Food borne parasites as indicators of trophic segregation between Arctic charr and brown trout

The habitat and diet choice and the infection (prevalence and abundance) of trophically transmitted parasites were compared in Arctic charr and brown trout living sympatrically in two lakes in northern Norway. Arctic charr were found in all main lake habitats, whereas the brown trout were almost exclusively found in the littoral zone. In both lakes the parasite fauna reflected the niche segregation between trout and charr. Surface insects were most common in the diet of trout, but transmit few parasites, and accordingly the brown trout had a relatively low diversity and abundance of parasites. Parasites transmitted by benthic prey such as Gammarus and insect larva, were common in both salmonid host species. Copepod transmitted parasites were much more common in Arctic charr, as brown trout did not include zooplankton in their diets. Parasite species that may use small fish as transport hosts, were far more abundant in piscivorous fish, especially brown trout. The seasonal dynamics in parasite infection were also consistent with the developments in the diet throughout the year. The study demonstrates that the structure of parasite communities of charr and the trout is highly dependent on shifts in habitat and diet of their hosts both on an annual base and through the ontogeny, in addition to the observed niche segregation between the two salmonid species.     

Habitat use and life history of brown trout (Salmo trutta) and Arctic charr (Salvelinus alpinus) in some low acidity lakes in central Norway

Habitat utilization and the life history of browntrout Salmo trutta and Arctic charr Salvelinus alpinus were investigated in fivesympatric populations and five allopatric brown troutpopulations in Høylandet catchment, a atmosphaericlow deposition area in Mid Norway. There was asignificant inverse correlation in abundance ofepibenthic Arctic charr and brown trout in theselakes, indicating that the latter species is dominant.The largest numbers of sympatric brown trout andArctic charr were caught in epibenthic habitat. In twolakes, brown trout to some extent also occurredpelagically, while pelagic individuals of Arctic charrwere found in all five lakes. The main food items forboth epibenthic and pelagic brown trout wereterrestrial surface insects and chironomid pupae.Zooplankton was the primary food item for Arctic charrin both habitats. Although the age distribution wasvery different in the populations, neither speciesseem to suffer from recruitment failure. There was nosignificant difference in survival rates betweensympatric populations of brown trout and Arctic charr.We found a significant inverse correlation betweenepibenthic catches of brown trout and the mean weightof 4+ fish, the most abundant age group. However, ifusing weight data for three-year-old fish, no suchrelationship was found for Arctic charr. Brown troutand Arctic charr reached asymptotic lengths of197–364 mm and 259–321 mm, respectively. Both speciestypically reached sexual maturity at age 2–3, and nomaturation-induced mortality was evident. We concludethat fish populations in Høylandet lakes areregulated throughout their lifes by inter- andintraspecific competition.     

The Relevance of Individual Size to Management of Arctic Charr, Salvelinus Alpinus, Populations

Arctic charr, Salvelinus alpinus, tend to form stunted populations presumably due to competition for limited resources. In this context a long-term intensive fishery programme aiming at reducing charr density, and thereby increasing growth and harvestable sizes, was initiated in the early 1980s in a Norwegian alpine lake. Here we present long-term data on catch statistics and changes in mean weights of charr caught with gill nets on spawning grounds, as well as changes in mean weight of juvenile charr caught with funnel traps during the 1990s. Furthermore, we present results from shorter-term studies on growth, size- and age-distribution, and size-related habitat and resource utilisation of Arctic charr and brown trout, Salmo trutta, in this lake. Mean weight (± SD) of charr caught on the spawning grounds increased significantly from 129.8g (±11.9) in the years 1982–1990 to 213.1g (±37.8) in the years 1996–1999, whereas catch per unit of effort decreased significantly. Mean weight of juveniles caught in funnel traps increased significantly from 21.2g (±6.9) in 1993 to 41.9g (±14.8) in 1999. Apparently the increase in weight of spawning charr coincided with the onset of trap fishing for juvenile charr. Compared to generally shallow dwelling trout, charr grew rapidly and were generally found in deeper areas of the lake. Charr went through a distinct size-related niche shift from mainly consuming small zooplankton in the pelagic to consuming large benthic prey in shallower waters. Resource and habitat utilisation in different size-groups of charr and trout are discussed with respect to possible competitive and predatory intra- and interspecific interactions, and with regard to management of charr populations.     

