Advertisement

Trophic plasticity and the invasion of a renowned piscivore: a diet synthesis of northern pike (Esox lucius) from the native and introduced ranges in Alaska, U.S.A.

  • C. Nathan Cathcart
  • Kristine J. Dunker
  • Thomas P. Quinn
  • Adam J. Sepulveda
  • Frank A. von Hippel
  • Andrew Wizik
  • Daniel B. Young
  • Peter A. H. WestleyEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

The invasion of non-native fishes is a leading cause of extinction and imperilment of native freshwater fishes. Evidence suggests that introduced species with generalist diets have the potential for greatest impacts through competition and predation even though populations are often comprised of specialist individuals. The northern pike (Esox lucius), a predatory fish, has been widely introduced outside its native range for recreational fishing purposes, especially in western North America, and it has been implicated in declines and extirpations of native fishes. We synthesized over 2900 individual northern pike diet records across 31 waterbodies from the native and introduced ranges in Alaska to quantify the extent of diet specialization and generalization relative to freshwater prey communities. To control for effects of ontogenetic diet shifts, we separately analyzed major size classes of northern pike and inferred and visualized trophic plasticity from prey-specific abundance indices and ordination. Diet generalization was common in northern pike among waterbodies and usually consisted of individuals consuming macroinvertebrates. However, when available, individual northern pike diets showed specialization on fishes, amphibians, small mammals, and dragonflies. The reliance on macroinvertebrate prey by northern pike from small, isolated lakes in the native and invasive ranges suggests that dietary plasticity facilitates persistence of these predators in the absence of preferred fish prey. Broadly, this synthesis supports the hypothesis that trophic plasticity and diet generalization widely occur among invasive and native populations of northern pike which is likely to enhance the probability of introduction success, exacerbate their environmental impacts, and complicate management of this potentially invasive freshwater predator.

Keywords

Trophic plasticity Northern pike Diet Community ecology Trophic ecology Alaska fishes 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank all the individuals who contributed to field work of specific projects that contributed to this synthesis and the financial support of those projects. In particular (but in no special order) we thank Stormy Haught, Harry Rich, Jr., Will Atlas, Eileen Audette, Jason Ching, Erik Schoen, Andy Johnsen, Keith Denton, Gretchen Theusen, Joshua Bishoff, Robert Massengill, David Rutz, Cody Jacobson, Adrian Baer, Kasaan Brandel, Kiche Brandel, Eric Hollerback, Don Reeves, Chris Sargent, Sarah Laske, and Matt Warnke for help in the field and fruitful discussions. Thanks to the University of Alaska, the Mat-Su Borough, the Alaska Sustainable Salmon Fund, and long-term support from the seafood industry, as well as the National Science Foundation and the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation. Six anonymous reviewers greatly improved this manuscript. Any use of trade, product, or firm names does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

Supplementary material

10530_2018_1909_MOESM1_ESM.docx (232 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 231 kb)

