Advertisement

Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries

, Volume 22, Issue 1, pp 325–342 | Cite as

Long-term captive breeding does not necessarily prevent reestablishment: lessons learned from Eagle Lake rainbow trout

  • Gerard Carmona-Catot
  • Peter B. Moyle
  • Rachel E. Simmons
Research Paper

Abstract

Captive breeding of animals is often cited as an important tool in conservation, especially for fishes, but there are few reports of long-term (<50 years) success of captive breeding programs, even in salmonid fishes. Here we describe the captive breeding program for Eagle Lake rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss aquilarum, which is endemic to the Eagle Lake watershed of northeastern California. The population in Eagle Lake has been dependent on captive breeding for more than 60 years and supports a trophy fishery in the lake. Nevertheless, the basic life history, ecological, and genetic traits of the subspecies still seem to be mostly intact. Although management has apparently minimized negative effects of hatchery rearing, reestablishing a wild population would ensure maintenance of its distinctive life history and its value for future use as a hatchery fish. An important factor that makes reestablishment possible is that the habitat in Eagle Lake is still intact and that Pine Creek, its major spawning stream, is recovering as habitat. With the exception of an abundant alien brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) population in Pine Creek, the habitat factors that led to the presumed near-extinction of Eagle Lake rainbow trout in the early twentieth century have been ameliorated, although the final stages of reestablishment (eradication of brook trout, unequivocal demonstration of successful spawning migration) have still not been completed. The Eagle Lake rainbow trout story shows that long-term captive breeding of migratory salmonid fishes does not necessarily prevent reestablishment of wild populations, provided effort is made to counter the effects of hatchery selection and that natural habitats are restored for reintroduction. Long-term success, however, ultimately depends upon eliminating hatchery influences on wild-spawning populations. Extinction of Eagle Lake rainbow trout as a wild species becomes increasingly likely if we fail to act boldly to protect it and the Eagle Lake watershed.

Keywords

Salmonidae Captive breeding Hatchery effects Species invasions Endangered species Conservation Eagle Lake 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The manuscript benefited from the helpful comments of an anonymous reviewer, P. Divine, D. Lile, M. McFarland, and K. Vandersall. Funding was provided by the University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, and Lassen County Resource Advisory Committee. G.C.C. received support from J. Carmona, the University of California Water Resources Center, Trout Unlimited, Western Division American Fisheries Society (Eugene Maughan Scholarship), and held a doctoral fellowship (BR2010/10) from the University of Girona during the preparation of the manuscript. Special thanks to USFS Lassen National Forest, Susanville Indian Rancheria, DFG, P. Crain, L. Thompson, T. Pustejovsky, K. Tate, G. Green, A. Clause, K. Sorenson, T. Gildea, K. Robinson, L. Sedlack, J. Hobbs, C. Lee, T. Murphy, M. Moreno, B. Alexis, J. Catot and numerous volunteers and technicians.