Habitat utilization by sympatric arctic charr Salvelinus alpinus L. and brown trout Salmo trutta L. in Lake Atnsjø, south-east Norway

SUMMARY. 1. Habitat utilization, as well as inter- and intraspecific relations of different size groups of arctic charr (Salvelinus alpinus (L.)) and brown trout (Salmo trutta L.) in Lake Atnsjø, south-east Norway, were investigated by analysing food and spatial niches from monthly benthic and pelagic gillnet catches during June-October 1985.
2. Small individuals (150–230 mm) of both arctic charr and brown trout occurred in shallow benthic habitats. However, they were spatially segregated as arctic charr dominated at depths of 5–15 m and brown trout at depths of 0–5 m.
3. Larger (>230 mm) arctic charr and brown trout coexisted in the pelagic zone. Both species occurred mainly in the uppermost 2-3 m of the pelagic, except in August, when arctic charr occurred at high densities throughout the 0–12 m depth interval. On this occasion, arctic charr were segregated in depth according to size, with significantly larger fish in the top 6 m. This was probably due to increased intraspecific competition for food.
4. The two species differed in food choice in both habitats, Arctic charr fed almost exclusively on zooplankton, whereas brown trout had a more variable diet, consisting of surface insects, zooplankton. aquatic insects and fish.
5. The data suggest that the uppermost pelagic was the more favourable habitat for both species. Large individuals having high social position occupied this habitat, whereas small individuals lived in benthic habitat where they were less vulnerable to agonistic behaviour from larger individuals and less exposed to predators. The more aggressive and dominant brown trout occupied the more rewarding part of the benthic habitat.     

Ice-cover effects on competitive interactions between two fish species

1. Variations in the strength of ecological interactions between seasons have received little attention, despite an increased focus on climate alterations on ecosystems. Particularly, the winter situation is often neglected when studying competitive interactions. In northern temperate freshwaters, winter implies low temperatures and reduced food availability, but also strong reduction in ambient light because of ice and snow cover. Here, we study how brown trout [Salmo trutta (L.)] respond to variations in ice-cover duration and competition with Arctic charr [Salvelinus alpinus (L.)], by linking laboratory-derived physiological performance and field data on variation in abundance among and within natural brown trout populations. 2. Both Arctic charr and brown trout reduced resting metabolic rate under simulated ice-cover (darkness) in the laboratory, compared to no ice (6-h daylight). However, in contrast to brown trout, Arctic charr was able to obtain positive growth rate in darkness and had higher food intake in tank experiments than brown trout. Arctic charr also performed better (lower energy loss) under simulated ice-cover in a semi-natural environment with natural food supply. 3. When comparing brown trout biomass across 190 Norwegian lakes along a climate gradient, longer ice-covered duration decreased the biomass only in lakes where brown trout lived together with Arctic charr. We were not able to detect any effect of ice-cover on brown trout biomass in lakes where brown trout was the only fish species. 4. Similarly, a 25-year time series from a lake with both brown trout and Arctic charr showed that brown trout population growth rate depended on the interaction between ice breakup date and Arctic charr abundance. High charr abundance was correlated with low trout population growth rate only in combination with long winters. 5. In conclusion, the two species differed in performance under ice, and the observed outcome of competition in natural populations was strongly dependent on duration of the ice-covered period. Our study shows that changes in ice phenology may alter species interactions in Northern aquatic systems. Increased knowledge of how adaptations to winter conditions differ among coexisting species is therefore vital for our understanding of ecological impacts of climate change.     

Diel food selection of pelagic Arctic charr, Salvelinus alpinus (L.), and brown trout, Salmo trutta L., in Lake Atnsjø, SE Norway

Patterns of diel food selection in pelagic Arctic charr, Salvelinus alpinus (L.) and brown trout, Salmo trutta L. were investigated in Lake Atnsjo, SE Norway, by gillnet sampling during July-September 1985. Arctic charr feed almost exclusively on zooplankton both day and night, while brown trout had a diurnal shift in diet. For this species zooplankton made up a considerable part of the diet in the daytime, while at night the diet consisted mainly of surface insect and chironomid pupae. Both species had a selective feeding mode on zooplankton during the day and night. Arctic charr had a higher gill raker number and a denser gill raker spacing compared with brown trout. Still, the differences in prey size between the two species were small. We argue that the observed differences in food selection between Arctic charr and brown trout can be explained by differing abilities to detect food items under low light conditions.     