References

  1. Aksakov ST (1847) Translated by T. Hodge in Notes on Fishing. (1997). Northwestern University Press, EvanstonGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen KR (1939) A note on the food of pike (Esox lucius) in Windermere. J Anim Ecol 8:72–75.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1253 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amundsen PA, Gabler HM, Staldvik FJ (1996) A new approach to graphical analysis of feeding strategy from stomach contents data-modification of the Costello (1990) method. J Fish Biol 48:607–614.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.1996.tb01455.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson MJ (2001) A new method for non-parametric multivariate analysis of variance. Austral Ecol 26:32–46.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-9993.2001.01070.pp.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baldwin JM (1896) A new factor in evolution. Am Nat 30(441–451):536–553.  https://doi.org/10.1086/276408 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baxter CV, Fausch KD, Murakami M, Chapman PL (2004) Fish invasion restructures stream forest food webs by interrupting reciprocal prey subsidies. Ecology 85:2656–2663.  https://doi.org/10.1890/04-138 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beaudoin CP, Tonn WM, Prepas EE, Wassenaar LI (1999) Individual specialization and trophic adaptability of northern pike (Esox lucius): an isotope and dietary analysis. Oecologia 120:386–396.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s004420050871 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Bolnick DI, Svanbäck R, Fordyce JA, Yang LH, Davis JM, Hulsey CD, Forister ML (2003) The ecology of individuals: incidence and implications of individual specialization. Am Natural 161:1–28.  https://doi.org/10.1086/343878 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bolnick DI, Amarasekare P, Araújo MS, Bürger R, Levine JM, Novak M, Rudolf VHW, Schrieber SJ, Urban MC, Vasseur DA (2011) Why intraspecific trait variation matters in community ecology. Trends Ecol Evol 26:183–192.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2011.01.009 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Byström P, Karlsson J, Nilsson P, Ask J, Olofsson F (2007) Substitution of top predators: effects of pike invasion in a subarctic lake. Freshw Biol 52:1271–1280.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2007.01763.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chapman LJ, Mackay WC, Wilkinson CW (1989) Feeding flexibility in northern pike (Esox lucius): fish versus invertebrate prey. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 46:666–669.  https://doi.org/10.1139/f89-085 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clavero M, García-Berthou E (2005) Invasive species are a leading cause of animal extinctions. Trends Ecol Evol 20:110.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2005.01.003 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Costello MJ (1990) Predator feeding strategy and prey importance: a new graphical analysis. J Fish Biol 36:261–263.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.1990.tb05601.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Courtney M, Schoen ER, Westley PAH (2018) Quantifying the net benefits of suppression: truncated size structure and consumption of native salmonids by invasive Northern Pike in an Alaska lake. N Am J Fish Manag 38:1306–1315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Craig JF (2008) A short review of pike ecology. Hydrobiologia 601:5–16.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-007-9262-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Davies KF, Chesson P, Harrison S, Inouye BD, Melbourne BA, Rice KJ (2005) Spatial heterogeneity explains the scale dependence of the native-exotic diversity relationship. Ecology 86:1602–1610.  https://doi.org/10.1890/04-1196 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Degerman E, Sers B (1993) A study of interactions between fish species in streams using survey data and the PCA-hyperspace technique. Nord J Freshw Res 68:5–13Google Scholar
  18. Dunker KJ, Sepulveda A, Massingill R, Rutz D (2018) The northern pike, a prized native but disastrous invasive. In: Skov C, Nilsson PA (eds) Biology and ecology of pike. Taylor and Francis, Boca Raton, pp 356–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Elvira B, Almodóvar A (2001) Freshwater fish introductions in Spain: facts and figures at the beginning of the 21st century. J Fish Biol 59:323–331.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.2001.tb01393.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Findlay CS, Bert DG, Zheng L (2000) Effect of introduced piscivores on native minnow communities in Adirondack lakes. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 57:570–580.  https://doi.org/10.1139/f99-276 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Flinders JM, Bonar SA (2008) Growth, condition, diet, and consumption rates of northern pike in three Arizona reservoirs. Lake Reserv Manag 24:99–111.  https://doi.org/10.1080/07438140809354054 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Forsman A, Tibblin P, Berggren H, Nordahl O, Koch-Schmidt P, Larsson P (2015) Pike Esox lucius as an emerging model organism for studies in ecology and evolutionary biology: a review. J Fish Biol 87:472–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fox MG, Vila-Gispert A, Copp GH (2007) Life-history traits of introduced Iberian pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus relative to native populations. Can differences explain colonization success? J Fish Biol 71:56–69.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.2007.01683.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Frost WE (1954) The food of pike, Esox lucius L., in Windermere. J Anim Ecol 23:339–360.