References

  1. Anders PJ (1998) Conservation aquaculture and endangered species: can objective science prevail over risk anxiety? Fisheries 23:28–31Google Scholar
  2. Araki H, Cooper B, Blouin MS (2007) Genetic effects of captive breeding cause a rapid, cumulative fitness decline in the wild. Science 318:100–103PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Araki H, Berejikian BA, Ford MJ, Blouin MS (2008) Fitness of hatchery-reared salmonids in the wild. Evol Appl 1:342–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Araki H, Cooper B, Blouin MS (2009) Carry-over effect of captive breeding reduces reproductive fitness of wild-born descendants in the wild. Biol Lett 5:621–624PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Behnke RJ (1992) Native trout of western North America. American Fisheries Society Monograph 6, Bethesda, MDGoogle Scholar
  6. Behnke RJ (2002) Trout and Salmon of North America. The Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Belant J, Gober P, Biggins D (2011) Mustela nigripes. In: IUCN 2010. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, version 2010.4 http://www.iucnredlist.org
  8. Bureau of Land Management (2010) Eagle lake water budget. Tech Memo, Sacramento, CA, p 14Google Scholar
  9. Busack CA, Currens KP (1995) Genetic risks and hazards in hatchery operations: fundamental concepts and issues. In: Schramm HL Jr, Piper RG (eds) Uses and effects of cultured fishes in aquatic ecosystems. Am Fish Soc Symp 15, Bethesda, MD, pp 71–80Google Scholar
  10. Busack CA, Thorgaard GH, Bannon MP, Gall GAE (1980) An electrophoretic karyotypic, and meristic characterization of the Eagle Lake trout Salmo gairdneri aquilarum. Copeia 3:418–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carbine WF, Shetter DS (1943) Examples of the use of two-way fish weirs in Michigan. Trans Am Fish Soc 73:70–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carmona-Catot G (2009) Brook trout removal as a conservation tool to restore Eagle Lake rainbow trout. M.S. thesis, University of California, DavisGoogle Scholar
  13. Carmona-Catot G, Moyle PB, Aparicio E, Crain PK, Thompson LC, García-Berthou E (2010) Brook trout removal as a conservation tool to restore Eagle Lake rainbow trout. N Am J Fish Manage 30:1315–1323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cayan DR, Maurer EP, Dettinger MD, Tyree M, Hayhoe K (2008) Climate change scenarios for the California region. Clim Change 87(Suppl 1):21–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chilcote MW, Goodson KW, Falcy MR (2011) Reduced recruitment performance in natural populations of anadromous salmonids associated with hatchery-reared fish. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 68:511–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chittenden CM, Biagi C, Davidsen JG, Davidsen AG, Kondo H, McKnight A, Pedersen OP, Raven PA, Rikardsen AH, Shrimpton JM, Zuehlke B, McKinley RS, Devlin RH (2010) Genetic versus rearing-enviornment effects on phenotype: hatchery and natural rearing effect on hatchery- and wild-born coho salmon. PLoS ONE 5:e12261PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cornuet JM, Luikart G (1997) Description and power analysis of two tests for detecting recent population bottlenecks from allele frequency data. Genetics 144:2001–2014Google Scholar
  18. Crawford SS, Muir AM (2008) Global introductions of salmon and trout in the genus Oncorhynchus: 1870–2007. Rev Fish Biol Fisher 18:313–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dean M, Chapell P (2005) Eagle Lake fishery management plan, 2005 through 2010. California Department of Fish and Game Tech report, pp 23Google Scholar
  20. Department of Fish and Game (DFG) (1998) Draft Pine Creek watershed reconnaissance survey. Tech Report No. FGR4974IF-2, pp 56Google Scholar
  21. DeVries DR, Frie RV (1996) Determination of age and growth. In: Myrphy BR, Willis DW (eds) Fisheries techniques, 2nd edn. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD, pp 483–513Google Scholar
  22. Eagles-Smith C (2006) Food web structure, tropic transfer, and bioaccumulation in two California Lakes. Ph.D. Thesis, University of California, DavisGoogle Scholar
