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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Effects of Partially Anadromous Arctic Charr (Salvelinus alpinus) Populations on Ecology of Coastal Arctic Lakes

Little research has been conducted on effects of iteroparous anadromous fishes on Arctic lakes. We investigated trophic ecology, fish growth, and food web structure in six lakes located in Nunavut, Canada; three lakes contained anadromous Arctic charr (Salvelinus alpinus) whereas three lakes did not contain Arctic charr. All lakes contained forage fishes and lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush; top predator). Isotope ratios (δ¹³C, δ¹⁵N) of fishes and invertebrates did not differ between lakes with and without anadromous Arctic charr; if anadromous Arctic charr deliver marine-derived nutrients and/or organic matter to freshwater lakes, these inputs could not be detected with δ¹³C and/or δ¹⁵N. Lake trout carbon (C):nitrogen (N) and condition were significantly higher in lakes with Arctic charr (C:N = 3.42, K = 1.1) than in lakes without Arctic charr (C:N = 3.17, K = 0.99), however, and ninespine stickleback (Pungitius pungitius) condition was significantly lower in lakes with Arctic charr (K = 0.58) than in lakes without Arctic charr (K = 0.64). Isotope data indicated that pre-smolt and resident Arctic charr may be prey for lake trout and compete with ninespine stickleback. Linear distance metrics applied to isotope data showed that food webs were more compact and isotopically redundant in lakes where Arctic charr were present. Despite this, lake trout populations in lakes with Arctic charr occupied a larger isotope space and showed greater inter-individual isotope differences. Anadromous Arctic charr appear to affect ecology and feeding of sympatric freshwater species, but effects are more subtle than those seen for semelparous anadromous species.     

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.     

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.     

Variability in the functional role of Arctic charr Salvelinus alpinus as it relates to lake ecosystem characteristics

This study investigated how dietary habits vary with lake characteristics in a fish species that exhibits extensive morphological and ecological variability, the Arctic charr Salvelinus alpinus. Iceland is a hotspot of geological activity, so its freshwater ecosystems vary greatly in physical and chemical attributes. Associations of dietary items within guts of charr were used to form prey categories that reflect habitat-specific feeding behavior. Six prey categories were defined and dominated by snails (Radix peregra), fish (Gasterosteus aculeatus), tadpole shrimp (Lepidurus arcticus), chironomid pupae, pea clam (Pisidium spp.), and the cladoceran Bosmina sp.. These reflected different combinations of feeding in littoral stone, offshore benthic, and limnetic habitats. Certain habitat-specific feeding strategies consistently occurred alongside each other within lakes. For example, zooplanktivory occurred in the same lakes as consumption from offshore habitats; piscivory occurred in the same lakes as consumption from littoral benthic habitats. Redundancy analyses (RDA) were used to investigate how lake environment was related to consumption of different prey categories. The RDA indicated that piscivory exhibited by Arctic charr was reduced where brown trout were abundant and lakes were shallow, greater zooplanktivory occurred at lower latitudes and under decreased nutrient but higher silicon dioxide concentrations, and benthic resource consumption was associated with shallower lakes and higher altitudes. This study showed that trends previously observed across fish species were supported at the intraspecific level, indicating that a single species with flexible dietary habits can fill functional roles expected of multiple species in more diverse food webs.     

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.     

Marine food and diet overlap of co-occurring Arctic charr Salvelinus alpinus (L.), brown trout Salmo trutta L. and Atlantic salmon S. salar L. off Senja,N. Norway