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1985 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Giles N, Wright RM, Nord ME (1986) Cannibalism in pike fry, Esox lucius L.: some experiments with fry densities. J Fish Biol 29:107–113.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.1986.tb04930.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hartman WL, Burgner RL (1972) Limnology and fish ecology of Sockeye Salmon nursery lakes of the world. J Fish Res Board Can 29:699–715CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Haught S, von Hippel FA (2011) Invasive pike establishment in Cook Inlet Basin lakes, Alaska: diet, native fish abundance and lake environment. Biol Inv 13:2103–2114.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-011-0029-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ince BW, Thorpe A (1976) The effects of starvation and force-feeding on the metabolism of the northern pike, Esox lucius L. J Fish Biol 8:79–88.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.1976.tb03909.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Johnson BM, Martinez PJ, Hawkins JA, Bestgen KR (2008) Ranking predatory threats by nonnative fishes in the Yampa River, Colorado via bioenergetics modeling. N Am J Fish Manag 28:1941–1953.  https://doi.org/10.1577/M07-199.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Johnson BM, Arlinghaus R, Martinez PJ (2009) Are we doing all we can to stem the tide of illegal fish stocking? Fisheries 34:389–394.  https://doi.org/10.1577/1548-8446-34.8.389 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Juncos R, Beauchamp DA, Vigliano PH (2013) Modeling prey consumption by native and nonnative piscivorous fishes: implications for competition and impacts on shared prey in an ultraoligotrophic lake in Patagonia. Trans Am Fish Soc 142:268–281.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00028487.2012.730109 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kipling C, Frost WE (1970) A study of the mortality, population numbers, year class strengths, production, and food consumption of pike (Esox lucius) in Windermere from 1944–1962. J Anim Ecol 39:115–157.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2892 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Larsson P, Tibblin P, Koch-Schmidt P, Engstedt O, Nilsson J, Nordahl O, Forsman A (2015) Ecology, evolution, and management strategies of northern pike populations in the Baltic Sea. Ambio 44(suppl. 3):S451–S461.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-015-0664-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lepak JM, Kinzli KD, Fetherman ER, Pate WM, Hansen AG, Gardunio EI, Cathcart CN, Stacy WL, Underwood ZE, Brandt MM, Myrick CA, Johnson BM (2012) Manipulation of growth to reduce mercury concentrations in sport fish on a whole-ecosystem scale. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 69:122–135.  https://doi.org/10.1139/f2011-136 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McMahon TE, Bennett DH (1996) Walleye and pike: Boost or bane to Northwest fisheries? Fisheries 21:6–13.  https://doi.org/10.1577/1548-8446(1996)021%3c0006:WANP%3e2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Miller RR, Williams JD, Williams JE (1989) Extinctions of North American fishes during the past century. Fisheries 14:22–38.  https://doi.org/10.1577/15488446(1989)014%3c0022:EONAFD%3e2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mullen JA, Bramblett RG, Guy CS, Zale AV, Roberts DW (2011) Determinants of fish assemblage structure in northwestern Great Plains streams. Trans Am Fish Soc 140:271–281.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00028487.2011.564069 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Näslund I, Degerman E, Nordwall F (1998) Brown trout (Salmo trutta) habitat use and life history in Swedish streams: possible effects of biotic interactions. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 55:1034–1042.  https://doi.org/10.1139/f97-313 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nicholson ME, Rennie MD, Mills KH (2015) Apparent extirpation of prey fish communities following the introduction of northern pike (Esox lucius). Can Field Nat 129:165–173.  https://doi.org/10.22621/cfn.v129i2.1697 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Nilsson PA, Brönmark C (1999) Foraging among cannibals and kleptoparasites: effects of prey size on pike behavior. Behav Ecol 10:557–566.  https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/10.5.557 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Olden JD, Poff NL, Bestgen KR (2006) Life-history strategies predict fish invasions and extirpations in the Colorado River Basin. Ecol Monogr 76:25–40.  https://doi.org/10.1890/05-0330 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Palmer MW (1993) Putting things in even better order: the advantages of canonical correspondence analysis. Ecology 74:2215–2230.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1939575 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Patankar R, von Hippel FA, Bell MA (2006) Extinction of a weakly armoured threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) population in Prator Lake, Alaska. Ecol Freshw Fish 15:482–487.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0633.2006.00186.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pedreschi D, Mariani S, Coughlan J, Voigt CC, O’Grady M, Caffrey J, Kelly-Quinn M (2015) Trophic flexibility and opportunism in pike Esox lucius. J Fish Biol 87:876–894.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jfb.12755 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Poos MS, Jackson DA (2012) Addressing the removal of rare species in multivariate bioassessments: the impact of methodological choices. Ecol Indic 18:82–90.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoind.2011.10.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. R Development Core Team (2008) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. ISBN 3-900051-07-0. http://www.R-project.org