  23. Fausch KD (1988) Tests of competition between native and introduced salmonids in streams: what have we learned? Can J Fish Aquat Sci 45:2238–2246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Flick WA, Webster DA (1992) Standing crops of brook trout in Adirondack waters before and after removal of non-trout species. N Am J Fish Manage 12:783–796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fraser DJ (2008) How well can captive breeding programs conserve biodiversity? A review of salmonids. Evol Appl 1:535–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Goudet J (1995) Fstat Version 1.2.: a computer program to calculate F-statistics. J Heredity 86:485–486Google Scholar
  27. Heath DD, Heath JW, Bryden CA, Johnson RM, Fox CW (2003) Rapid evolution of egg size in captive salmon. Science 299:1738–1740PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hilborn R (1992) Hatcheries and the future of salmon in the northwest. Fisheries 17:5–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Huntingford FA (2004) Implications of domestication and rearing conditions for the behaviour of cultivated fishes. J Fish Biol 65:122–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Huntsinger KR, Maslin PE (1976) A limnological comparison of the three basins of Eagle Lake, California. Calif Fish Game 62:232–245Google Scholar
  31. Jelks HL, Walsh SJ, Burkhead NM, Contreras-Balderas S, Diaz-Pardo E, Hendrickson DA, Lyons J, Mandrak NE, McCormick F, Nelson JS, Platania SP, Porter BA, Renaud CB, Schmitter-Soto JJ, Taylor EB, Warren ML Jr (2008) Conservation status of imperiled North American freshwater and diadromous fishes. Fisheries 33:372–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kelly OA, Oriffith JS, Jones RD (1980) Changes in distribution of trout in Great Smoky Mountains National Park, 1900–1977. US Fish and Wildlife Service Tech Paper 102, pp 16Google Scholar
  33. King V (1976) Unpublished report of Eagle Lake fishery. California Department of Fish and Game, pp 49Google Scholar
  34. Kleiman DG (1989) Reintroduction of captive mammals for conservation. Bioscience 39:152–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kostow K (2008) Factors that contribute to the ecological risks of salmon and steelhead hatchery programs and some mitigating strategies. Rev Fish Biol Fisher 19:9–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Larson GL, Moore SE (1985) Encroachment of exotic rainbow trout into stream populations of native brook trout in the southern Appalachian mountains. Trans Am Fish Soc 114:195–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lederer RJ (1976) The breeding populations of piscivorous birds of Eagle Lake. Am Birds 30:769–772Google Scholar
  38. Lever C (1996) Naturalized fishes of the world. Academic Press, San Diego, CAGoogle Scholar
  39. Maurer EP (2007) Uncertainty in hydrologic impacts of climate change in the Sierra Nevada Mountains, California under two emissions scenarios. Clim Change 82:309–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. McAfee WR (1966) Eagle Lake rainbow trout. In: Calhoun AE (ed) Inland fisheries management. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA, pp 221–224Google Scholar
  41. McElhaney P, Ruckleshaus MH, Ford MJ, Wainright TC, Bjorkstedt EP (2000) Viable salmonid populations and the recovery of evolutionarily significant units. NOAA Tech Memo No. NMFS-NWFSC-42, pp 156Google Scholar
  42. Miller RR, Pister EP (1971) Management of the Owens pup-fish, Cyprinodon radiosus, in Mono County, California. Trans Am Fish Soc 100:502–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Moore SE, Ridley B, Larson GL (1983) Standing crops of brook trout concurrent with removal of rainbow trout from selected streams in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. N Am J Fish Manage 3:72–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Moore SE, Larson GL, Ridley B (1986) Population control of exotic rainbow trout in streams of a natural area park. Env Manage 10:215–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Moyle PB (1969) Comparative behavior of young brook trout of domestic and wild origin. Prog Fish Cult 31:51–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Moyle PB (2002) Inland fishes of California. University of California Press, Berkeley, CAGoogle Scholar
  47. Moyle PB, Kennedy T, Kuda D, Martin L, Grant G (1991) Fishes of Bly tunnel, Lassen County, California. Great Basin Nat 51:267–270Google Scholar
  48. Moyle PB, Yoshiyama RM, Williams JE, Wikramanayake ED (1995) Fish species of special concern in California, 2nd edn. Davis, CA, pp 272Google Scholar
  49. Moyle PB, Israel JA, Purdy SE (2008) Salmon, steelhead, and trout in California: status of an emblematic fauna. Center for Watershed Sciences, University of California, Davis, pp 316Google Scholar