Summary Stomach contents analyses and other biological information of Arctic charr (Savelinus alpinus (L.)), brown trout (Salmo trutta L.) and small Atlantic salmon (S. salar L.) caught 1982–85 close to the Åelv estuary (69°N) on the island of Senja, N. Norway are presented, and extracts of a 1975–85 fishing log given. this appears to be the first case study of the feeding habits of all three European anadromous salmonids in marine sympatry, and also one of very few reports on the marine food of the Arctic charr from Europe. The general feeding habits of the charr were similar to that found in N. Canada. Pelagic fish (herring, sand-eel) seem to be preferred. Plankton (crab megalopae, krill) and hyperbenthos (amphipods, mysids) are also taken, especially when suitable fish are scarce. In 1985 high herring densities provided superabundant food, and diet overlap between charr, trout and salmon was high. Salmonid nursery rivers are abundant in N. Norway and during summer the three species coexist in a near-shore, surface-oriented pelagic guild of fishes. The salmon seems to be a relatively specialized piscivore, while the trout takes a wider range of fish and also invertebrate prey. The charr probably is the most euryphagous of the three, being able to exploit the more marginal parts of the prey resources of their common habitat.     

Polymorphic segregation in Arctic charr Salvelinus alpinus (L.) from Vatnshlidarvatn, a shallow Icelandic lake

We studied the salmonid fish Arctic charr, Salvelinus alpinus , in a small and shallow landlocked lake in NW Iceland. The lake is productive but die only fish present is Arctic charr. Despite the apparent absence of discrete benthic and limnetic habitats for fish, two forms of Arctic charr are found in the lake. They show subde differences in morphology related to swimming performance and manoeuvrability, but differences in life history such as growth, and age and size at sexual maturation are more pronounced. Both forms have benthic feeding habits with one form consuming greater number of species than the other. We suggest that the segregation of these forms is based on the evolution of a specialist from a local generalist and that this has been made possible by the absence of a common fish competitor in similar lakes, the threespined stickleback Gasterosteous aculeatus.     

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.     

Arctic charr in sympatry with burbot: ecological and evolutionary consequences

The trophic niche and parasite infection of Arctic charr (Salvelinus alpinus) were explored in two lakes with sympatric burbot (Lota lota) and two lakes without burbot in subarctic Norway. The CPUE of burbot and charr were similar in one lake, but burbot had a low population density in the other. Burbot were benthivorous in both lakes. Other co-occurring species like brown trout (Salmo trutta), Atlantic salmon parr (Salmo salar), grayling (Thymallus thymallus) and minnow (Phoxinus phoxinus) were also benthivores. At high densities, benthivorous burbot forced the whole Arctic charr population to utilise mainly the limnetic trophic niche. In contrast, at low burbot density or without burbot present, Arctic charr were primarily benthivorous in the littoral zone. Thus, a clear interactive segregation in diet was observed between Arctic charr and burbot at high burbot densities. There was also a high predation pressure from burbot on young Arctic charr along the benthic zones. The extensive use of zooplankton as prey caused a high parasite infection pressure of copepod transmitted Diphyllobothrium spp. larvae, with the potential for high negative impact on the Arctic charr population. As the benthivore trophic niche was occupied by burbot, the ecological opportunities for polymorphism with benthivorous ecotypes or morphs of Arctic charr were probably prevented. Therefore, the sympatry with burbot seems to have large ecological and evolutionary consequences for this Arctic charr population compared with neighbouring lakes where burbot is absent.     

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.     

Effects of Fish-farm Activity on the Limnetic Community Structure of Brown Trout, Salmo trutta, and Arctic Charr, Salvelinus alpinus

Establishment of four fish-farms during the period 1971 to 1994 in the oligotrophic lake Skogseidvatnet affected Arctic charr, Salvelinus alpinus, but not brown trout, Salmo trutta. From 1971 to 1987, an increase in mean individual size of Arctic charr was recorded, while the mean individual size of brown trout remained stable. Arctic charr were found to use deeper benthic areas than brown trout. Approximately 8% of the Arctic charr population (>26cm), were found to switch to waste food from fish-farms, resulting in a novel feeding habitat for the species. They were, however, found in gillnets distant from the fish farm cages, indicating high mobility. The habitat segregation between the two species can most likely be explained by selective differences and asymmetric competition with brown trout as the dominant species. Based on the present results, changes in the Arctic charr population may be due to increased food availability and due to a new habitat use as a waste food feeder. The reason for the brown trout population to have remained stable with respect to mean size, growth pattern and habitat use, may be due to a different diet choice than Arctic charr in this lake. Brown trout were found to feed mainly on terrestrial insects, while Arctic charr fed mainly on zooplankton and on waste food.     

