A shift in habitat use patterns of brown trout (Salmo trutta): A behavioural response to macrophyte removal.

Mass development of macrophytes is an increasing problem worldwide and they are frequently removed where they are in conflict with local waterway users. Yet, macrophytes can provide important refuge and nursery habitats for fish. Little is known about the consequences of macrophyte removal for fish behavioural space use and habitat selection. We hypothesised that macrophyte removal would affect brown trout (Salmo trutta) movement during the partial removal of the aquatic plant Juncus bulbosus (L.) in an oligotrophic impounded Norwegian river.We tagged 94 brown trout and tracked them using passive acoustic telemetry for 10 months and mapped the cover of J. bulbosus. Trout behavioural patterns were quantified as space use (utilisation areas 50% and 95%) which was linked to habitat use and selection for J. bulbosus. Removal of J. bulbosus influenced space use of brown trout by reducing the core utilisation area by 22%. Habitat use and selection were likewise influenced by removal with increased use and selection of areas with low J. bulbosus cover (<25%) with corresponding reduction in high J. bulbosus cover (>25-75%). Finally, diurnal differences in space use and habitat use were found, with 19% larger utilisation areas at night and higher use of areas with low J. bulbosus during daytime. Yet, all effect sizes were relatively small compared to the size of the study area. This research provides a detailed case study on the effects of macrophyte removal on fish behavioural patterns in a section of a large Norwegian river with macrophyte mass development. We found no large effects of removal on trout behaviour but noted an increased use of areas with low macrophyte cover. This research is relevant for water managers and policy makers of freshwater conservation and provides a template for using acoustic telemetry to study the effects of macrophyte removal on fish.

Causes of macrophyte mass development and management recommendations.

Aquatic plants (macrophytes) are important for ecosystem structure and function. Macrophyte mass developments are, however, often perceived as a nuisance and are commonly managed by mechanical removal. This is costly and often ineffective due to macrophyte regrowth. There is insufficient understanding about what causes macrophyte mass development, what people who use water bodies consider to be a nuisance, or the potential negative effects of macrophyte removal on the structure and function of ecosystems. To address these gaps, we performed a standardized set of in situ experiments and questionnaires at six sites (lakes, reservoirs, and rivers) on three continents where macrophyte mass developments occur. We then derived monetary values of ecosystem services for different scenarios of macrophyte management ("do nothing", "current practice", "maximum removal"), and developed a decision support system for the management of water courses experiencing macrophyte mass developments. We found that (a) macrophyte mass developments often occur in ecosystems which (unintentionally) became perfect habitats for aquatic plants, that (b) reduced ecosystem disturbance can cause macrophyte mass developments even if nutrient concentrations are low, that (c) macrophyte mass developments are indeed perceived negatively, but visitors tend to regard them as less of a nuisance than residents do, that (d) macrophyte removal lowers the water level of streams and adjacent groundwater, but this may have positive or negative overall societal effects, and that (e) the effects of macrophyte removal on water quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and biodiversity vary, and likely depend on ecosystem characteristics and macrophyte life form. Overall, we found that aquatic plant management often does not greatly affect the overall societal value of the ecosystem, and we suggest that the "do nothing" option should not be easily discarded in the management of perceived nuisance mass developments of aquatic plants.