Winter ecology of Arctic charr (<Emphasis Type="Italic">Salvelinus alpinus</Emphasis>) and brown trout (<Emphasis Type="Italic">Salmo trutta</Emphasis>) in a subarctic lake,Norway

We studied habitat choice, diet, food consumption and somatic growth of Arctic charr (Salvelinus alpinus) and brown trout (Salmo trutta) during the ice-covered winter period of a subarctic lake in northern Norway. Both Arctic charr and brown trout predominantly used the littoral zone during winter time. Despite very cold winter conditions (water temperature <1°C) and poor light conditions, both fish species fed continuously during the ice-covered period, although at a much lower rate than during the summer season. No somatic growth could be detected during the ice-covered winter period and the condition factor of both species significantly declined, suggesting that the winter feeding rates were similar to or below the maintenance requirements. Also, the species richness and diversity of ingested prey largely decreased from summer to winter for both fish species. The winter diet of Arctic charr <20 cm was dominated by benthic insect larvae, chironomids in particular, and Gammarus lacustris, but zooplankton was also important in December. G. lacustris was the dominant prey of charr >20 cm. The winter diet of brown trout <20 cm was dominated by insect larvae, whereas large-sized trout mainly was piscivorous, feeding on juvenile Arctic charr. Piscivorous feeding behaviour of trout was in contrast rarely seen during the summer months when their encounter with potential fish prey was rare as the small-sized charr mainly inhabited the profundal. The study demonstrated large differences in the ecology and interactions of Arctic charr and brown trout between the winter and summer seasons.     

Niche segregation of coexisting Arctic charr (Salvelinus alpinus) and brown trout (Salmo trutta) constrains food web coupling in subarctic lakes

1. Generalist fish species are recognised as important couplers of benthic and pelagic food‐web compartments in lakes. However, interspecific niche segregation and individual specialisation may limit the potential for generalistic feeding behaviour. 2. We studied summer habitat use, stomach contents and stable isotopic compositions of the generalist feeder Arctic charr coexisting with its common resource competitor brown trout in five subarctic lakes in northern Norway to reveal population‐level and individual‐level niche plasticity. 3. Charr and trout showed partial niche segregation in all five lakes. Charr used all habitat types and a wide variety of invertebrate prey including zooplankton, whereas trout fed mainly on insects in the littoral zone. Hence, charr showed a higher potential to promote habitat and food‐web coupling compared to littoral‐dwelling trout. 4. The level of niche segregation between charr and trout and between pelagic‐caught and littoral‐caught charr depended on the prevailing patterns of interspecific and intraspecific resource competition. The two fish species had partially overlapping trophic niches in one lake where charr numerically dominated the fish community, whereas the most segregated niches occurred in lakes where trout were more abundant. 5. In general, pelagic‐caught charr had substantially narrower dietary and isotopic niches and relied less on littoral carbon sources compared to littoral‐caught conspecifics that included generalist as well as specialised benthivorous and planktivorous individuals. Despite the partially specialised planktivorous niche and thus reduced potential of pelagic‐dwelling charr to promote benthic–pelagic coupling, the isotopic compositions of both charr subpopulations suggested a significant reliance on both littoral and pelagic carbon sources in all five study lakes. 6. Our study demonstrates that both interspecific niche segregation between and individual trophic specialisation within generalist fish species can constrain food‐web coupling and alter energy mobilisation to top consumers in subarctic lakes. Nevertheless, pelagic and littoral habitats and food‐web compartments may still be highly integrated due to the potentially plastic foraging behaviour of top consumers.     