Lipid‐rich zooplankton subsidise the winter diet of benthivorous Arctic charr (Salvelinus alpinus) in a subarctic lake

相似文献   

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.     

The food of Charr,*Salvelinus willughbii (Günther), in Windermere

The stomach contents of 1015 charr, (Salvelinus willughbii Günther)] from Windermere, of which 658 were feeding fish, were examined. The fish were caught over a period of several years and in every month of the year. The data were analysed by two methods, by a points system, which takes into account the abundance and volume of the food organisms, and by the frequency of occurrence of each organism. Charr of all sizes had fed mainly on planktonic Crustacea (particularly Cladocera); larval and pupal chironomids and Chaoborus were also important. From November to April most stomachs of charr netted on the spawning grounds contained charr eggs. The diet of charr is compared with that of seven other fish species in Windermere. There was almost no overlap between the food of charr, which was obtained in the pelagic region, and that of the seven other species, which was mostly bottom fauna, obtained from the littoral region. Thus by occupation of these two different niches the charr and the seven other fish in no way compete for food in Windermere. Some limited data from six other lakes in the English Lake District are presented, in these planktonic Crustacea are also found to be the main food.     

Behavioural responses of naive Arctic charr young to chemical cues from salmonid and non-salmonid fish

The ability to distinguish among chemical cues from multiple predators is of key adaptive value for many prey fish. We examined the attractiveness and repulsiveness of chemical stimuli from different coexisting fish species fed on different diets on the behaviour of hatchery reared Arctic charr young in a Y-maze fluviarum, where the charr could choose between two sides either with control water or stimulus water with fish odour. We used stimuli from (1) matching sized conspecifics, large (2) Arctic charr, (3) salmon, (4) brown trout and (5) brown trout fed on Arctic charr fry. Other salmonids were given pellet food. Additional fish odour treatments included piscivorous (6) pike and (7) burbot. In the control trials both sides received control water. Arctic charr young were expected to respond adaptively to the stimuli from coexisting piscivorous fish. The charr most strongly preferred water with the odour of their matching sized conspecifics, which was the only fish odour they were familiar with before the experiments. They also showed significant preference for other salmonid odours, even though these fish are potential predators on small charr. Chemical stimuli from pike and burbot, on the contrary, were strongly avoided, and burbot odour even prevented the charr to swim and enter the lateral halves of the fluviarum. Moreover, odour from brown trout fed on Arctic charr fry was avoided when compared to stimuli from trout fed on pellets. Although the Arctic charr young were completely naive regarding piscivores, the fact that they could distinguish between different predator taxa and diets on the basis of chemical cues only reflects the long coevolutionary history of these fish populations.     

Combined effects of environmental factors and predator–prey interactions on zooplankton assemblages in five high alpine lakes

The examination of a yearly cycle of plankton density (rotifer and microcrustacean) and of 419 stomach contents of four species of salmonid fishes, arctic charr, Salvelinus alpinus, brown trout, Salmo trutta, rainbow trout, Onchorynchus mykiss and lake trout, Salvelinus namaycush, living in five high altitude lakes in the French Alps, shows an impact of abiotic variates and the effects of predation on the composition of zooplankton assemblages. The lakes studied may be divided in two groups. The colder, Muzelle and Puy Vachier, are characterised by a low level of food resources, an important impact of predation, and the near absence of planktonic crustaceans. The second group, consisting of Lakes Les Pisses, Petarel and Palluel, is characterised by a low density rotifer assemblage and a more abundant crustacean population controlled by a low level of fish predation.