  47. Rincon PA, Velasco JC, Gonzalez-Sanchez N, Pollo C (1990) Fish assemblages in small streams in western Spain: the influence of an introduced predator. Archiv für Hydrobiol 118:81–91Google Scholar
  48. Robinson BW, Dukas R (1999) The influence of phenotypic modifications on evolution: the Baldwin effect and modern perspectives. Oikos 85:582–589.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3546709 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Robinson CLK, Tonn WM (1989) Influence of environmental factors and piscivory in structuring fish assemblages of small Alberta lakes. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 46:81–89.  https://doi.org/10.1139/f89-012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Ruesink JL (2005) Global analysis of factors affecting the outcome of freshwater fish introductions. Conserv Biol 19:1883–1893.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00267.x-i1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rypel AL (2012) Meta-analysis of growth rates for a circumpolar fish, the northern pike (Esox lucius), with emphasis on effects of continent, climate, and latitude. Ecol Freshw Fish 21:521–532.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0633.2012.00570.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sánchez-Hernández J, Eloranta AP, Finstad AG, Amundsen P (2016) Community structure affects trophic ontogeny in a predatory fish. Ecol Evol 2017:358–367.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.2600 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sepulveda AJ, Rutz DS, Ivey SS, Dunker KJ, Gross JA (2013) Introduced northern pike predation on salmonids in southcentral Alaska. Ecol Freshw Fish 22:268–279.  https://doi.org/10.1111/eff.12024 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sepulveda AJ, Rutz DS, Dupuis AW, Shields PA, Dunker KJ (2015) Introduced northern pike consumption of salmonids in Southcentral Alaska. Ecol Freshw Fish 24:519–531.  https://doi.org/10.1111/eff.12164 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Simon KS, Townsend CR (2003) Impacts of freshwater invaders at different levels of ecological organisation, with emphasis on salmonids and ecosystem consequences. Freshw Biol 48:982–994.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2427.2003.01069.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Skov C, Lousdal O, Johansen PH, Berg S (2003) Piscivory of 0 + pike (Esox lucius L.) in a small eutrophic lake and its implication for biomanipulation. Hydrobiologia 506-509:481–487.  https://doi.org/10.1023/B:HYDR.0000008609.15451.9d CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Spens J, Ball JP (2008) Salmonid or nonsalmonid lakes: predicting the fate of northern boreal fish communities with hierarchical filters relating to a keystone piscivore. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 65:1945–1955.  https://doi.org/10.1139/F08-103 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Ter Braak CJF (1986) Canonical correspondence analysis: a new eigenvector technique for multivariate direct gradient analysis. Ecology 67:1167–1179.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1938672 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Vander Zanden MJ, Rasmussen JB (1999) Primary consumer δ13C and δ15N and the trophic position of aquatic consumers. Ecology 80:1395–1404.  https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(1999)080%5b1395:PCCANA%5d2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Venturelli PA, Tonn WM (2005) Invertivory by northern pike (Esox lucius) structures communities of littoral macroinvertebrates in small boreal lakes. J N Am Benthol Soc 24:904–918.  https://doi.org/10.1899/04-128.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Venturelli PA, Tonn WM (2006) Diet and growth of northern pike in the absence of prey fishes: initial consequences for persisting in disturbance-prone lakes. Trans Am Fish Soc 135:1512–1522.  https://doi.org/10.1577/T05-228.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Werner EE, Mittelbach GG, Hall DJ (1981) The role of foraging profitability and experience in habitat use by the bluegill sunfish. Ecology 62:116–125.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1936675 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Zelasko KA, Bestgen KR, Hawkins JA, White GC (2016) Evaluation of a long-term predator removal program: abundance and population dynamics of invasive northern pike in the Yampa River, Colorado. Trans Am Fish Soc 145:1153–1170.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00028487.2016.1173586 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. Nathan Cathcart
    • 1
    • 8
  • Kristine J. Dunker
    • 2
  • Thomas P. Quinn
    • 3
  • Adam J. Sepulveda
    • 4
  • Frank A. von Hippel
    • 5
  • Andrew Wizik
    • 6
  • Daniel B. Young
    • 7
  • Peter A. H. Westley
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Fisheries, College of Fisheries and Ocean SciencesUniversity of Alaska FairbanksFairbanksUSA
  2. 2.Division of Sport FishAlaska Department of Fish and GameAnchorageUSA
  3. 3.School of Aquatic and Fishery SciencesUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA
  4. 4.U.S. Geological SurveyNorthern Rocky Mountain Science CenterBozemanUSA
  5. 5.Department of Biological Sciences and Center for Bioengineering InnovationNorthern Arizona UniversityFlagstaffUSA
  6. 6.Cook Inlet Aquaculture AssociationKenaiUSA
  7. 7.National Parks ServicePort AlsworthUSA
  8. 8.Freshwater Fish InventoryAlaska Department of Fish and GameAnchorageUSA

Personalised recommendations