Author: Chelsey Nieman

Warming Waters: Implications for fish in a changing world

It has become increasingly important to understand how climate change will affect different species. One recent study has used long-term data to better understand how climate change is already affecting a population of fish in Alaska.

To better explain the study, I have created a short comic (hint: click on it to zoom in).

Resources:

Hovel RA, Carlson SM, Quinn TP (2016) Climate change alters the reproductive phenology and investment of a lacustrine fish, the three-spine stickleback. Global Change Biology. doi:10.1111/gcb.13531.

Lefebure R, Larsson S, Bystrom P (2011) A temperature-dependent growth model for the three-spines stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus. Journal of Fish Biology. 79:1815-1827.

Craig-Bennett A (1931) The reproductive cycle of the three spined stickleback, Gasterosteus aculeatus, Linn. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B. 219:197-279.

How ‘dirty’ can the water be before the fish can’t see?

Lake Erie, as well as freshwater systems worldwide, are experiencing drastic increases in turbidity, or suspended particulates in water. This increased turbidity, caused by run-off or algal blooms, alters the conditions within the water column. These particles scatter light as it shines through the water column, and, depending on the type of particles, can change the overall color of the light.

Fish rely on vision for much of their life, in order to find food and mates, as well as avoid getting eaten. Changes to the way the underwater environment looks may affect how these fish perceive the world.

Myself and the Gray Lab of Physiological Ecology looked at the innate optokinetic response of Emerald Shiner (Notropis atherinoides) to determine the visual sensitivity of these fish in both sedimentary and algal turbidity.

Here is what we found:

Special thanks to Caroline McElwain for working on this project in summer 2016.

Resources:

Aksnes, D. L., and Giske, J. (1993). A theoretical model of aquatic visual feeding. Ecological Modelling, 67, 233–250.

Benfield, M. C., and Minello, T. J. (1996). Relative effects of turbidity and light intensity on reactive distance and feeding of an estuarine fish. Environmental Biology of Fishes, 46(2), 211–216.

Danz, N. P., Niemi, G. J., Regal, R. R., Hollenhorst, T., Johnson, L. B., Hanowski, J. M., Axler, R. P., Ciborowski, I. J. H., Hrabik, T., Brady, V. J., Kelly, J. R., Morrice, J. A., Brazner, J. C., Howe, R. W., Johnston, C. A., Host, G. E. (2007). Integrated Measures of Anthropogenic Stress in the U.S. Great Lakes Basin. Environmental Management, 39(5), 631–647. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-005-0293-0

Dudgeon, D., A. H. Arthington, M. O. Gessner, Z. I. Kawabata, D. J. Knowler, C. Leveque, R. J. Naiman, A. H. Prieur-Richard, D. Soto, M. L. J. Stiassny, and C. A. Sullivan. 2006. Freshwater biodiversity: importance, threats, status and conservation challenges. Biological Reviews 81:163-182.

Maan, M. E., Hofker, K. D., van Alphen, J. J. M., & Seehausen, O. (2006). Sensory Drive in Cichlid Speciation. The American Naturalist. 167(6), 947–954.

Pangle, K. L., Malinich, T. D., Bunnell, D. B., DeVries, D. R., & Ludsin, S. A. (2012). Context-dependent planktivory: interacting effects of turbidity and predation risk on adaptive foraging. Ecosphere, 3(12), art114. https://doi.org/10.1890/ES12-00224.1

Thanks to EverythingFish for the Native Fish Care: Emerald Shiner footage.