout from Four Small Rocky Mountain Streams Using Electrofishing" appears in the current edition of the North American Journal of Fisheries Management. Authors include: Bradley B. Shepard of the Wildlife Conservation Society, Montana State University and Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks; Lee M. Nelson of Montana Department of Fish,Wildlife and Parks; Mark L. Taper of Montana State University; and Alexander V. Zaleof the U.S. Geological Survey.
For further information on this story, or to talk with Brad Shepard, please contact Scott Smith at 718-220-3698 or email firstname.lastname@example.org.
Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS)
MISSION: WCS saves wildlife and wild places worldwide through science, conservation action, education, and inspiring people to value nature. VISION: WCS envisions a world where wildlife thrives in healthy lands and seas, valued by societies that embrace and benefit from the diversity and integrity of life on earth. To achieve our mission, WCS, based at the Bronx Zoo, harnesses the power of its Global Conservation Program in more than 60 nations and in all the world's oceans and its five wildlife parks in New York City, visited by 4 million people annually. WCS combines its expertise in the field, zoos, and aquarium to achieve its conservation mission. Visit: http://www.wcs.org. Follow: @thewcs.
Scott Smith | Eurek Alert!
Dune ecosystem modelling
23.06.2017 | Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg im Breisgau
Understanding animal social networks can aid wildlife conservation
23.06.2017 | Leibniz-Institut für Gewässerökologie und Binnenfischerei (IGB)
19.06.2017 | Event News
13.06.2017 | Event News
13.06.2017 | Event News
23.06.2017 | Physics and Astronomy
23.06.2017 | Physics and Astronomy
23.06.2017 | Information Technology