Summer stream habitat partitioning by sympatric Arctic charr, Atlantic salmon and brown trout in two sub-arctic rivers

Summer habitat use by sympatric Arctic charr Salvelinus alpinus, young Atlantic salmon Salmo salar and brown trout Salmo trutta was studied by two methods, direct underwater observation and electrofishing, across a range of habitats in two sub-arctic rivers. More Arctic charr and fewer Atlantic salmon parr were observed by electrofishing in comparison to direct underwater observation, perhaps suggesting a more cryptic behaviour by Arctic charr. The three species segregated in habitat use. Arctic charr, as found by direct underwater observation, most frequently used slow (mean ±s .d . water velocity 7·2 ± 16·6 cm s⁻¹) or often stillwater and deep habitats (mean ±s .d . depth 170·1 ± 72·1 cm). The most frequently used mesohabitat type was a pool. Young Atlantic salmon favoured the faster flowing areas (mean ±s .d . water velocity 44·0 ± 16·8 cm s⁻¹ and depth 57·1 ± 19·0 cm), while brown trout occupied intermediate habitats (mean ±s .d . water velocity 33·1 ± 18·6 cm s⁻¹ and depth 50·2 ± 18·0 cm). Niche overlap was considerable. The Arctic charr observed were on average larger (total length) than Atlantic salmon and brown trout (mean ±s .d . 21·9 ± 8·0, 10·2 ± 3·1 and 13·4 ± 4·5 cm). Similar habitat segregation between Atlantic salmon and brown trout was found by electrofishing, but more fishes were observed in shallower habitats. Electrofishing suggested that Arctic charr occupied habitats similar to brown trout. These results, however, are biased because electrofishing was inefficient in the slow-deep habitat favoured by Arctic charr. Habitat use changed between day and night in a similar way for all three species. At night, fishes held positions closer to the bottom than in the day and were more often observed in shallower stream areas mostly with lower water velocities and finer substrata. The observed habitat segregation is probably the result of interference competition, but the influence of innate selective differences needs more study.     

Piscivory by brown trout Salmo trutta L. and Arctic charr Salvelinus alpinus (L.) in Norwegian lakes

Size and frequency of occurrence of prey of brown trout Salmo trutta L. and Arctic charr Salvelinus alpinus (L.) were recorded in 13 Norwegian lakes during 1973–1990. Piscivores usually comprised less than 5% of the total population. Arctic charr were less piscivorous than brown trout. Trout and charr became piscivorous at 13 and 16 cm length, respectively. These size thresholds were similar to those of other facultative piscivorous freshwater fish species. When present, three-spined sticklebacks, Gasterosteus aculeatus (L.), were preferred by all length groups of piscivorous brown trout and Arctic charr. Length of prey increased with increasing predator length, and the mean body length of prey was about 33 and 25% of predator length for trout and charr, respectively. Yearlings of charr were not recorded as prey.     

Seasonal dietary shifts enhance parasite transmission to lake salmonids during ice cover

Changes in abiotic and biotic factors between seasons in subarctic lake systems are often profound, potentially affecting the community structure and population dynamics of parasites over the annual cycle. However, few winter studies exist and interactions between fish hosts and their parasites are typically confined to snapshot studies restricted to the summer season whereas host‐parasite dynamics during the ice‐covered period rarely have been explored. The present study addresses seasonal patterns in the infections of intestinal parasites and their association with the diet of sympatric living Arctic charr (Salvelinus alpinus) and brown trout (Salmo trutta) in Lake Takvatn, a subarctic lake in northern Norway. In total, 354 Arctic charr and 203 brown trout were sampled from the littoral habitat between June 2017 and May 2018. Six trophically transmitted intestinal parasite taxa were identified and quantified, and their seasonal variations were contrasted with dietary information from both stomachs and intestines of the fish. The winter period proved to be an important transmission window for parasites, with increased prevalence and intensity of amphipod‐transmitted parasites in Arctic charr and parasites transmitted through fish prey in brown trout. In Arctic charr, seasonal patterns in parasite infections resulted mainly from temporal changes in diet toward amphipods, whereas host body size and the utilization of fish prey were the main drivers in brown trout. The overall dynamics in the community structure of parasites chiefly mirrored the seasonal dietary shifts of their fish hosts.     

