It might not seem obvious from the
start, but fish behaviour and population dynamics are a concern for policy
makers. Why is it so? Well, fish are both a resource and a marker of ecosystem
health. For instance, Atlantic salmon has been exploited for hundreds of years,
at different scales and in contrasted ecosystems: freshwater, marine water.
They migrate between ecosystems and between nations, even continents. European
eel is no different: this species' habitat is approximately a quarter of our
planet. Brown trout is another example, being able to exploit sea resources
such as plankton, or being capable of surviving in high altitude lakes.
Yet the potential of these species
to adapt to a changing world, as well as to resist our exploitation is in question.
What happens if their migratory behaviour changes? What happens if their
reproductive behaviour is modified? How much will they be impacted, and in
turn, how far will it affect our society?
This is no mystery that much of
these resources are now in jeopardy: Atlantic salmon and European eel have
strongly declined the past 50 years. Over-exploitation, habitat degradation,
and possibly climate change are at wheel here.
So, there are good reasons for which
policy makers should care about fish behaviour and populations. And they do in
fact. Between 2009 and 2014, our lab has been part of a large project,
the AARC project, bringing together public
information, ecosystemic restoration, academic teaching, and efficient science. Because we are reaching the end of
this program, we would like to hint at some of the actions developed by our lab
thanks to this EU funding.
Sexy Eels
First,
did you know European eels have only a weak genetic control over sexual
determination? In this species, it appears that sex is largely environmentally
determined, over the course of the life cycle. This question was explored
by Benjamin Geffroy during his PhD, and he investigated the dynamics of gonads development
in rearing conditions, as well as the aromatase gene expression, an hormone
known to control for sexual differentiation in fish [1]. Benjamin obtained some
surprising results for some of the eels: while many could be tagged as female
or male at a reasonable age and size, some appeared as intersexual with a gonad
containing cysts with spermatozoa and pre-vitellogenic oogonia. In addition,
the percentage of males was very high, whatever the density tested. While the cause
of such dominance of the male phenotype still escapes us, it directly impacts
our management practices regarding European eel conservation and stocking
decided by the EU.
Example of gonad for an intermediate gonadal phenotype, with
both spermatocytes (Sc) and normal oocytes (No) in the same gonad [1].
Salmon on common grounds
For some species, we are much more
advanced at evaluating stocks, and even selective impacts of
over-exploitation. Yet, the diversity of interest for a given resource
makes it hard - if not impossible - to find a compromise that may satisfy
everyone. Salmon is an iconic incarnation of this problem. Amateur anglers like
to catch their yearly salmon during the reproductive migration back in rivers.
But professional anglers also want to benefit from this resource when salmon
enter the estuaries after their marine migration. On top of that, fishing in
high seas is targeting salmon feeding areas around Greenland or Feroes Is. Did
we mention naturalists that just love watching salmons jumping upstream
waterfalls? And biodiversity managers, that have to make sure that the species
remains healthy and viable.
Mélanie Brun tried to tackle this
problem, and summoned mathematics as fresh troops to do so [2]. Simply put, she
proposed that each stakeholder defined a utility function for the resource:
what level or characteristic of the resource is the most important or the least
important for them. Of course, the biodiversity managers will not draw the same
function as the professional angler, for instance. But Mélanie found a way to
objectively locate some common grounds where all stakeholders would see their
claim at least partly acknowledged. This decision making tool simply helps at
targeting what is of shared importance among the resource users, while ensuring
that the resource does not dry out.
An example of utility function for a stakeholder, combining
both population size and fish origin data. The considered stakeholder in this
case is equally interest in maintaining the population size and in supporting
natural regeneration of the population [2].
Can brown trout see into the future?
We often talk about brown trout
on this blog, but let us not weaken. Because of climate change, hydraulic
dynamics of lotic freshwater are expected to increase in stochasticity: extreme
events are predicted as more frequent in the near future. If you are a female
trout, you might want your offspring to avoid a cruel fate, such as: being
scoured with the redd during a high flow event, or getting dried up because the
water level went so low. Additionally, you want to provide them with the best
habitat for their development. Elie Chantriaux and Zoé Gauthey investigated
these questions, by monitoring female habitat choice, female investment in
terms of egg size, and egg survival, conditional on water level during three
years on two different rivers.
Female brown trout have access to a large range of habitat
conditions to bury their eggs. But do they make an optimal choice regarding
extreme flow conditions?
Their results show that between 60
and 70% of eggs get scoured before hatching, mainly due to high flow events,
sometimes due to redd scouring by competing females themselves. But
interestingly, the redd depth or its composition in terms of substratum particle
size had no effect on the probability to get impacted by scouring. It appears
that brown trout early life is mainly dominated by random events, and that
females do not have any way - or possibility - to predict these events. So no,
female trout cannot see into the future, and could be increasingly impacted by
frequent extreme flow events. They still have a last resort: they can fraction
their clutch in several batches, and dig several redds. Costly, but probably
increasingly efficient if climate experts are right with their
predictions.
So yes, EU cares about fish life,
behaviour, populations. In fact, without EU funding, much of our research would
not be possible, and this research is often connected to local and regional
interest. More actions, educational programs or information can be found directly on the AARC project website:
Références:
[1] Geffroy B., Guiguen Y., Fostier A.,
Bardonnet A. 2013. New
insights regarding gonad development in European eel: evidence for a direct
ovarian differentiation. Fish Physiology
and Biochemistry, 39:1129-1140.
[2] Brun M. 2011. Aide à la décision
pour la conservation des populations de saumon Atlantique (Salmo salar
L.). Doctorat de Biologie, Université de Pau et des Pays de l'Adour, 205p.
[3] Chantriaux E. 2014. Phenotype-habitat matching: théorie explicative de la variabilité de taille d'oeufs interponte chez Salmo trutta? Rapport de stage de L3, INRA-UPPA, Saint-Pée sur Nivelle, 30p.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire