Lordan, Ramacciotti, 1

The importance of coastal, estuarine, and fluvial habitats on endangered migratory fish populations.
Lordan, Daniel James; Ramacciotti, Chesa (2014)

Introduction The question that we will be discussing today comes from a forum in the UK on ecological problems.1 Sutherland et. al present 1 questions !that" reflect the state of

ecology today# to be used in promoting future research. $ur question, number %&, reads, 'ow important are coastal, estuarine, and flu(ial habitats for endangered migratory fish populations)# This paper will first discuss the question in a global conte*t, followed by a connection to two concepts presented by +ain et. al in Ecology, Second Edition (, and finally an e(aluation of ,ffects of body condition and water temperature on Anguilla anguilla glass eel migratory beha(ior# -,deline et. al, % ./.

This question has three parts0 the effects of coastal1 estuarine1 and flu(ial habitats. 2hile the question as3s for qualitati(e answer or a nominati(e ran3 order, we will instead be e*amining each habitat and noting how they interact with one another. 4ue to the broad scope of this topic, howe(er, we will be focusing mainly on estuarine habitats, as they are the most interesting and ha(e arguably the most impact chemically on migratory fish.

Background +oastal en(ironments are found, as the name suggests, where the streams and ri(ers meet the open ocean. 5oasting slightly under 1 6 of 7merica8s land mass and far

Lordan, Ramacciotti, 2 more across the globe, the flora and fauna that these habitats shelter are some of the most di(erse on the planet. Unfortunately, coastal counties are growing three times faster than the national a(erage -,97, % 1%/, meaning that the industrial impact on these fragile communities is palpable. The migratory fish that depend on the land mass and freshwater nutrients face a serious threat unless we protect our coasts. 9rotection organi:ations li3e the ;aryland +oastal 5ays 9rogram ha(e wor3ed to counteract our e(er increasing footprint.% <lu(ial habitats refer to fast paced streams and tributaries that cut their way through the roc3. They are characteri:ed by high turbidity, low (isibility due to sediment, and quic3 water flow. ;igratory fish use them to quic3ly mo(e between spawning and feeding places. 2hile they are not utili:ed as much for habitat they are (ital in mo(ement. =nasmuch, they ha(e a great effect on the speed at which migratory fish are able to get to different en(ironments. 2hile some species may benefit from mur3y water, most use flu(ial habitats mainly as a conduit or a safe ha(en from o(erflow -Schwart: et. al, % 11/.> ,stuaries, li3e coastal habitats, are a cross between the freshwater and the sea. They ha(e direct access to the ocean but are more shielded than coastal en(ironments, meaning that the physical turno(er that you get from wa(es is greatly reduced. There is higher (ariation, howe(er, in salinity and hardness in the water. =n relation to migratory fish, estuaries are 3nown as the nurseries of the sea.# They pro(ide shelter for the migratory fish in a biosphere of rich nutrients and plant life. This is where many species of fish choose to lay their eggs, away from the challenges of the ocean. The wetlands that accompany these habitats filter sediment and pollutants out

Lordan, Ramacciotti, 3 as well as pro(iding a physical barrier against flooding and large predators. ;igratory fish would be unable to sur(i(e without these spawning places. The ,97 notes that many marine creature depend on estuaries at some point in their de(elopment.# 2hether this be from the shelter it pro(ides to reproduction, the nutrients it pro(ides to young, or the protection for some rest during a long migration, the estuarine habitats are (ital for the continuation of fish species.?

Concept $ur te*tboo3, Ecology Second Edition, by +ain et. al, pro(ides us with numerous themes in ecology. The most closely connected themes to this question are found in chapter ?, which deals with en(ironmental (ariation and its effect on organisms. +oncept ?.1 states0 ,ach species has a range of en(ironmental tolerances that determines its potential geographic distribution -+oncept ?.1, +ain et. al, % 11/.# Upon further in(estigation, this section del(es into organisms8 reactions to en(ironmental factors. The en(ironment is related to ecological success in that it affects the ability of organisms to both find resources and maintain internal homeostasis. The first affects the reproducti(e success and the second affects the potential of life. This is (ital to our question, which discusses the effect of different habitats on fishes. 5y studying the tolerances of endangered species and the chemical and physical ma3eup of different ecosystems we might be able to transfer species into places better suited to their de(elopment. 2e could then reintroduce them to their natural habitat, once they ha(e reached a large enough population. This also helps us reconstruct destroyed

Lordan, Ramacciotti, 4 ecosystems. The boo3 defines acclimati:ation as the ability to ad@ust their physiology, morphology, or beha(ior to lessen the effect of an en(ironmental change and minimi:e the local stress.# These migratory fish acclimati:e to all of their new en(ironment. The boo3 also notes, howe(er, that this process is short term and re(ersible. =n this way, the fish can swim to an estuary or a coastal inlet to reproduce and then easily reAadapt to their seawater habitats.. These 3inds of fish differ from ecotypes,# or a population with genetic adaptations to help the organism sur(i(e a stress, in that adaptations are long term and usually irre(ersible. This 3ind of change doesn8t occur in the migratory fish that stop for reproduction, shelter, or feeding. They merely change their beha(ior slightly to deal with their new en(ironment and then mo(e on.. +oncept ?.> also deals with this question. =t states0 The water balance of an organism is determined by e*changes of water and solutes with the e*ternal en(ironment -+oncept ?.>, +ain et. al, % 11/.# 7ccording to +ain, most seawater bony fishes are hypoosmotic to seawater. 7ccustom as they are to the high salt content, coastal en(ironments can be a bit of a shoc3. 7s noted earlier, both of these habitats are fed not only by the sea but by freshwater streams and ri(ers. These sources of nutrient rich yet salt poor water affect the ability of the fish to inta3e enough of the ions they are used to in other parts of their migratory @ourneys. 7s discussed in the aforementioned +oncept ?.1, they adapt short term to these salt poor waters by changing beha(ior, physiology, or morphology. They could also @ust be more tolerant of the changes, which could contribute to their continued

Lordan, Ramacciotti, 5 sur(i(al. 4ifferent species will react differently, one of which is discussed ne*t..

Paper Review The importance of coastal and estuarine habitats for many endangered migratory fish populations has been researched greatly. $ne paper, ,deline et al -% B/, ,ffects of

body condition and water temperature on Anguilla anguilla glass eel migratory beha(ior#, focuses on how water odor, temperatures, and salinity gradients affect the migration patterns of glass eels. =n this study, body condition was equated to the amount of energy the eel had at a particular time. This status in body condition can be a result of genetic history but has a ma@or impact on dispersal of indi(iduals in (arious communities. The beha(iors of glass eels and their preferences between freshwater and saltwater ecosystems ha(e a great effect on which types of habitats they decide to stop at during their migration. 2ith habitat degradation becoming an increasing problem around the world, it is e(en more important to understand the necessities of all species, especially those that are endangered. The Anguilla anguilla glass eel has been critically endangered on the =U+C Red Dist since the 1&E s, and it is predicted that numbers ha(e decreased by o(er ninety percent since preA1&E le(els. +learly, this research is imperati(e for the continued sur(i(al of the glass eel species as a whole. The eel test sub@ects were captured from the Fironde estuary of the coast in <rance in % 1. The water in this area has a relati(ely low salinity of 1 parts per thousand -ppt/

and has a water temperature of appro*imately 1 G+. 7fter being transported to the laboratory, they remained in water with similar characteristics to what they were found. 7fter si* days of acclimation and remo(al of dead test sub@ects, the eels were split into

Lordan, Ramacciotti, 6 two groups with about 1% indi(iduals per group. $ne group was held at 1 G+ while the

other at 1EG+ to mimic conditions of both winter and spring seasons. ,ach group was tested indi(idually in the e*perimental apparatus that consists of three tan3s with compartments inside. 2ithin each of the tan3s was a choice chamber and two trap compartments. The two compartments either recei(ed a flow of freshwater - ppt/ or saltwater -%H ppt/. The glass eels were put into the tan3s about & at a time and left there for % minutes. The number of eels located in the different sections at the end of the trials was then recorded. The trap compartments were used to test for the preference of upstream locomoti(e acti(ity. Those trapped in either the freshwater or saltwater chambers were thought to prefer that salinity of water respecti(ely. Repetitions of this e*periment was done for both the eels held at 1 G+ and 1EG+ for fi(e days after their acclimation period. B

Sources:

Lordan, Ramacciotti, 7 1. Sutherland, 2. I., <rec3leton, R. 9., Fodfray, '. +. I., 5eissinger, et. al -% 1>/, =dentification of 1 fundamental ecological questions. Iournal of ,cology, 1 10 .EJBH. doi0 1 .1111K1>B.A%H?..1% %. 2. L+oastal 9rogram.L U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Home. <ish and 2ildlife Ser(ice, % <eb. % 1%. 2eb. ? ;ar. % 1?. >. Schwart:, Iohn S.1 'erric3s, ,dwin1 1% 7pril % 111 <ish use of stageAspecific flu(ial habitats as refuge patches during a flood in a lowAgradient =llinois stream, NR Research !ress, http0KKwww.nrcresearchpress.comKdoiKabsK1 .11>&Kf .A B ) @ournal+odeMc@fasNcitart1 -;arch ?, % 1?/. 4. L5asic =nformation 7bout ,stuaries.L Water.e"a.gov. ,n(ironmental 9rotection 7gency, B ;ar. % 1%. 2eb. ? ;ar. % 1?. .. ,deline, ,ric1 Dambert, 9atric31 Rigaud, +hristian1 ,lie, 9ierre1 1E 7pril % B1 ,ffects of body condition and water temperature on Anguilla anguilla glass eel migratory beha(ior, #ournal of E$"erimental %arine &iology and Ecology, http0KKwww.sciencedirect.comKscienceKarticleKpiiKS %% &E1 . ?.>> -;arch ?, % 1?/ B. +ain, ;ichael D., 2illiam 4. 5owman, and Sally 4. 'ac3er. Ecology Second Edition. Sunderland, ;70 Sinauer 7ssociates, % 11. 9rint.