Asymmetric competition drives lake use of coexisting salmonids

To what degree are population differences in resource use caused by competition and the occupation of adjacent positions along environmental gradients evidence of competition? Habitat use may be the result of a competitive lottery, or restricted by competition. We tested to what extent population differences in habitat use of two salmonids, cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki) and Dolly Varden charr (Salvelinus malma) were influenced by interspecific competition. We hypothesized that the depth distribution of Dolly Varden charr would be affected by competition from the more littoral and surface-oriented cutthroat trout, and that the depth distribution of cutthroat trout would be little affected by competition from Dolly Varden charr. Sympatric populations of cutthroat trout and Dolly Varden charr were created by reciprocal transfers of previously allopatric populations in two experimental lakes. We found evidence of asymmetric competition, as Dolly Varden charr were displaced from littoral habitats when sympatric with cutthroat trout, whereas cutthroat trout remained unaffected by the presence of Dolly Varden charr. Evolved differences between the species, and differences between experimental lakes, also contributed to population differences in habitat use, but asymmetric competition remained as the main driver of different depth distributions in sympatry.     

Selection on Arctic charr generated by competition from brown trout

We experimentally explored population‐ and individual‐level effects on Arctic charr (Salvelinus alpinus) resulting from resource competition with its common European competitor, the brown trout (Salmo trutta). At the population level, we compared performance of the two species in their natural sympatric state with that of Arctic charr in allopatry. At the individual level, we established selection gradients for morphological traits of Arctic charr in allopatric and in sympatric conditions. We found evidence for interspecific competition likely by interference at the population level when comparing differences in average performance between treatments. The growth and feeding rates did not differ significantly between allopatric and sympatric Arctic charr despite lower charr densities (substitutive design) in sympatric enclosures indicating that inter‐ and intraspecific competition are of similar strength. The two species showed distinct niche segregation in sympatry, and brown trout grew faster than Arctic charr. Arctic charr did not expand their niche in allopatry, indicating that the two species compete to a limited degree for the same resources and that interference may suppress the growth of charr in sympatric enclosures. At the individual level, however, we found directional selection in sympatric enclosures against individual Arctic charr with large head and long fins and against individuals feeding on zoobenthos rather than zooplankton indicating competition for common resources (possibly exploitative) between trout and these charr individuals. In allopatric enclosures these relations were not significant. Diets were correlated to the morphology supporting selection against the benthic‐feeding type, i.e. individuals with morphology and feeding behaviour most similar to their competitor, the benthic feeding brown trout. Thus, this study lends support to the hypothesis that Arctic charr have evolved in competition with brown trout, and through ecological character displacement adapted to their present niche.     

Annual variability in the life-history characteristics of brown trout (Salmo trutta) and Arctic charr (Salvelinus alpinus) in a subalpine Norwegian lake

The annual variability in growth and life history traits of brown trout (Salmo trutta L.) and Arctic charr (Salvelinus alpinus (L.)) in Lake Atnsjøen, a Norwegian subalpine lake, was studied over a period of 13 years (1985–1997). The extent to which life-history characteristics recorded on one occasion can be regarded as representative for the population was explored. We found inter-cohort variation in growth for both species; estimates of asymptotic length (L _∞) in ten cohorts ranged between 225–305 mm (CV = 10.5%) for brown trout and 273–301 mm (CV = 4.1%) for Arctic charr. However, this variation was much lower than inter-population variation for brown trout based on single samples from 169 populations (CV = 24.6%). In Lake Atnsjøen, annual growth increment correlated highly with the number of days warmer than 7?°C (R ²=0.60–0.89) for brown trout, and days warmer than 10?°C (R ²=0.40–0.58) for Arctic charr. Females of Arctic charr were younger at sexual maturity than males, while no such difference was found in brown trout. Generally speaking, early maturing individuals of both species grew faster, particularly from age-2 and onwards, than immature individuals. Early maturing individuals, however, were smaller at maturity than those maturing one year older. Age and size at maturity were significantly correlated with asymptotic lengths only in Arctic charr females.     