  50. Perzanowski K, Olech W (2007) A future for European bison Bison bonasus in the Carpathian ecoregion? Wildl Biol 13:108–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Phillippart JC (1995) Is captive breeding an effective solution for the preservation of endemic species? Biol Conserv 72:281–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Platts W, Jensen S (1991) Pine Creek assessment, Eagle Lake watershed. Tech Report prepared for the Eagle Lake Ranger District, Lassen National Forest, Susanville, CA, pp 74Google Scholar
  53. Purdy TI (1988) Purdy’s Eagle Lake. Lahontan Images, Susanville, CAGoogle Scholar
  54. Purdy S (2010) Montane meadows in the Sierra Nevada: a comparison of terrestrial and aquatic assessment methods. M.S. thesis, University of California, DavisGoogle Scholar
  55. Pustejovsky T (2007) A conservation plan for Pine Creek and Eagle Lake rainbow trout. Lassen County Resource Advisory Council. Susanville, CA, pp 90Google Scholar
  56. Sheldon HA (1907) Collecting trip by Wagon to Eagle Lake, Sierra Nevada Mountains. Condor 9:185–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Shepard BB, Spoon R, Nelson L (2002) A native westslope cutthroat trout population responds positively after brook trout removal and habitat restoration. Intermt J Sci 8:193–214Google Scholar
  58. Simmons RE (2011) Conservation genetics of California redband trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss subspp. Ph.D. Thesis, University of California, DavisGoogle Scholar
  59. Snyder JO (1917) The fishes of the Lahontan system of Nevada and northeastern California. Bull US Bur Fish 35:31–86Google Scholar
  60. Snyder JO (1940) The trouts of California. Calif Fish Game 26:129–139Google Scholar
  61. Snyder NFR, Snyder H (2000) The California condor: a saga of natural history and conservation. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  62. Snyder NFR, Derrickson SR, Beissinger SR, Wiley JW, Smith TB, Toone WD, Miller B (1996) Limitations of captive breeding in endangered species recovery. Conserv Biol 10:338–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Soulé ME, Gilpin W, Conway W, Foose T (1986) The millennium ark: how long a voyage, how many staterooms, how many passengers? Zoo Biol 5:101–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Thompson LC, Carmona-Catot G, Pustejovsky T, Lile D (2007) Pine Creek and Eagle Lake Rainbow Trout Study–2007: Spawner migration, upper watershed habitat and rearing survey, and Bogard Spring Creek Brook Trout Removal Experiment. Department of Wildlife, Fish, and Conservation Biology, University of California, Davis, CA, pp 21Google Scholar
  65. Van Doornik DM, Berejikian BA, Campbell LA, Volk EC (2010) The effect of a supplementation program on the genetic and life history characteristics of an Oncorhynchus mykiss population. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 67:1449–1458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Waples RS (2006) A bias correction for estimates of effective population size based on linkage disequilibrium at unlinked gene loci. Conserv Genet 7:167–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Waples RS, Do C (2008) LDNE: a program for estimating effective population size from data on linkage disequilibrium. Mol Ecol Resour 8:753–756PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Weir BS, Cockerham CC (1984) Estimating F-Statistics for the analysis of population structure. Evolution 38:1358–1370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Whalls MJ, Proshek KE, Shetter DS (1955) A new two-way fish trap for streams. Prog Fish Cult 17:103–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Williams JE, Williams RN, Thorow RF, Elwell L, Philipp D, Harris FA, Kershner JL, Martinez PJ, Miller D, Reeves GH, Frissell CA, Sedell JR (2011) Native fish conservation areas: a vision for large-scale conservation. Fisheries 36:267–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Young L (1989) Pine Creek Watershed Report. US Forest Service, Lassen National Forest, Eagle Lake Ranger District. Susanville, CA, pp 76Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gerard Carmona-Catot
    • 1
    • 2
  • Peter B. Moyle
    • 1
  • Rachel E. Simmons
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Wildlife, Fish and Conservation BiologyUniversity of California, DavisDavisUSA
  2. 2.Institute of Aquatic EcologyUniversity of GironaGironaSpain
  3. 3.Department of Animal Science, Genomic Variation LabUniversity of California, DavisDavisUSA

Personalised recommendations