Epidemiology of Renibacterium salmoninarum in wild Arctic charr and brown trout in Iceland

Renibacterium salmoninarum (Rs) is common in wild Arctic charr Salvelinus alpinus and brown trout Salmo trutta in Iceland. Of 22 charr and nine trout populations none were free of Rs antigens. In two charr populations only one fish exceeded the Rs antigen detection limit and in one of these cases the ELISA value was within uncertainty limits of the infection criterion. Mean prevalence of infection was 46% for Arctic charr (range: 3–100%) and 35% for brown trout (range: 6–81%). No infected fish showed gross pathological signs of bacterial kidney disease (BKD). The ubiquity and high prevalences of infection indicated that the bacterium has been endemic for a long time, and is probably a normal, low density resident in the fish. A lack of correlation in mean intensity of Rs antigen and prevalence of infection between sympatricpopulations of Arctic charr and brown trout suggests that the dynamics of infection and internal proliferation of bacteria can be quite independent in the two species even if they live in the same lake. Rs intensity and its coefficient of variation decreased with age in older fish, suggesting a connection between Rs intensity and host mortality. However, this can be caused by other ecological factors that decrease survival, especially low food availability, which simultaneously increase the susceptibility to Rs infection and internal proliferation.     

Piscivory and prey selection of four predator species in a whitefish dominated subarctic lake

According to logistic regressions derived for pike Esox lucius and burbot Lota lota , the probability of ingesting fishes in Lake Muddusjärvi, northern Finland, was 50% at 19·3 and 22·1 cm L _T, whereas Arctic charr Salvelinus alpinus and brown trout Salmo trutta shifted to piscivory at the lengths of 25·7 and 26·4 cm L _T. The specialist piscivores, pike and burbot, consumed more prey species and took a wider range of prey sizes than Arctic charr and brown trout. The prey length for all predators increased in relationship to predator length. Whitefish Coregonus lavaretus was the dominant prey species in the lake and in the diet of all the piscivorous species. The whitefish population was divided into three forms, of which the slow-growing, and the most numerous densely rakered whitefish form (DR), was selected by all predator species. This form also had the smallest average size and widest habitat range, utilizing both pelagic and epibenthic habitats. Two sparsely rakered whitefish forms (LSR and SSR) occupied only epibenthic habitats and had lower relative densities than DR. These forms, LSR and SSR, had a minor importance in the diet of predator species.     

Short-and long term niche segregation and individual specialization of brown trout (Salmo trutta) in species poor Faroese lakes

Trophic niche divergence is considered to be a major process by which species coexistence is facilitated. When studying niche segregation in lake ecosystems, we tend to view the niche on a one-dimensional pelagic-littoral axis. In reality, however, the niche use may be more complex and individual fidelity to a niche may be variable both between and within populations. In order to study this complexity, relative simple systems with few species are needed. In this paper, we study how competitor presence affects the resource use of brown trout (Salmo trutta) in 11 species-poor Faroese lakes by comparing relative abundance, stable isotope ratios and diet in multiple habitats. In the presence of three-spined sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus), a higher proportion of the trout population was found in the pelagic habitat, and trout in general relied on a more pelagic diet base as compared to trout living in allopatry or in sympatry with Arctic charr (Salvelinus alpinus). Diet analyses revealed, however, that niche-segregation may be more complex than described on a one-dimensional pelagic-littoral axis. Trout from both littoral and offshore benthic habitats had in the presence of sticklebacks a less benthic diet as compared to trout living in allopatry or in sympatry with charr. Furthermore, we found individual habitat specialization between littoral/benthic and pelagic trout in deep lakes. Hence, our findings indicate that for trout populations interspecific competition can drive shifts in both habitat and niche use, but at the same time they illustrate the complexity of the ecological niche in freshwater ecosystems.     

Lake size and fish diversity determine resource use and trophic position of a top predator in high‐latitude lakes

Prey preference of top predators and energy flow across habitat boundaries are of fundamental importance for structure and function of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, as they may have strong effects on production, species diversity, and food‐web stability. In lakes, littoral and pelagic food‐web compartments are typically coupled and controlled by generalist fish top predators. However, the extent and determinants of such coupling remains a topical area of ecological research and is largely unknown in oligotrophic high‐latitude lakes. We analyzed food‐web structure and resource use by a generalist top predator, the Arctic charr Salvelinus alpinus (L.), in 17 oligotrophic subarctic lakes covering a marked gradient in size (0.5–1084 km²) and fish species richness (2–13 species). We expected top predators to shift from littoral to pelagic energy sources with increasing lake size, as the availability of pelagic prey resources and the competition for littoral prey are both likely to be higher in large lakes with multispecies fish communities. We also expected top predators to occupy a higher trophic position in lakes with greater fish species richness due to potential substitution of intermediate consumers (prey fish) and increased piscivory by top predators. Based on stable carbon and nitrogen isotope analyses, the mean reliance of Arctic charr on littoral energy sources showed a significant negative relationship with lake surface area, whereas the mean trophic position of Arctic charr, reflecting the lake food‐chain length, increased with fish species richness. These results were supported by stomach contents data demonstrating a shift of Arctic charr from an invertebrate‐dominated diet to piscivory on pelagic fish. Our study highlights that, because they determine the main energy source (littoral vs. pelagic) and the trophic position of generalist top predators, ecosystem size and fish diversity are particularly important factors influencing function and structure of food webs in high‐latitude lakes.     

Takvatn Through 20 Years: Long-term Effects of an Experimental Mass Removal of Arctic Charr, Salvelinus Alpinus, From a Subarctic Lake

Between 1984 and 1989, the experimental removal of 31 tons (666000 fish) of stunted Arctic charr, Salvelinus alpinus, from Takvatn in northern Norway, had strong effects on the populations of Arctic charr, brown trout, Salmo trutta, and three-spined sticklebacks, Gasterosteus aculeatus. The littoral catch per unit effort (CPUE) of charr had decreased by 90% in 1990 and then increased to about 50% of the initial level by 1994 while the pelagic CPUE had decreased to zero. Growth in both charr and trout greatly improved when the charr density had decreased, and large fish of both species appeared in the catches. These large fish became predators on small charr in the littoral zone. The incidence of trout increased from below 1% to 15% from 1988 to 1999 after a brief peak at 30% in 1992 and 1993. The charr population attained a bimodal size distribution and did not return to the stunted state during the 10 years following the intensive fishing period. The mass removal experiment showed that it is possible to change the structure of a charr population by intensive fishing. Predation on small charr from cannibals and large trout was probably essential for maintaining the new population structure. An increase in the growth of young charr from 1995 to 1997 was related to a high consumption of Daphnia and Eurycercus. Rapid changes in the growth of charr followed the density fluctuations in sticklebacks, which show large annual variations in this system; the rapid changes in charr growth were probably caused by variations in the competition intensity for cladoceran prey between young charr and sticklebacks. Twenty years of data has provided important information, but even more time is needed to follow the long-term trends in northern lakes such as Takvatn.     

Community structure affects trophic ontogeny in a predatory fish

While most studies have focused on the timing and nature of ontogenetic niche shifts, information is scarce about the effects of community structure on trophic ontogeny of top predators. We investigated how community structure affects ontogenetic niche shifts (i.e., relationships between body length, trophic position, and individual dietary specialization) of a predatory fish, brown trout (Salmo trutta). We used stable isotope and stomach content analyses to test how functional characteristics of lake fish community compositions (competition and prey availability) modulate niche shifts in terms of (i) piscivorous behavior, (ii) trophic position, and (iii) individual dietary specialization. Northern Scandinavian freshwater fish communities were used as a study system, including nine subarctic lakes with contrasting fish community configurations: (i) trout‐only systems, (ii) two‐species systems (brown trout and Arctic charr [Salvelinus alpinus] coexisting), and (iii) three‐species systems (brown trout, Arctic charr, and three‐spined sticklebacks [Gasterosteus aculeatus] coexisting). We expected that the presence of profitable small prey (stickleback) and mixed competitor–prey fish species (charr) supports early piscivory and high individual dietary specialization among trout in multispecies communities, whereas minor ontogenetic shifts were expected in trout‐only systems. From logistic regression models, the presence of a suitable prey fish species (stickleback) emerged as the principal variable determining the size at ontogenetic niche shifts. Generalized additive mixed models indicated that fish community structure shaped ontogenetic niche shifts in trout, with the strongest positive relationships between body length, trophic position, and individual dietary specialization being observed in three‐species communities. Our findings revealed that the presence of a small‐sized prey fish species (stickleback) rather than a mixed competitor–prey fish species (charr) was an important factor affecting the ontogenetic niche‐shift processes of trout. The study demonstrates that community structure may modulate the ontogenetic diet trajectories of and individual niche specialization within a top predator.